British Government and terror lists

It's hard to think of polite the right words to say about this :-

UK Government backs Islamists in battle to remove their names from terror list

The Government is secretly supporting an attempt by UK-based Islamists to have their names removed from an international terror blacklist

The seven men were placed on the United Nations list because they were suspected of having links with al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

As a result they have been barred from leaving Britain and their assets have been frozen by the Bank of England and HM Treasury.

They include individuals who were:

* convicted of involvement in the 2003 Casablanca bombings and of possessing terrorist documents in the UK,

* accused of assisting the 1998 bombings of two US embassies in Africa and of being an associate of Osama bin Laden,

* found guilty by a military court of plotting terror attacks.

But an attempt by the men to have their names removed from the UN list has now won the backing of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO).

The FCO has insisted that it is acting because it has reviewed the men's cases and does not think they are dangerous.

Well, the secret's out now!

Other countries, it would seem, disagree with this request - the article explains why, and also tries to explain FCO's position.

One of the reasons given for removing the names from the list is that :-

... the UN is forcing the UK authorities to impose draconian restrictions on individuals.

Which sounds a bit like, "The big boys made me do it", but using a far more adult vocabulary. So the detention, freezing of assets etc was nothing to do with UK authorities, nothing at all. They had no choice, which is why these individuals now have government support.

Whatever happens next, and Mrs R hasn't a clue what it might be although she does know we really and truly can't afford to break friends with USA, she wonders if this request sets a precedent.

Some people who have been convicted of crimes can get government support to have their names removed from a list that says how bad they've been or how bad they might be.

So surely those who have not broken the law - people like this, or this, or those mentioned here - will be able to get their DNA and the analysis removed from the UK DNA database very quickly and very easily, because government will help them.

Is that likely to happen?

There are about five and a half million DNA samples, and their analysis, in storage within the UK database but :-

 just 377 profiles were deleted in 2009 after appeals to police chiefs.

ECHR mentioned something about storing DNA, it said that :-

... keeping innocent people's DNA records on a criminal register breached article eight of the Human Rights Convention, covering the right to respect for private and family life.

In response UK said :-

 ... that other states have "not yet achieved the same maturity in terms of the size and resources of DNA databases."

(our DNA database is the biggest in the world, so we're better than everybody else.)

But the ECHR said that :-

... the Government had a special duty for that reason.

Maybe "UK" is hoping the rest of the world will catch up and get their own DNA databases, but it will take a very long time because some countries have rather more pressing things on their minds.

One such country is Haiti, where the earth moved quite dramatically only a few days ago. The people there haven't got water to drink, they have no food to eat and no houses to live in - so freeze-storing DNA samples will be very low down their list of priorities.

Finally, let's compare the two sets of data.

Are there any differences?

• A long list of names of either known terrorists, or carefully profiled potential terrorists. The list is held, maintained and controlled by either UN or USA.

• A large collection of named, labelled, analysed, personal, DNA samples (many of which have been taken from children, witnesses or bystanders, or those never charged with an offence) that is held, maintained and controlled by UK.

Database breached by at least 34 local authorities

.
Henry Porter in the Guardian discovered a little-read report in Computer Weekly, which he reported in his article "Nine sacked for breaching ID card database"

Computer Weekly itself reports that staff from at local authorities have accessed the DWP site and that:-

Computer Weekly has established that staff from at least 34 local authorities have misused the Department of Work and Pensions' (DWP) Customer Information System (CIS) database to look up personal details of the public.

The database, which holds 92 million records on the population, underpins the government's ID card programme. It stores sensitive data such as ethnicity, relationship history and whether someone is being investigated for fraud.

Nine staff have been quietly sacked from their local authority jobs for abusing the database, nine have been given official warnings, two have been suspended, four resigned and six had their database access privileges removed, Freedom of Information requests lodged by Computer Weekly have revealed.

But none of the local authorities have chosen to bring prosecutions against their staff for abusing their access to the CIS database.

So if you illegally access the database to find personal information about your friends, neighbours or celebrities you should do it during working hours, because the worst penalty you can face is losing your job.

In case you didn't spot the link to the list of breaches it's here

These people looked at the personal details of
* friends,
* neighbours,
* work colleagues,
* celebrities,
* acquaintances,
* "someone I knew"
* benefits claimant
* family
*partner

There is also an instance of an individual looking up "friend's father's address" - with goodness knows what consequences.

Also picking up the story is www.PublicService which reports that :-

The CIS database holds 92 million records on the population. It stores sensitive data such as ethnicity, relationship history and whether someone is being investigated for fraud. As part of its terms of use, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) – which is the lead department for the system, warned that it may prosecute staff who access files they are not entitled to see. The DWP can also remove access to any council who is considered to be abusing it too much.

Let's play the last bit again :-

The DWP can also remove access to any council who is considered to be abusing it too much.

Too much?

Too much!

They shouldn't be "abusing it" at all!

Could a violent misogynist avoid prosecution by saying, "I didn't abuse my wife too much!", or a paedophile get away with, "I didn't abuse the child too much!"?

No, of course they couldn't, and DWP should be ashamed.

Any data we give the government and its' many agencies is provided on the understanding that it's kept safely. It shouldn't be copied onto CDs or datasticks and left on the train, and nor should anybody's personal information be picked over by government employees who've got nothing better to do with themselves when they're "at work"!

This "secure" database has developed more holes than the Jumblies' sieve!
.