By David Meyer, 17 December 2008 08:32
NEWS
The Home Office will conduct a review of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa) early next year, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith announced on Tuesday.
Smith told members of Intellect, the UK IT-trade association, that the purpose of the review would be to bring Ripa powers "in line with tests of safeguards, openness, proportionality and common sense". Proposed revisions of Ripa could affect which public authorities can use the act's powers, and "[raise] the bar for how those powers are authorised, and who authorises their use".
Ripa powers, Smith said, should not be "used to target people for putting their bins out on the wrong day, for dog-fouling offences or to check whether paper boys are carrying sacks that are too heavy".
Smith said she would be asking local authorities whether it might reinforce public confidence if Ripa powers could only be exercised "with the consent of a senior executive, and subject to a form of oversight from elected councillors".
In her speech, Smith also conceded that the issue of the UK's vast DNA database "had been put back in the spotlight" by a recent European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) decision, which ruled that countries such as the UK have no right to retain the DNA profiles of those suspected but not convicted of crimes.
The UK's DNA database contains profiles of around 4.5 million people, or roughly seven per cent of the population. The ECHR case related to adults' information being stored on the database but Smith's focus in Tuesday's speech was on those under 18 years of age.
She said: "The DNA of children under 10 - the age of criminal responsibility - should no longer be held on the database. There are around 70 such cases and we will take immediate steps to take them off. For those under the age of 18, I think we need to strike the right balance between protecting the public and being fair to the individual. There's a big difference between a 12-year-old having their DNA taken for a minor misdemeanour and a 17-year-old convicted of a violent offence, and next year I will set out in a white paper on forensics how we ensure that that difference is captured in the arrangements for DNA retention."
Smith said the Home Office was considering "a differentiated approach [to DNA retention], possibly based on age, or on risk, or on the nature of the offences involved", and said it was possible that new rules could see children come off the database once they reach adulthood.
She added that the new rules could also mean "limiting how long the profiles of those who have been arrested but not convicted of an offence could be retained". However, she defended the utility of keeping the DNA profiles of those who had not been convicted of crimes.
"We've seen convictions for serious crimes of culprits who had had their DNA taken and retained for a previous crime where they were arrested, but not convicted," Smith said. "The DNA database is crucial to public protection. It not only helps to lead to the guilty; it helps to prove innocence and to rule people out as suspects."
silicon.com sister site ZDNet UK asked the Home Office on Tuesday whether or not it intended to comply with the ECHR's judgement but was told that the Home Office could not comment on what was being considered. "There will be the normal parliamentary process in which the content of the bill will be settled," a spokesperson said.
Comments
There are 3 comments. Join the discussion
1. Karen Challinor
*sigh* it's like pulling teeth isn't it
no mention made of the completely innocent people who were either witnesses to or victims of crime and are in the DNA database, the assumption is if you are in it you are guilty of something and it's just a matter of time before you are caught
unless you are a child of course, in which case you will be removed forthwith, even if you did commit a crime, as you are judged to be below the age of responsibility
and as for asking local authorities if it might be a good idea to limit their use of RIPA and do they think this measure might raise public confidence
of course it would be a good idea but as usual the wrong group is being asked you don't ask people who abuse their powers if it would be a good idea and would people like it if they stopped abusing their powers
so my prediction is no change beyond the cosmetic for the forseeable future
2. Drew Stephenson
But Karen, we're all guilty of something surely? And this database will eventually bring us all to justice - or at least someone with a close enough DNA match - and surely that's what we all want in the long run? After all, if everyone in the country is either in prison or running the prisons then our MPs can live their lives in safety. Why wouldn't we support this?
3. Radical Meldrew
So Jacqui says the DNA database is a protective measure for all of us and is a positive move for our safety? Goody, let's all get in line behind politicians, bureaucrats and public employees who must surely be queuing up to be tested and listed right now.
What's that, oh, you mean they're not?
When the powers that be abide by their own rules then maybe people will be prepared to listen. I wait for the day when these 'spin bowlers' get ousted from government service and we get some true and honest representation.
Deployment of RIPA may be tightend for now but it will continue to be abused because public service employees are nowhere near as accountable as their private industry counterparts.