Data Retention Regulations in the Lords

[Nigel Metheringham]

On 29 Mar 2009, at 16:52, Roland Perry wrote:

> In article <4F472324-4091-47A3-92CC-F32274A0BAED@dev.intechnology.co.uk 
> >, Nigel Metheringham <nigel.metheringham@dev.intechnology.co.uk>  
> writes
>>>> Is that not just because they don't actually know whose DNA it is?
>>> They obviously aren't that bothered, or the story wouldn't have  
>>> emerged like this.
>>
>> It was reported yesterday that a worker in the factory has been
>> identified as the "donor"
>
> To be fair, the BBC story just says "a woman", not that the actual  
> woman has been identified.

The broadcast news (again BBC, Sat mid afternoon) story I heard was  
more specific - that a particular person had been identified, but I  
can't find a better web version than that one on the BBC site.

>> - and the manufacturers say that the swabs in
>> question were not sold as suitable for DNA forensic work.

[again, as I should have specified, my comment was more based on the  
broadcast news I heard, rather than the web version - which has a time  
stamp some 12 hours before then.  The web version was rather more  
circumspect.

> Oops. A bit like the faulty pacemakers that were made with  
> components not intended for high reliability medical applications.

	Nigel.
--
[ Nigel Metheringham             Nigel.Metheringham@InTechnology.com ]
[ - Comments in this message are my own and not ITO opinion/policy - ]