Government Databases

From WikiCorporates
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Why Data Privacy Matters

Data is There to be Processed – But as Cheaply as Possible. Two recent news articles highlight issues with the database state and the fallacy of the “nothing to hide, nothing to fear” argument so often used to claim surveillance is not something the law abiding should be worried about. ... NO2ID, Nov.07.2016.

Vehicle Register

The Vehicle register is a database of motor vehicles. It is a legal requirement in the UK for most types of motor vehicle to be registered if they are to be used on the public road.[1] All new and imported vehicles are required to be entered onto the register which is administered by the Department for Transport § Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) in Great Britain and by Driver & Vehicle Agency (DVA) in Northern Ireland. Registered vehicles are not provided with tax certificates anymore in the UK.
On the register, along with the vehicle details (make, model, engine capacity, colour, VIN, etc.) are recorded the details of the current keeper of the vehicle (name, address). The current keeper is issued with a registration document known as a V5C, which displays the registration details of the vehicle. Each time any of the registration details change, if the vehicle keeper is changed, or any of the vehicle details are changed, for example, the DVLA/DVLNI has to be notified, and a new document is issued.
A vehicle first registration fee has to be paid to enter a vehicle onto the register for the first time.

See main article: Driver & Vehicle Licensing Agency

Electoral Register

See also The electoral register and the 'open register'. In Britain, unless you opt out when registering to vote, your data is collected and made available to anyone who wants to buy a copy.

Police Databases

Facial Images

  • May.05.2018: Welsh police wrongly identify thousands as potential criminals. South Wales force defends use of facial recognition technology at 2017 Champions League final. The force said it had considered privacy issues “from the outset”, and had built in checks to ensure its approach was justified and proportionate. However, the civil liberties campaign group Big Brother Watch criticised the technology. In a post on Twitter, the group said: “Not only is real-time facial recognition a threat to civil liberties, it is a dangerously inaccurate policing tool.” Press Association, The Guardian.
  • Sept.13.2017: Watchdog warns over police database of millions of facial images. Paul Wiles, Biometrics Commissioner, says 20m photos held despite retention of images of innocent people being unlawful. Wiles says that unlike DNA and fingerprints, images can be taken without the subject’s knowledge. Facial images of about 90% of the adult population already exist in passports and driving licences. As of Jul.2016 there were 19m facial images on the Police National Database, of which 16.6m had been enrolled in a facial image recognition gallery and were searchable using recognition software. The Met holds a further “extensive collection” of its own, as do other forces such as Leicestershire. Alan Travis, The Guardian.

IDENT1

IDENT1 is the UK's central national database for holding, searching and comparing biometric information on those who come into contact with the police as detainees after being arrested.ref Information held includes fingerprints, palm prints and scene of crime marks.
It replaced the old system known as the National Automated Fingerprint Identification System (NAFIS), and works in partnership with Livescan technology.
According to the National Policing Improvement Agency, IDENT1 currently contains the fingerprints of 7.1m people, and makes 85,000 matches with data recovered from crime scenes per year. Verified over 1.5m arrestee identifications per year. Checks more than 2,000 identities from Lantern mobile devices per month. Checks 40,000 identities per week for UK Visas and Immigration.ref
IDENT1 was developed by US defence company Northrop Grumman,ref who were awarded the £122m contract in Dec.2004. The deal was expected to last for 8 years, with an additional 3 "option" years. See also Homeland Security, ScotGov, PNC+NDNAD+IDENT1 (May.2015), Record Deletion (undated)

