DNA pioneer concerned about national database

The pioneer of genetic fingerprinting, Professor Sir Alec Jeffries, has said that the Government is risking public support for the national DNA database by holding innocent people’s records.

Professor Jeffries told the Guardian,

“I have significant concerns there [about the size of the database]. That database is currently populated by an unknown number of entirely innocent people. It is not possible to get an accurate number but it appears to be hundreds of thousands.

“My view is very clear that if you have been convicted of a crime then you owe it to society to be retained on that database for catching in the future should you reoffend. But the retention of entirely innocent people is a whole different issue. There is a sort of presumption here that if they haven’t committed any crime now, then they will in the future.”

Chris Huhne, Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary said,

“It demonstrates how out of touch the Government is with public opinion when the inventor of genetic fingerprinting has to tell them how unfair the DNA database is.

“It is unacceptable for the state to store the DNA of innocent people. The European Court agrees, Professor Jeffreys agrees and the public agrees. The Government must bring forward concrete proposals to remove the DNA of those that have done nothing wrong.

“Professor Jeffreys is also right to point out that the DNA database is not the flawless crime-fighting tool ministers would have us believe.”

Please help the campaign to protect innocent people’s DNA by signing this petition at: http://ourcampaign.org.uk/dna

Produced by Home Office Watch Friday, April 17th, 2009

MPs quiz Home Office on abuses

The campaign to protect photographers' rights has reached the House of Commons. Olivier Laurent talks to Conservative MP John Randall, who raised the issue in Parliament

The Home Office says that newly introduced counter-terrorism laws are not designed to prevent photographs being taken in public places, despite widespread concerns - and much evidence - that legislation is being misused to do just that.

The statement was made to Parliament during a wide-ranging debate on public photography rights after Conservative MP John Randall of Uxbridge submitted a question to the Home Secretary on Wednesday 01 April.

Randall took the initiative after becoming aware of the many recent incidents in which police have stopped photographers shooting in the public arena. He cited the example of a 70-year-old photographer who was handed a notice after taking a picture of a house in his neighbourhood in Windsor. The photo included a police car parked on a double yellow line with two police community support officers (PSCOs) inside.

Randall also added that police officers have been, in some cases, abusing the stop-and-search powers they received with Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000. 'I am acutely aware of the potential for terrorism,' he said. 'We have to look out for such things, but common sense seems to have escaped police officers - or, very often, PCSOs - in some of the cases mentioned.'

Speaking to BJP, Randall said that he thinks the situation is 'absolutely crazy. It seems to be coming from some overzealous police officers'.

Answering Randall's comments, the parliamentary under-secretary of state for the home department, Shahid Malik, said that 'our counter-terrorism laws are not designed or intended to stop people taking photographs. That is simply not their aim. People have the right to take photographs in public places for legitimate reasons and we will uphold that right'.

He added: 'I accept that there are concerns about how some of our laws are being, or might be, applied. Concerns have been expressed about the stop-and-search powers used under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000. As honorary members will know, section 44 enables the police to stop and search anyone within an authorised area for the purposes of searching for articles of a kind that could be used in connection with terrorism. The powers do not require a reasonable suspicion that such articles exist.'

Malik explained that these powers are useful, but they are 'also wide-ranging, and concerns have been expressed that the power is being used to stop people taking photographs - whether of buildings or of people - within authorised areas. There are also concerns that cameras are being confiscated as part of such searches. Those are genuine concerns that people have raised,' he said. 'I would like to make it clear that section 44 does not prohibit the taking of photographs.'

The parliamentary under-secretary of state for the home department added that it would be issuing guidance to 'ensure that the laws are implemented correctly and that people's liberties are not being infringed upon unnecessarily'.

The government also addressed the issue of the new offence in section 58A of the Terrorism Act 2000, which was inserted by section 76 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008. The new set of rules, which BJP exposed earlier this year, targets anyone who 'elicits or attempts to elicit information about (members of armed forces), which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism'. A person found guilty of this offence could be liable to imprisonment for up to 10 years, and to a fine.

However, Malik told MPs that while 'it has been suggested that the new offence could criminalise people taking or publishing photographs of police officers,' the law is in fact designed 'to capture terrorist activity directed at members of the protected groups, which, sadly, we know occurs. An offence might be committed, therefore, if someone provides a person with information about the names, addresses or details of car registration numbers of persons in the protected groups.

