Today is the anniversary of the scientific breakthrough by Alec Jeffreys on DNA fingerprinting that led to the creation of the DNA database. And on Monday, the Royal Society hosted a discussion with Alec and Shami Chakrabarti (Director of Liberty) to discuss how we got here and where we might be heading. This is part of a welcome initiative by the Royal Society to bring together science and society.

Alec pointed out that DNA fingerprinting does not always tell us what we expect: for example, a percentage of Sri Lankan men tend to score as women. He also pointed out that low copy number analysis may be fine for investigating, there are problems with using it for prosecutions. Familial searching – where searches are conducted for someone related to someone else – may give rise to ethical and social issues.

But the main topic of conversation for the evening was the number of individual DNA records now held in the UK, which exceeds that of all other European countries put together: 73% of all Europeans on a DNA database are in the UK, with some 4.4 million profiles now held. This compares with around 500,000 in Germany and in France.

Numbers have risen since arrestees – not just those convicted – have been added to the database. Alec pointed out that there are now 800,000 people on the database who have never been convicted of a criminal offence.  And Shami highlighted how the expansion had happened by stealth.

The database now holds data for example on all those who have been sectioned under the mental health act, and for many witnesses and children too, including a large proportion of all black children. Alec and Shami agreed that the current coverage was not proportionate or necessary so may well be in contravention of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Matilda from Black Mental Health UK pointed out that sometimes people don’t even know they are on it, having been swabbed without being told what for. Diane Abbott MP described how in Hackney, amongst some youth groups, being on the database had almost become a rite of passage. Shami pointed to the massive commercial interests in these technologies, that encouraged government to constant expand. And Alec said there was no such thing as an infallible or free-of-error database; while it’s also perfectly possible for there to be correct matches that are accidental. And all were agreed that being on the database is not neutral, and can cause real distress, as it is not universal.

What is lacking is any mechanism for getting early-stage recognition of the potential social and ethical problems of any innovation, and any reasonable public discussion; with the media agenda always driven by whatever happened to be in the news yesterday.

The Government’s sudden change of course on unlawful P2P filesharing has attracted considerable criticism from a wide range of organisations in recent days. A letter in today’s Times, signed by Open Rights Group, BT, Orange UK, talktalk, Consumer Focus and Which? summarises the position being taken by many ISPs and consumer rights organisations.

Any decision to move to harsh and punitive measures such as disconnection must be genuinely underpinned by rigorous and objective assessment by Ofcom. Consumers must be presumed to be innocent unless proven guilty. We must avoid an extrajudicial “kangaroo court” process where evidence is not tested properly and accused broadband users are denied the right to defend themselves against false accusations. Without these protections innocent customers will suffer. Any penalty must be proportionate. Disconnecting users from the internet would place serious limits on their freedom of expression. Usually, constraints to freedom of expression are imposed only as the result of custodial sentences, or incitement to racial hatred, or libel.

Over the last four years, a lot of my time has been taken up with Open Rights Group. In fact, I can state that

working life and running business + chairing ORG for its first three years, then another year as vice chair

+ other voluntary activities + complete home renovation + private life + blog

= > 1 human (does not compute)

In that time I’ve been engaged in trying to ensure that ORG is a sustainable organisation rather than focusing on particular issues (with a few exceptions).

And I’m extremely proud of what we have achieved with ORG to date. There’s plenty to be proud of. To take one example, since its inception, ORG has been keen to bring legal expertise on board. And ORG-law, a group of excellent lawyers in both academia and the private sector, is these days engaging with all kinds of digital-citizen issues.

This week ORG published its response to the European Commission consultation on the Google Book US Settlement Agreement. This was in no small part down to the drafting efforts of ORG-law member Daithí Mac Síthigh, lecturer at Norwich Law School (UEA). You can read the ORG submission here (pdf, 252 KB).  Some of the first commentary on the ORG submission comes from James Grimmelmann at New York Law School, who highlights the differences between US and European approaches to the subject.  I get the feeling he finds the ORG approach refreshing, and  I feel ORG is really making a contribution.

Open Rights Group now has a seat at the table in Brussels for this consultation.