National Database of Rogue Landlords

Linkback: Private Rented Sector#National Database of Rogue Landlords

  • Oct.25.2018: Tenants will get access to rogue landlord database, says PM. Theresa May has pledged to give tenants access to the govt’s new rogue Landlord Database after a Guardian and ITV News investigation revealed that not a single name had been entered into the system in more than 6 months since its launch – and that even when landlords’ names were listed, the public would not be allowed to see them. The PM's announcement, which did not give a time frame for the move, came as the govt’s efforts to police rogue landlords were branded weak following further revelations that found convicted landlords were continuing to operate by exploiting loopholes in the law, which is supposed to protect the most vulnerable tenants. The central govt system has much tougher rules for local authorities to enter records of rogue landlords, and some housing experts wonder how many names will eventually make it into the system. The Residential Landlords Association said councils should use existing powers to ask tenants in rented homes to identify their landlord on their council tax returns, to help prevent rogue landlords from evading scrutiny. The trade body also said that a new housing court should be established to more quickly and effectively deal with cases. Simon Goodley, The Buardian.
  • Oct.23.2018: Government's rogue landlord list empty after six months. Database billed as key to protecting renters is empty, and is closed to public. The govt's new rogue landlord database was billed as a key tool for local councils to target the country's worst landlords, but 6+ months after the system started, not a single name has been added – and even when some are added, the public will not be able to find out. When the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government was asked to explain why the public would be denied access to the database, it said the reasons behind keeping the database’s contents secret were also secret. The Association of Residential Letting Agents said: "This is a truly ridiculous piece of legislation. There are no legal reasons for this database being kept secret. How on earth is a tenant supposed to know if a landlord has been banned?" Simon Goodley, The Guardian.

National Packaging Waste Database

See main article: National Packaging Waste Database

National DNA Database

Officially the UK National Criminal Intelligence DNA Database. The database is populated by samples recovered from crime scenes and taken from police suspects,2 although data for those not charged or not found guilty are deleted.3
The full genomic sequence is not stored, but rather patterns of short tandem repeats. However, individuals' skin or blood samples are kept permanently linked to the database and can contain complete genetic information. Since DNA is inherited, the database can be used to indirectly identify many others in the population related to a database subject.
All data held in NDNAD is governed by a tri-partite board: the Home Office, the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and the Association of Police Authorities (APA), plus independent representatives from the Human Genetics CommissionWikipedia-W.svg. The data is owned by the police authority which submitted the sample for analysis. The samples are stored permanently by the companies that analyse them, for an annual fee. NDNAD is the largest forensic DNA database in the world, containing nearly 10% of the population, compared to 0.5% in the USA.4

Timeline

Dec.2017
Conservatives (May)
5.34m.ref
Dec.2016
Conservatives (May)
It had 5.86m.ref
Dec.2015
Conservatives (Cameron)
It had 5.77m
Nov.2015
Conservatives (Cameron)
Briefing paper Retention of fingerprints and DNA data sets out the current legal framework in England and Wales and outlines the background to the changes made by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
Oct.2013
Cons/LibDem (Cameron/Clegg)
Indefinite retention policy abolished:The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 mandated that those not charged or not found guilty must have their DNA data deleted within a specified period of time.ref
2012
Cons/LibDem (Cameron/Clegg)
Custodianship of the NDNAD was transferred from the NPIA to the Home Office, due to the NPIA's closure. Home Secretary Theresa May had told the House of Commons in Dec.2011 of plans to replace the NPIA with a new police professional body and a separate company responsible for procuring information technology for police forces. The NPIA was due to be replaced by these new organisations during 2012.ref
May.2011
Cons/LibDem (Cameron/Clegg)
The Supreme Court ruled that the DNA retention guidelines at the time (Dec.2007) were unlawful because they were incompatible with Article 8 of the ECHR. However, not wishing to step on the toes of Parliament discussing the same issue,ref they granted no other relief.ref
Apr.2010
Labour (Brown)
The Crime and Security Act 2010,ref established that DNA profiles and fingerprints of anyone convicted of a recordable offence would be stored permanently, while those obtained on arrest, even when no conviction follows, would be stored for 6 years, renewable on new arrests.ref
May.2009
Labour (Brown)
In response to ECJ ruling on Dec.04.2008, the Home Office immediately removed children under the age of 10 years from the database. The govt then proposed, after a consultation, to continue the indefinite retention of the DNA profiles of anyone convicted of any recordable offence, but to remove other profiles from the database after a period of time (6–12 years), depending on the seriousness of the offence. The practice of taking DNA profiles upon arrest was not affected.X,ref However, following a change of govt in May.2010, the proposed legislation went no further.
Dec.2008
Labour (Brown)
The Court of AppealWikipedia-W.svg had held that the keeping of samples from persons charged, yet not convicted, was lawful (Nov.2004).ref An appeal was made (Feb.2008) to the European Court of Human Rights. The ECHR unanimously ruled that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which refers to a person's right to a private life, and that keeping the information "could not be regarded as necessary in a democratic society". refref
Apr.2007
Labour (Blair)
Responsibility for the delivery of NDNAD services was transferred from the Home Office to the National Policing Improvement AgencyWikipedia-W.svg (NPIA).ref The NPIA's role was to run the database operations and maintain and ensure the integrity of the data, and to ensure the NDNAD's service was operated in line with agreed standards.6
Dec.2005
Labour (Blair)
It had 3.1m.
Dec.2003
Labour (Blair)
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 allowed DNA to be taken on arrest, rather than on charge. Anyone arrested in England and Wales on suspicion of involvement in any recordable offence (except very minor offences) had their DNA sample taken and stored in the database, whether or not they were subsequently charged or convicted.ref
Jan.2001
Labour (Blair)
Indefinite retention policy: The Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (§.82) allowed the indefinite retention of DNA and fingerprints from people charged with a "recordable" offence, even if they were released without charge or acquitted.ref,ref
2000-2005
Labour (Blair)
A major expansion to include all known active offenders was funded at a cost of over £300m.ref
1995
Conservatives (Major)
NDNAD set up. Only samples from convicted criminals, or people awaiting trial, were recorded.
1984
Conservatives (Thatcher)
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (§.64), required the destruction of samples or fingerprints taken from a person in connection with the investigation of an offence if s/he was cleared of that offence.

