The Data Protection Implications for our DNA Bill我们的DNA账单数据保护的影响.ppt

Data protection office (PMO) * * Data protection office (PMO) This is why individuals committing such crimes face the strongest forms of punishment and may have to accept a reduced right to privacy. Similarly the weight of the government benefit is related to why the government wants to solve a particular crime. Here, too, searching for (and finding) a murderer provides a greater benefit than searching for the proverbial chicken thief. The required balancing combines these two factors. The governments case is strongest when searching for a murderer amongst convicted murderers, and much weaker when trying to find a chicken thief among convicted chicken thieves. Data protection office (PMO) The regulatory challenge is to create a DNA database statute that takes this kind of balancing into account. DNA evidence should not be collected from suspects as a matter of routine nor should it be a fishing expedition or a weapon of mass surveillance. Consent of the data subject is vital. Section 2 of the Bill should define consent which must contain the following elements:- it must be voluntary, informed, specific and in writing. * * Data protection office (PMO) Data protection office (PMO) The Bill should include the court’s authorization for the carrying out of a forensic procedure on a child or an incapable person in the event the parent is unable to do so as is the case in Germany. Further, a restriction should be provided in the Bill with regard to the minimal age of a person to be subject to the carrying out of forensic procedures. In Australia, a person who is under 10 is not subject to the carrying out of forensic procedures.? * * Data protection office (PMO) Data protection office (PMO) Before determining whether to make a request for a DNA sample, a police officer must have regard to :- the nature of the offence and the circumstances in which it was committed; The degree of the person’s involvement in the offence; The existence of a lesser