Protecting privacy and the public - Limits on police use of bioidentifiers in Europe

New England Journal of Medicine

Volumn 361, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 196-

  Annas, George J ^a  

^a BOSTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BLOOD SAMPLING; DECISION MAKING; DNA DETERMINATION; DNA FINGERPRINTING; EUROPE; HUMAN; HUMAN RIGHTS; MEDICAL INFORMATION; MEDICAL RESEARCH; POLICE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PRIVACY; REVIEW;

EID: 67650433248     PISSN: 00284793     EISSN: 15334406     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMhle0811035     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. S. and Marper v. The United Kingdom, [2008] ECHR 30562/04.
2. Wambaugh J. The blooding. New York: William Morrow, 1989.
3. McCartney C. The DNA Expansion Programme and criminal investigation. Br J Criminol 2006;46:175-92.
4. Williams R, Johnson P. Circuits of surveillance. Surveill Soc 2004;2:1-14.
5. Simoncelli T, Steinhardt B. California's Proposition 69: a dangerous precedent for criminal DNA databases. J Law Med Ethics 2006;34:199-213.
6. National Research Council. Bits of power: issues in global access to scientific data. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1997.
7. R (on the application of S) v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire; R (on the application of Marper) v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire, [2002] EWCA Civ 1275.
8. DNA and human rights: throw it out. Economist 2008;12:73-4.
9. Watching Big Brother. Nature 2008;456:675-6.
10. Sturcke J. DNA pioneer Alec Jeffreys: drop innocent from database. Guardian. April 15, 2009:1.
11. Keeping the right people on the DNA database: science and public protection. London: Home Office, May 2009. (Accessed June 18, 2009, at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-2009-dna-database/dna-consultation? view=Binary.)
12. Hsu SS. New rule expands DNA collection to all people arrested. Washington Post. December 12, 2008:A2.
13. Cole SA. Fingerprint identification and the criminal justice system: historical lessons for the DNA debate. In: Lazer D, ed. DNA and the criminal justice system: the technology of justice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004:63-89.
14. Duster T. Selective arrests, an ever-expanding DNA forensic database, and the specter of an early-twenty first-century equivalent of phrenology. In: Lazer D, ed. DNA and the criminal justice system: the technology of justice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004:315-34.
15. Rothstein MA, Talbott MK. The expanding use of DNA in law enforcement: what role for privacy? J Law Med Ethics 2006;34:153-64.
16. Annas GJ. Privacy rules for DNA databanks: protecting coded 'future diaries.' JAMA 1993;270:2346-50.
17. Swire P. Chertoff says fingerprints aren't 'personal data.' Washington, DC: Think Progress, April 16, 2008. (Accessed April 18, 2009, at http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/16/chertoff-fingerprints/.)
18. The Privacy Office. Privacy impact assessment: official guidance. Washington, DC: Department of Homeland Security, 2007.
19. Letter to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada. Ottawa: Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, April 11, 2008. (Accessed April 18, 2009, at http://www.privcom.gc.ca/media/nr-c/2008/let- 080411-e.asp.)
20. Kaye DH, Smith ME. DNA databases for law enforcement: the coverage question and the case for a population-wide database. In: Lazer D, ed. DNA and the criminal justice system: the technology of justice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004:247-83.
21. Glantz LH. A nation of suspects: drug testing and the Fourth Amendment. Am J Public Health 1989;79:1427-31.
22. Solzhenitsyn A. Cancer ward. New York: Farrar, Strauss & Giroux, 1969.