Articles

  • Nov.09.2019: When governments have access to DNA databases, you’re right to be scared. We should be wary of what authorities can do with such sensitive genetic information. Your DNA profile is the most sensitive and personal data imaginable. It can reveal secrets you don’t know you’re keeping, such as siblings or parents of whom you were unaware. It can also contain information about inherited vulnerabilities that might be of great interest to, say, insurance companies. And, of course, your genetic profile contains information about your ethnic antecedents. John Naughton, The Guardian.
  • Feb.25.2017: Brit cops can keep millions of mugshots of innocent folks on file. After unlawfully hoarding millions of mugshots of one-time suspects, police chiefs in England and Wales were this week told to delete the snaps – but only if people in the photos complain. And even then, requests can be easily waved away. This is all set out in the Home Office's "Review of the Use and Retention of Custody Images", which was published on Friday. That review was launched in 2015 and discovered that police had amassed more than 19m mugshot photos. That's rather unfortunate because the High Court in London had ruled this practice of keeping pictures of presumed innocent people on file unlawful back in 2012. Biometrics Commissioner Professor Paul Wiles Alexander J Martin, The Register.
  • Jul.12.2013: Genetic crime-stoppers: Govts are compiling massive DNA databases, including those never convicted of a crime. Many countries have started assembling DNA databases which they are using to solve crimes. The US has the largest database with more than 11m unique genetic codes. The rules governing whose DNA is included, and for how long, are still vague. Critics of the databases believe they are a invasion of privacy. The European Court of Human Rights ruled in 2008 that Britain's 'blanket and indiscriminate' storage of DNA violated the right to a private life. The UK was forced to trim its huge database. Under a law passed last year known as the Protection of Freedoms Act, the govt is destroying the DNA profiles. The Daily Mail.

National Pupil Database

See main article: National Pupil Database

Genomics England

Genomics England runs the 100,000 Genomes Project, which sequences genomes from patients with rare diseases and their families, as well as cancer patients. Genomics England works with a shed-load of industry partners.

See main article: Department of Health & Social Care#Genomics England Ltd

NHS Digital

See main article: NHS Digital

ToDo: Suss re this NHS Database. Also check out medConfidential, founded as a direct response to the NHS Commissioning Board (NHS England) and the Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC), which planned to extract and pass on patients' medical information from NHS health record systems in England. Also see Care.dataWikipedia-W.svg + https://medconfidential.org/whats-the-story/

