Crime network cracked.
Discussion
La Liga said:
bviously it’s a power, but it’s read in conjunction with “impunity”.
The PFA 2012 regulates biometric data. If the police breach this there are remedies available which mean it’s by definition not impunity.
But that was only introduced AFTER the abuse of DNA, to reign in the cultural desire to take everything they can. The framework provides a sensible balance between the need for police work and the privacy of the individual.The PFA 2012 regulates biometric data. If the police breach this there are remedies available which mean it’s by definition not impunity.
However, it has a weakness, it doesn't cover all bio-metric data, it doesn't include facial recognition. That's OK now we have PFA we can trust the police to apply the principles can't we. It is obvious from PFA the intent of the lawmakers regarding the use of biometrics, only a technicality that it doesn't cover facial recognition, and if the police can't follow the spirit of the law who else would.
NO of course we can't, with reins removed the police have reverted to type, and are collecting millions of facial profiles, with 1 in 5 people now captured. When the law does catch up we will see the same, knuckle dragging we did with DNA, with excuse after excuse as to why records can't be deleted and splitting of hairs on the legal definitions (such as the difference between a DNA profile and a DNA sample.
king, but no formal charge.Protection of Freedoms act wasn't it ?
They were keeping batch records which included innocent persons DNA data.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm sure there were also cases pre PoFA that led to it's introduction in the first place.
Police were illegaly holding DNA data on people so the law was ammended to allow the to keep the data. (That's beyond impunity lol)
We're drifting from the thread though. Blanket hacking of a private communications network. A Legal network.
Similar to accessing private data using a cyber kiosk in my view.
They were keeping batch records which included innocent persons DNA data.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm sure there were also cases pre PoFA that led to it's introduction in the first place.
Police were illegaly holding DNA data on people so the law was ammended to allow the to keep the data. (That's beyond impunity lol)
We're drifting from the thread though. Blanket hacking of a private communications network. A Legal network.
Similar to accessing private data using a cyber kiosk in my view.
Edited by Brads67 on Tuesday 7th July 17:47
Brads67 said:
Protection of Freedoms act wasn't it ?
They were keeping batch records which included innocent persons DNA data.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm sure there were also cases pre PoFA that led to it's introduction in the first place.
Police were illegaly holding DNA data on people so the law was ammended to allow the to keep the data. (That's beyond impunity lol)
We're drifting from the thread though. Blanket hacking of a private communications network. A Legal network.
Similar to accessing private data using a cyber kiosk in my view.
No the police were keeping DNA of innocent people legally in accordance with the law (Criminal Justice Act 2003.) All people arrested for what was a recordable offence had their DNA taken profiled and retained forever. This caught many serious criminals and, unless you know differently, would be very difficult to abuse and AFAICS wasn't abused. They were keeping batch records which included innocent persons DNA data.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm sure there were also cases pre PoFA that led to it's introduction in the first place.
Police were illegaly holding DNA data on people so the law was ammended to allow the to keep the data. (That's beyond impunity lol)
We're drifting from the thread though. Blanket hacking of a private communications network. A Legal network.
Similar to accessing private data using a cyber kiosk in my view.
Edited by Brads67 on Tuesday 7th July 17:47
The ECJ said that the blanket power to keep it forever was unjust. So, as soon as the law was changed to specify what is kept and for how long, the police complied with it. The ECJ doesn't change the law. It doesn't find against the Police it finds against the state, who should change the law. As soon as there was a new law it was complied with.
Brads67 said:
There had already been at least two cases which failed due to illegaly held DNA data which was one of the prompts for the change in law to allow them to keep it anyway.
So no, they were holding it illegaly and the law changed to suit them.
They simply were not. Legally - in accordance with the law. CJA 2003 - of the time Pro police body - So no, they were holding it illegaly and the law changed to suit them.
https://justice.org.uk/dna-retention-police/#:~:te...
Brads67 said:
We're drifting from the thread though. Blanket hacking of a private communications network. A Legal network.
Similar to accessing private data using a cyber kiosk in my view.
+1 Its a concern. Would like to know it was approved specifically by a senior judge.Similar to accessing private data using a cyber kiosk in my view.
Edited by hyphen on Tuesday 7th July 19:22
Graveworm said:
Brads67 said:
There had already been at least two cases which failed due to illegaly held DNA data which was one of the prompts for the change in law to allow them to keep it anyway.
