[LINK] Surveillance Society
Richard Chirgwin
rchirgwin at ozemail.com.au
Sun Mar 1 14:11:01 AEDT 2009
Roger Clarke wrote:
>>> From: link-bounces at mailman1.anu.edu.au
>>> Chris Gilbey Sent: Sunday, 1 March 2009 7:01 AM
>>>
>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5812076.ece
>>
>>
> At 10:06 +1100 1/3/09, Tom Koltai wrote:
>
>> And according to Fridays edition of that bastion of reporting - the MX
>> newspaper, in Australia, Police have announced that they are
>> implementing fingerprint scans on persons committing what could be
>> classified as misdemeanours e.g.: swearing and comparing them within 90
>> seconds to a national database of criminals to prevent young people from
>> providing false information to police when questioned.
>> I don't actually remember this legislation passing anywhere.....
>> And if they're not already in the database - how does this prevent them
>>
> >from giving false information?
>
> Here's my posting to the privacy list yesterday (spurred by a call
> from the Oz that doesn't seem to have resulted in an article. Was I
> insufficiently firm in my statements??):
>
> All that's appeared so far is gormless reproductions of the Media
> Release - 32 of them according to Google News, incl.
> http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,25113866-15306,00.html
>
>
> Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 11:56:24 +1100
>
> NSW Police Media Release
> Police get portable access to four million fingerprints
> Friday, 27 Feb 2009 10:17am
> http://www.police.nsw.gov.au/news/latest_releases?sq_content_src=%2BdXJsPWh0dHBzJTNBJTJGJTJGd3d3LmViaXoucG9saWNlLm5zdy5nb3YuYXUlMkZtZWRpYSUyRjUyOTQuaHRtbCZhbGw9MQ%3D%3D
>
> Apparently the Minister issued a Media Release, but if so it hasn't
> made it onto his web-site:
> http://www.police.nsw.gov.au/about_us/minister_for_police
>
> Not much media yet, and what there is is almost entirely reproduction
> of the one (or two) media releases.
>
> http://www.techworld.com.au/article/278288/finger_print_scanners_latest_weapon_nsw_police
> "Sagem Australasia was awarded the contract to supply the devices in
> October 2007."
>
> [So the process has been in train for a lo-o-o-ong time.
>
>
> [This is a very serious matter, which requires careful consideration
> to get the balances right
>
> [The process aspects appears to have been dreadful - we're not aware
> of any public consultation, despite pilots apparently having been
> conducted and now the devices actually deployed!?
>
> [Concerns include (off the top of the head):
> - under what circumstances can they be used?
> - what do the devices give access to?
> (e.g. 'criminal record' means a dozen different things)
> (e.g. some data should not be available to policemen on the beat)
> - what is done with the data afterwards?
> (if prints are kept, what's the justification for doig so, and
> what's the authority for doing so
> (if the charge is withdrawn, or a person is acquitted, what ensures
> that the prints are deleted from the database
> - what training and instructions are provided to policemen?
> - what serious disciplinary and criminal charges are policemen
> subject to in the event of misuse and abuse?
>
Other concerns:
- what sanctions apply to someone refusing fingerprinting?
- can a person be convicted of anything for refusing fingerprinting,
even if no other charge succeeds?
RC
>
>
More information about the Link
mailing list