'The important thing is that the photographs would have to be of a kind likely to provide practical assistance to terrorists, and the person taking or providing the photograph would have to have no reasonable excuse, such as responsible journalism, for taking it.'

He added: 'I want to be clear about this: the offence does not capture an innocent tourist taking a photograph of a police officer, or a journalist photographing police officers as part of his or her job. It does not criminalise the normal taking of photographs of the police.'

However, speaking to BJP, Randall says that even if the government 'says that it's not what it meant with these laws, the fact is that's what is happening on the streets. I'm afraid that this could be used to intimidate people. In some cases, photographers have been forced to delete pictures.'

Randall also says he fears that legitimate press photographers could be bullied to delete picture of violent police actions during protests. '(Section 44) could be used as an excuse to try to hide such acts.'

BJP will continue to monitor the situation as part of its on-going campaign to protect photographers' rights.

Source Marina Scukina/BJP 8th April 2009

We were wrong, says the Met

The Metropolitan Police is apologising to press photographers covering last week's G20 protests after BJP questioned why they had been prevented from covering a key incident during clashes outside the Bank of England.

According to photographers contacted by BJP, police ordered them to move away from the action, citing Section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986, as they prepared a charge on demonstrators using police dogs.

The incident occurred while police were looking to move and arrest demonstrators last Thursday (02 April), and is thought to be the first time Section 14 has been used to corral journalists.

Section 14 gives police the power to impose conditions on assemblies 'to prevent serious public disorder, serious criminal damage or serious disruption to the life of the community'. Under the act, the police can impose the location and duration of a public assembly, as well as the number of people taking part in it.

It is not, however, designed to prevent photographers reporting on events.

'There was a whole group of journalists by Bank tube station at one point,' photographer (and chairman of the British Press Photographers' Association) Jeff Moore tells BJP. 'Officers were using police dogs on one side to snatch and arrest people on the other side. The police walked up to us and asked us to move away or we would be arrested under Section 14 of the Public Order Act. When we protested the decision, we were given the number of a press officer who only sympathised with us and said it was a police matter,' says Moore. 'Once the operation was over, they put us in a lovely spot, but it was too late and too far away.'

As we reported on our website (BJP-Online.com/news) last week, the move was officially protested the following day by the National Union of Journalists and the British Press Photographers' Association, who also condemned authorities for preventing journalists from leaving the Bank area after police formed a cordon around the demonstration for several hours.

After BJP put these complaints to the Met, a spokeswoman admitted Section 14 was wrongly applied. 'It was used to get people to leave an area,' she told BJP. 'It should not have been used specifically against photographers, and they should have been able to stay (in the immediate area) after showing their press cards. The Metropolitan Police apologises if that was not the case.'

The apology comes after both the NUJ and BPPA praised police communication with journalists on the day, but cited a number of incidents about which they remain concerned.

'We're unhappy that photographers were pinned in with the demonstrators during the Bank protests,' says NUJ freelance organiser John Toner. 'It appeared that if photographers wanted to leave the area, they first had to agree to be photographed. We find this unacceptable,' he says.

The Met spokeswoman told BJP that up to 6000 demonstrators, 200 were intent on causing trouble, so police officers were charged with obtaining the best evidence of the worst offences, leading them to take photos of anyone leaving the area, even press photographers'.

The NUJ hopes to discuss these matters with police during an official debrief in a few weeks time. 'Overall, the police were helpful,' says Toner, 'but there were these very serious and unacceptable problems and we intend to take these up.'

There were also unconfirmed reports of officers using the Terrorism Act 2000 to force protestors at the 'Climate Camp' demonstration in Bishopsgate to delete their images of police officers.

Source: BJP 8th April 2009

‘We’re anglers not terrorists’

Three anglers claim they were arrested under anti-terror laws in Woodley after using laser pens to frighten ducks away from their bait hooks.

The three men were taken into Loddon Valley Police Station late on Friday, March 7, and two were held overnight, DNA tested, fingerprinted and then released without charge.

The third man was released almost immediately following the 10.30pm incident.

Former Lib Dem councillor Tom McCann said: “When I was in the Thatchers at the weekend and they came in and told me what had happened to them, I couldn’t believe it.

“These were all local men who knew some of the police officers involved. They were fishing on a Friday night. It doesn’t seem possible to me that the police really thought they were terrorists.”

Reading East prospective Parliamentary candidate for the Lib Dems Cllr Gareth Epps said: “Liberal Democrats repeatedly warned that the thousands of new criminal offences created under this Labour Government were dangerous and mostly useless.