So no, they were holding it illegaly and the law changed to suit them.
They simply were not. Legally - in accordance with the law. CJA 2003 - of the time So no, they were holding it illegaly and the law changed to suit them.
https://justice.org.uk/dna-retention-police/#:~:te...
"an appeal was made to the European Court of Human Rights and the case was heard on 27 February 2008. On 4 December 2008, 17 judges unanimously ruled that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights"
"On 18 May 2011 the UK supreme court also ruled, by a majority, that the ACPO DNA retention guidelines at the time were unlawful because they were incompatible with article 8 of the ECHR."
NGRhodes said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Natio...
"an appeal was made to the European Court of Human Rights and the case was heard on 27 February 2008. On 4 December 2008, 17 judges unanimously ruled that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights"
"On 18 May 2011 the UK supreme court also ruled, by a majority, that the ACPO DNA retention guidelines at the time were unlawful because they were incompatible with article 8 of the ECHR."
Thank you."an appeal was made to the European Court of Human Rights and the case was heard on 27 February 2008. On 4 December 2008, 17 judges unanimously ruled that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights"
"On 18 May 2011 the UK supreme court also ruled, by a majority, that the ACPO DNA retention guidelines at the time were unlawful because they were incompatible with article 8 of the ECHR."
NGRhodes said:
Graveworm said:
Brads67 said:
There had already been at least two cases which failed due to illegaly held DNA data which was one of the prompts for the change in law to allow them to keep it anyway.
So no, they were holding it illegaly and the law changed to suit them.
They simply were not. Legally - in accordance with the law. CJA 2003 - of the time So no, they were holding it illegaly and the law changed to suit them.
https://justice.org.uk/dna-retention-police/#:~:te...
"an appeal was made to the European Court of Human Rights and the case was heard on 27 February 2008. On 4 December 2008, 17 judges unanimously ruled that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights"
"On 18 May 2011 the UK supreme court also ruled, by a majority, that the ACPO DNA retention guidelines at the time were unlawful because they were incompatible with article 8 of the ECHR."
Since the law was in the process of being changed for the reasons I gave above they did not order any deletion of records. The records were not being retained or used illegaly. The Police were bound by the law as it stood. When the law changed they changed. If the court had said in the interim delete the records I am sure they would have done.
Edited by Graveworm on Tuesday 7th July 19:42
Graveworm said:
What you mean as I said above.
Since the law was in the process of being changed for the reasons I gave above they did not order any deletion of records. The records were not being retained or used illegaly. The Police were bound by the law as it stood. When the law changed they changed. If the court had said in the interim delete the records I am sure they would have done.
You win, you're right. The police have never retained data illegaly, you can sleep soundly tonight.Since the law was in the process of being changed for the reasons I gave above they did not order any deletion of records. The records were not being retained or used illegaly. The Police were bound by the law as it stood. When the law changed they changed. If the court had said in the interim delete the records I am sure they would have done.
Move on because no one is winning a debate with you obviously.
NGRhodes said:
Graveworm said:
Brads67 said:
There had already been at least two cases which failed due to illegaly held DNA data which was one of the prompts for the change in law to allow them to keep it anyway.
So no, they were holding it illegaly and the law changed to suit them.
They simply were not. Legally - in accordance with the law. CJA 2003 - of the time So no, they were holding it illegaly and the law changed to suit them.
https://justice.org.uk/dna-retention-police/#:~:te...
"an appeal was made to the European Court of Human Rights and the case was heard on 27 February 2008. On 4 December 2008, 17 judges unanimously ruled that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights"
"On 18 May 2011 the UK supreme court also ruled, by a majority, that the ACPO DNA retention guidelines at the time were unlawful because they were incompatible with article 8 of the ECHR."
Police hold DNA data illegally causing a murder case to fail.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2000/43.h...
After this post I give in on the DNA discussion because it's risking drifting into the usual.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2000/43.h...
After this post I give in on the DNA discussion because it's risking drifting into the usual.
Brads67 said:
Police hold DNA data illegally causing a murder case to fail.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2000/43.h...
After this post I give in on the DNA discussion because it's risking drifting into the usual.
So a court decided that there wasn't, "exemption from punishment or freedom from the injurious consequences of an action."http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2000/43.h...
After this post I give in on the DNA discussion because it's risking drifting into the usual.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff