UK: "Deeply flawed" advanced technology proposals
01 September 1999
Home Secretary Jack Straw published a consultation paper on his "Proposals for Revising Legislative Measures on Fingerprints, Footprints and DNA Samples" at the end of July. "The most exciting changes in police technology in decades", according to Straw, will require changes to the Police and Criminal Evidence (PACE) Act to permit an unprecedented increase in police use of fingerprint and DNA technology. The paper's proposals have been described as "deeply flawed" by John Wadham, director of the civil liberties group Liberty, and would allow suspects to be stopped on the street and fingerprinted without their consent. They would also allow the police to store thousands of DNA samples provided by innocent people during mass screenings in the course of criminal inquiries.
In his paper Straw argues that "legislation must keep...pace with technology" and that the introduction of the National Automated Fingerprint System (NAFIS), which is currently being implemented by the Police Information Technology Organisation, necessitates changes to PACE legislation in order to increase "efficiency". NAFIS will provide fingerprint matching facilities for the 43 police forces in England and Wales "using a sophisticated Automatic Fingerprint Recognition (AFR) function". It "will be capable of supporting a database of over 6 million ten-print sets and over 2 million crime scene marks. It will be possible to process over 5000 scene of crime mark[s] each day and make over one million fingerprint comparisons every second."
According to the paper the system will be compatible with new technologies including:
* Remote capture: Ink on paper fingerprints can be scanned via a terminal at the charging station and downloaded electronically.
* Livescan: Fingerprint impressions can be "read" electronically and downloaded digitally for processing and adding to the national database.
* Compression: Digital images of fingerprints can be manipulated and compressed reducing the size of the data file.
* Live-id: Can be undertaken "at a charging station or at a remote site or on patrol" and involves an AFR search of data gathered from handheld scanners (live-id) to identify a suspect.
It is the introduction of Live-id which has prompted the proposed changes in PACE, ostensibly to ensure that electronic data is covered by the Act. However, the report then proposes that: "PACE should be amended to provide powers to take fingerprints without consent at any location." It explains:
"Remote capture and livescan technology will enable police officers on patrol who suspect the involvement of an individual in an offence to verify that person's identity on the spot. This has obvious operational benefits. Not only can a suspect's given identity be confirmed within a matter of minutes, [if] his/her fingerprints are already stored, but the officer will be able to ascertain, via a Police National Computer check, whether there is a history of, for example, violence or contagious disease. However, under current legislation, it will only be possible for the police to make use of this facility if the individual in question consents to his/her fingerprints being taken. This is because section 61 of PACE states that fingerprints may only be taken without consent at a police station or designated charging station."
Not content with evading the principle of consent the proposals further advocate extending the range of officers permitted to give authorisation for fingerprints to be taken. As John Wadham has pointed out, the proposals "will lead to more innocent people being subject to unwanted and intrusive harassment...[which is] likely to have a disproportionate effect on black people."
Proposals on changes in the law to enable the police to keep details on the DNA profiles of volunteers have been even more widely criticised than Straw's plans on fingerprints. Under PACE 1984 the taking of body samples was limited to people suspected of a "se