Data Retention Regulations in the Lords

[Ian Batten]

On 31 Mar 09, at 1105, Roland Perry wrote:

> In article <007b01c9b1de$d10e4840$732ad8c0$@net>, James Firth <james2@jfirth.net 
> > writes
>>> No, the really dangerous false positive is when the database says  
>>> "this  is  the only match for the evidence", and someone not  
>>> actually in the  database  actually did it.
>>
>> Which is precisely why keeping DNA samples from those cleared or  
>> not charged
>> of an offence is discriminatory despite some people continuing to  
>> argue that
>> those left on the database have "nothing to fear" if they don't  
>> commit a
>> crime.
>
> On the other hand, if all the samples were kept, then the occurrence  
> of duplicates would soar, and maybe people would then take the  
> possibility more seriously.

The story is that the original databases have no duplicates, because  
any attempt to add a duplicate was rejected as an error.  So the  
claims that there aren't any duplicates in the population at large  
aren't terribly convincing...

ian