  • early 2014?: A DNA database in the NHS? The Human Genomics Strategy Group (HGSG) and the Wellcome Trust have proposed that everyone in the NHS should have their DNA sequenced and stored linked to electronic medical records in the NHS, building a DNA database of the entire population. The govt has backed this plan and Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt has stated that every baby should have its whole genome sequenced at birth. The Government has already identified partners and investors (including Google and Asia's richest man) and started to build the infrastructure to create the database. The first step is to upload all the medical records in NHS England from people's GPs to a central database called the Health and Social Care Information Centre. A GeneWatch UK report details the govt's support for this proposal and its plans to build a DNA database in the NHS in England by stealth (Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will make their own decisions because health powers are devolved). The plan would allow every individual and their relatives to be tracked by security agencies worldwide and the data will be sold to private companies, such as Google, for commercial exploitation without people's knowledge or consent. Read the press release and article in Public Service Europe. An article in The Scientist explains why whole genome sequencing is rarely useful for people's health. However, the plan to provide every person in the NHS with a personalised risk assessment is expected to lead to a massive expansion in the market for drugs and other products, such as supplements and cholesterol-lowering margerines, which can be sold using personalised marketing based on an individual's health data. GeneWatch UK. Linkback: Government Databases, Data Privacy, Mass Surveillance

Immigration + Asylum

  • Apr.12.2018: British govt to ink deal for yet another immigration database. The Home Office will sign a deal with Accenture to replace its clunky 1990s-era immigration and asylum applications system – having previously written off £347m in its last attempted overhaul. The department confirmed procurements have been awarded to Accenture and PA Consulting as "caseworking delivery partners" to replace the 1995 Casework Information Database (CID). Spending watchdog the NAO noted in 2014 that a £209m Immigration Platform Technologies programme was replacing ICW using an “agile approach, focusing on incremental improvements“ over the next 4 years, noting it still had far to go. But as of 2018, the current process remains hugely paper-intensive, with vast archives of documents to support each case. Accenture and PA Consulting also recently won a deal to digitise the application process for 3m EU citizens in the UK. But concerns have been raised about the wisdom of developing technology without clearer policy in place. The project comes under the Immigration Technology Portfolio - which is supposedly delivering "digital solutions" to replace a number of older systems including the CID. No figure was provided for the deal, although it had advertised for Immigration Technology Portfolio project delivery managers on the digital marketplace for a day rate of up to £1,000. Accenture and PA Consulting will work with a number of suppliers on the Caseworking Project: 6Point6; Atos; BJSS; Capgemini; Cognizant; Deloitte Digital, IBM and Mastek. Kat Hall, The Register.
  • Apr.09.2018: Accenture, Capgemini, Deloitte creating app to register 3m EU nationals living in Brexit Britain. Great, now we just need to agree the policy. The Home Office has inked a deal with a coterie of consultancies and system integrators to create a digital app intended to register the 3m EU citizens in the UK post-Brexit. The department confirmed to The Register that Accenture, BJSS, Capgemini, Deloitte Digital, PA Consulting and Worldreach had been signed up to develop the digital application that EU citizens will use to apply for settled status. It will launch later this year. It is intended to condense the 85-page permanent residency application into a 10 to 20-minute process involving an applicant scanning in their passport and national insurance number to an online or phone app. A source estimated the cost would be relatively low for a govt IT project, at around £10m-£15m. the3million Kat Hall, The Register.
  • Jul.22.2014: UK govt threw £347m in the bin on failed asylum processing IT project. The Home Office frittered away hundreds of millions of taxpayer pounds on a botched tech project designed to manage immigration and asylum applications, a NAO report has revealed. The "flagship" IT programme, the Immigration Case Work computer system, was launched in 2010 to replace fragmented systems and pull together caseworkers to improve and speed up decision making. The ICW was expected to replace the legacy database and 20 disparate IT and paper-based systems by March this year. But the programme experienced "delays and problems" and was subsequently shuttered in August 2013. Bizarrely, caseworkers continue to rely on on the dusty Casework Information Database but this creaky old system has a "history of freezing and being unusable" and does not sync with other existing systems. A swanky new project, Immigration Platform Technologies is to address legacy IT issues at a cost of £208m by 2016/17. IBM won the immigration casework management system gig in 2008 but it is unclear if IBM was then appointed in 2010 when the project was launched by the coalition govt. Paul Kunert, The Register.