The “informational privacy” debate will run and run says Timothy Pitt–Payne
There is increasing concern about the amount of personal information stored both by public authorities and private organisations. Questions are raised about whether we are living in a “surveillance society”; there are protests about the “database state”. Over the past year there has been a string of stories about the accidental loss or dissemination of personal information held by public bodies—and one result has been to focus attention on the sheer volume of information that these bodies collect.
Within this general area, a particularly controversial subject is the retention by the police of material that can be used to identify individuals: fingerprints, physical samples and DNA profi les. The taking of fingerprints and samples in the course of police investigations is familiar and, in general, uncontroversial. Indeed, the use of fingerprint evidence in this country goes back over 100 years. However the retention of such material after an individual has been acquitted, or after criminal proceedings have been discontinued, is a different matter.
Until May 2001 retention was unlawful under
