UK's MoD is helping itself to cops' fingerprint database 'unlawfully', rules biometrics chief The Ministry of Defence has been searching the police national fingerprint database without a “clearly defined lawful basis,” the UK's biometrics commissioner has said. In his annual report (PDF) filed today, Paul Wiles warned that inter-government searching of databases should be properly regulated. “I continue to be very …
It's no use just sitting there saying this or that was done illegally. It's also of dubious use saying it was this or that public body. If something was being done illegally there should be prosecutions of the individuals responsible. A charge of misfeasance in public office could be used if there is no specific charge available.
"It's also of dubious use saying it was this or that public body."
Although different law enforcement bodies have been gathering fingerprints for different databases for quite a long time, I figured it's all essentially one big one by now... somewhere... at least the national one... data a'int going down the chain and perhaps nor is access (good idea), but.
Ah, but this is where the genius of the system comes into play. No prosecution can take place without a decision to prosecute by a public prosecutor. Who, when the alleged offence has been committed by government, will almost always find it "not in the public interest".
That's the answer if you are ever asked "When is a law not a law?"
The thing is, he didn't say it was done illegally. The Register headline says that but all it says in the actual report is "I continue to be very concerned about the searching by the Ministry of Defence into the
police national fingerprint database without an agreed, clearly defined lawful basis."
I.e no one has laid out clearly what the lawful basis but that doesn't mean there isn't one. Someone just needs to do the paperwork to prove that it's lawful.
Let them do their worst with the data. But ensure that courts only accept legally obtained and processed evidence. And if it turns out a prosecution fails because someone "forgot" the law, the so be it.
I hate to big up the US on this, but they take "the fruit of the poison tree" very seriously.
There's something fundamentally wrong in allowing courts to consider evidence gained illegally. It's the first step in "the end justifies the means".
"
Let them do their worst with the data. But ensure that courts only accept legally obtained and processed evidence.
"
The problem with that thinking is that all that happens is that after gaining the evidence illegally, the investigators take the knowledge gained from the illegal evidence in order to make a good pretext for obtaining either that same or different evidence legally. Or they use parallel construction to pretend that they obtained the evidence in a different way. It makes the investigators jump through an extra hoop, but does not stop anyone obtaining evidence illegally.
"Let them do their worst with the data. But ensure that courts only accept legally obtained and processed evidence."
Does that mean that if your neighbour who happens to have access decides to check up you and your friends that's OK because it's just for private consumption and not going to go near the courts?
"The sober point is that unless there are clear and publicly accepted rules governing the police use of new biometrics then damage could be done to public trust in policing and at a time when regard for some other public institutions is declining.”
Fingerprints aren't exactly new any more, their use by police is about a century old, it's a culture of a continual deliberate refusal to define any rules allowing a free-for-all behind the scenes that must be overturned. Good luck with that.
>>>The MoD has been using the database to check whether fingerprints taken or found during military operations abroad matched to persons known to the UK police or immigration authorities or matched crime scene fingerprints held by the police.
Wiles said he has repeatedly challenged the MoD as to the legal basis on which the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory has gained direct access to and is searching the police’s fingerprint collections.<<<
If this was any internal civil organisation doing this there would be serious questions to ask about oversight but this isn't a local councillor on a dirt digging fishing trip, Its the Military (and by extension MI5/MI6, not plod) doing the looking so I think the blanket statment 'Defence of the Realm' will cover this in any UK court. I also very much expect the same fingerprints are being checked for matches in all the other EU, 5-Eye, NATO, Interpol etc. countries.
Politicians have to be very careful about who/what/where they point their military and it's senior ministers that will have signed off these activities possibly at cabinet level.
So it wouldn't bother you at all that somone who's fingerprints were found on a remote detonator in connection with <insert latest 'bombing outrage'> were living safe and well availing themselves of HMG's welfare state were not identified and questioned as to why their fingerprints were found on the grounds of 'privacy' or some such 'rights'?
Is it not right that fingerprints are taken so that blame for or innocence of (provable) criminal acts can be apportioned where possible? not to do so is a disservice to the victims IMO
That reminds me of the 1985 film Defence of the Realm - excellent thriller with the great late Denholm Elliot!
Covers many of the security service issues we're still debating today.
And how the hell did the MoD get it's fingers up this data base?
A 5YO could see this is nothing but a blatant fishing expedition on a database they have virtually zero reason to access.
Got an intruder on a base. Take his dabs and pass to the PNC.
Worried about bogus employees. As above.
BTW for non UK readers MI5 and MI6 have nothing to do with the MoD and (AFAIK) haven't done so since WWI.
err... You do realise the MoD runs its own police service don't you, these investigate regular criminal activities in many cases? And also that many military operations are more like armed policing than simply spraying bullets everywhere...
I suggest they probably do have good grounds to access the database for at least some of these purposes. It is however likely that the law has not caught up to clearly give or deny their access either. This means the challenge is correct, but the blind assumption that they should not be using the database is a bit naive..
How many organisations and partners have the police allowed to copy the full database than just search it?
Considering DNA and fingerprints are supposed to be deleted after such in many circumstance, which probably isnt happening, I wonder who has backups of the full data. Without doubt someone is hoarding them under the .national security' banner. Who are they sharing the data with?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
