ChatterBank0 min ago
Should The Authorities Be Storing Dna/fingerprints/photos Of The Innocent?
35 Answers
http://
I think they are still holding on to fingerprint/DNA data despite being told it had to be deleted a couple of years ago. Is this the latest step toward a totalitarian state? OK how long before someone says the usual drivel on these types of questions?
I think they are still holding on to fingerprint/DNA data despite being told it had to be deleted a couple of years ago. Is this the latest step toward a totalitarian state? OK how long before someone says the usual drivel on these types of questions?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
My immediate reaction was similar to that of TTT; then I recalled that when I renewed my driving licence (DVLA) the latter contacted the Passport Office for a copy of my photograph - with my consent. So obviously the PO has a database of photographs of all passport holders. Is the Data Protection Act relevant here?
"Well that certainly puts a stop to anyone who happens to possess an opposite opinion on this, in case they are criticised for stating the usual drivel. " - Not at all AOG, there are many that think the state should hold this sort of data, they are entitled to hold that view but if it is on the basis of NTHNTF then it has not been thought through and becomes drivel in my own opinion.
It's been suggested that Tesco knows more about you than the police do. I can't say that an authority dedicated to catching criminals, but to an extent publicly accountable, holding onto data of the innocent scares me all that much. It's possible to create and enforce safeguards that among other things might give a person some level of control over his own data. At any rate I'd be more worried about incompetence than some form of conspiracy, fabricating evidence to make me, or any other innocent man, look guilty for the sake of it.
By contrast, that Google by now probably knows a fair few of my deeper secrets is rather a lot more scary. No public accountability, not exactly much I can do about it. Although, that said, it's still not particularly frightening.
By contrast, that Google by now probably knows a fair few of my deeper secrets is rather a lot more scary. No public accountability, not exactly much I can do about it. Although, that said, it's still not particularly frightening.
Interesting reading on the subject.
https:/
https:/
I suppose the counterargument to my own point is that the only way to make such a database really successful is if it were mandatory. Otherwise there would be some people refusing to have the data stored, no doubt some of which indeed have something to hide. But you can't really draw that conclusion because those who don't, but object for more honest reasons, should hardly be forced to do something against their will.
I can't say I object in principle to the idea, but in practice it seems rather unlikely to be all that useful unless it were forced.
I can't say I object in principle to the idea, but in practice it seems rather unlikely to be all that useful unless it were forced.
I would not have thought that it is a great effort Gromit. The photo's are already in a database so already catalogued. All they need to do is scan the photo into another recognition database with a link reference to the original database. All could be done easily programatically. You should know that!
Why would they want to do it? Well probably for those difficult crimes that are committed by someone not previously know to plod.
Why would they want to do it? Well probably for those difficult crimes that are committed by someone not previously know to plod.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.