4 ms·

As I understand, '[f]ingerprint, DNA and arrest history records were deleted', but it's fine because 'the wiped records were those of people arrested and releas

As I understand, '[f]ingerprint, DNA and arrest history records were deleted', but it's fine because 'the wiped records were those of people arrested and released when no further action was taken'. If the police cannot be trusted to put basic data protection measures in place (such as backups), perhaps they should not keep biometric data about people that have done nothing wrong[0]? [0]: more accurately, have not been charged with wrongdoing, meaning either there was insufficient evidence, or prosecution was not deemed to be in the public interest.

LatteLazy 6y ago
They've already been told they have to delete this data and refused. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42961025 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42961025 https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/13/police-keeping-drink-drivers-dna-breached-his-rights-judges-rule https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/13/police-keepi... In the UK, we have no "poison tree" doctrine so (with limited exceptions) illegally gathering or using evidence doesn't prevent prosecutions. So there is really no incentive NOT to illegally keep data like this. Its also worth noting the UK had a distinction here between illegal (criminal and punishable) and unlawful (not permitted but not a crime either, like say trespassing or taking something that isn't yours accidently). This act is (AFAIK) unlawful. So no police officer can be arrested and personally criminally charged for keeping this data. Its not something you don't have a right to do...