“Now we have the surreal spectacle of local fishermen being thrown into the cells using anti-terrorism legislation. Local people are owed an explanation and those arrested an apology, as I understand some of them want to take this further, understandably.”

Police spokesman Adam Fisher said: “Three men were arrested in Woodley on March 7 on suspicion of endangering an aircraft and were later released without charge.

"Over the past year there have been several incidents in the Thames Valley area where civil aviation pilots have reported being dazzled by ground-based lasers shining into their cockpit.

“Obviously this is an issue that we have to take very seriously as it is a matter of public safety.”

A police spokesman clarified later that the men were arrested under the Air Navigation Order 2005 - not terror laws.

For full story

Click here for link to Liberty

By Linda Fort March 24, 2009

Police arrest man for 'not' taking photos of sewer-grates and retain his DNA

Channel M (for Manchester) has the story of a man who was arrested for allegedly taking part in terrorism reconnaissance by taking pictures of sewer-grates in Manchester. The problem? The man was not taking pictures. He didn't even have a camera, and there were no pictures of sewer-grates on his phone... Watch the report here.

Liberty stated in press release 4th Dec 2008 "Retaining DNA samples of innocents breaches human rights"

The DNA profiles of roughly 850,000 innocent people should be taken off the National DNA Database (NDNAD) following a European Court of Human Rights judgment today said Liberty. Two Britons whose DNA was retained by police brought the legal challenge, claiming that their inclusion on the NDNAD continued to cast suspicion on them after they had been cleared of any wrong-doing.

Liberty welcomed the decision, which will require the UK Government to reconsider its policies under which the DNA of innocent individuals (those who have not been charged or cautioned) is permanently retained by police.

Last month the Home Office revealed that 2,324,879 recorded criminals (40 percent) in England and Wales did not actually have a DNA sample held on the NDNAD. At the same time, the Home Office reported that 857,366 innocent individuals’ profiles are currently held on the NDNAD. [1]

Liberty’s Director Shami Chakrabarti said:

“This is one of the most strongly worded judgments that Liberty has ever seen from the Court of Human Rights. That Court has used human rights principles and common sense to deliver the privacy protection of innocent people that the British Government has shamefully failed to deliver.”

The Home Office is expected to hold a consultation about the retention of DNA following today’s judgment. The judgment would not have affected the outcome of any of the recent, high profile, convictions where DNA evidence has been a significant factor.

Liberty’s Legal Officer Anna Fairclough said:

"Forty percent of Britain's criminals are not on this database, but hundreds of thousands of innocent people are. Sweeping up the innocent with the guilty does not help fight crime. The Court of Human Rights has protected the privacy of British people so poorly let down by our own government."

Key passages of Grand Chamber Judgment of S and Marper v the United Kingdom include:

● The Court was struck by the blanket and indiscriminate nature of the power of retention in England and Wales. In particular, the data in question could be retained irrespective of the nature or gravity of the offence with which the individual was originally suspected or of the age of the suspected offender; the retention was not time-limited; and there existed only limited possibilities for an acquitted individual to have the data removed from the nationwide database or to have the materials destroyed.

● The Court expressed a particular concern at the risk of stigmitisation, stemming from the fact that persons in the position of the applicants, who had not been convicted of any offence and were entitled to the presumption of innocence, were treated in the same way as convicted persons. It was true that the retention of the applicants’ private data could not be equated with the voicing of suspicions. Nonetheless, their perception that they were not being treated as innocent was heightened by the fact that their data were retained indefinitely in the same way as the data of convicted persons, while the data of those who had never been suspected of an offence were required to be destroyed.

● It observed that the protection afforded by Article 8 of the Convention would be unacceptably weakened if the use of modern scientific techniques in the criminal justice system were allowed at any cost and without carefully balancing the potential benefits of the extensive use of such techniques against important private life interests. Any State claiming a pioneer role in the development of new technologies bore special responsibility for striking the right balance in this regard.

●In the Court’s view, the capacity of DNA profiles to provide a means of identifying genetic relationships between individuals was in itself sufficient to conclude that their retention interfered with the right to the private life of those individuals. The possibility created by DNA profiles for drawing inferences about ethnic origin made their retention all the more sensitive and susceptible of affecting the right to private life. The Court concluded that the retention of both cellular samples and DNA profiles amounted to an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private lives, within the meaning of Article 8.1 of the Convention.

Click here for link to Liberty

Source BJP 4th March 2009 and Liberty 4th Dec 2008