UK Police Flagging Uncharged Arrestees As Possible National Security Threats To Keep Their Biometric Data From Being Deleted

from the fun-times-ahead! dept

Wed, Apr 6th 2016 3:36am — Tim Cushing

Rules are rules, except when they aren't. UK law enforcement's biometric database has strict rules governing the retention of data not linked to suspects facing charges. The system automatically deletes the data when a file is flagged as closed, which happens automatically when a person is released without bail. At this point, "problems" develop, as The Register's Alexander J. Martin explains.

Police employees have been hacking the Police National Computer to unlawfully retain suspects' biometric data, it has emerged.

The manipulation of the national IT system has come in response to public demands to restrict the length of pre-charge bail, the Biometrics Commissioner has suggested.

In his 122-page annual report (PDF), the commissioner noted that it had become “not uncommon” for the police to release suspects in ongoing investigations without officially placing them on bail, as the forces “clearly feel under pressure” to meet the Home Office's guidance to bring charges within 28 days of an initial arrest.

Speedy trials are a good thing, but the UK's legal system apparently can't handle cases this quickly. So, files are being closed and data erased (as it should be) after suspects are released. The "problem" is that UK law enforcement officers want to retain this data because their investigations are still open.

The automated system is doing all it can to ensure the database isn't loaded with non-hit data on released arrestees. The system is also working to ensure people aren't being held indefinitely without bail before being arraigned. The Biometric Commissioner feels this is somehow a bad thing.

Over the past few months I have become aware of a number of cases where biometric material has been lost – or at risk of loss – as result of this problem and I have little doubt but that there have been numerous other cases in which, by this route, unnecessary (and probably unnoticed) deletions have been triggered unwittingly by forces.

The solution would appear to be find something to charge suspects with or work with legislators and oversight to alter retention deadlines. But some officers feel justice is best served by bending the rules -- ensuring neither a speedy trial nor the timely deletion of biometric data. They're working around the system by using the greatest exception to all the rules any government has ever known.

In some cases, forces have allowed “the custody record automatically to update the PNC (Police National Computer) with an NFA (No Further Action) disposal but then immediately add a ‘Biometrics Commissioner’ or other ‘marker’ to the PNC record to ensure that the biometrics are retained.”

The “Biometrics Commissioner” marker, also known as a UZ marker, informs the PNC not to delete the data held as it may be being referred to the commissioner, for purposes such as getting a National Security Determination to extend the length of time that the data may be held.

As Martin notes in a related post, there are 7,800 "suspects" of dubious provenance in the national anti-terrorism biometric database, some of which undoubtedly found their way there by law enforcement's deletion-circumvention trick. So, suspects of petty crimes deemed not important enough to charge or hold with bail are now being flagged and rerouted to a national security database. How long before that ends up going horribly wrong?

Law enforcement officers -- like people everywhere -- are more inclined to believe data a computer hands them than statements by other human beings, because computers are "impartial." But computers obviously aren't "impartial," not if there's a law enforcement officer placing the finger on the scales for no other reason than artificially extending a data retention period.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: biometrics, national security, uk

23 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 6 Apr 2016 @ 4:46am

the UK is getting worse! people are thought of even less now than ever and it seems to me that these changes are since the Tory party got to be government on it's own. previously, it had the Lib Dems to rein it back when needed. with that gone, the UK is being turned into an almost Nazi type of country
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Quiet Lurcker, 6 Apr 2016 @ 5:18am

>>>>The solution would appear to be find something to charge suspects with or work with legislators and oversight to alter retention deadlines.

That would mean the cops would have to actually do something. And that's just wrong.

/s
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Apr 2016 @ 5:19am

Thank Goodness...
...we rebelled! Can you imagine how terrible it would be here in the U.S., if we were treated that way. Oh, right - never mind.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Apr 2016 @ 5:40am

Not to mention that computers are only as impartial as the data that's fed into it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Apr 2016 @ 6:01am

Re:
And the programs that they run.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Apr 2016 @ 6:02am

This seems like bad design
Why does the system allow, seemingly, anyone to use these flags? And either way, many of the ones that can use them are doing so in error, so maybe they shouldn't be able to use them.
I'm also hard-pressed to find a fault in having a system that demands faster turnover on the investigations. Maybe work to have a way to let suspects go and keep the data available for the investigation? Of course the police would then just block off an area around a crime or suspect place and arrest everyone just to have their data on hand. Maybe it could turn up some juicy stuff! Fingerprint, etc. first, ask questions later.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Apr 2016 @ 6:05am

Re: Re:
Which is to say, absolutely not impartial at all. But people rarely interact with computer systems at a level where they're aware of that and even when they are they can still scream at their monitors that they're taking too long to open the damn file! I swear, it always does that when it's least convenient!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 6 Apr 2016 @ 6:21am

If they can't get to all the cases they have within a month's time, then either the UK is dealing with a massive crime-wave of epic proportions, they are seriously understaffed, or they're charging lots of people for minor crimes and it's clogging the system up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anon, 6 Apr 2016 @ 6:57am

Maybe...
Problem - people are arrested but let go because there is not enough evidence to charge them?

Answer - Maybe... don't arrest them. If there's not enough evidence to charge them, why are they being arrested in the first place? Isn't that the sole reason to arrest, that there is sufficient evidence the person has committed a crime? In the "land of the Free" a person is required to identify themselves when they are stopped as the subject of a police investigation. Presumably in Her Majesty's Socialist (non)Republic the police have these same powers. If you know who the person is, what more do you need unless you have something to test against? 28 days and a DNA test isn't finished? Then, maybe, there's no DNA to compare against the arrestee.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Apr 2016 @ 7:04am

Re: Maybe...
"If there's not enough evidence to charge them, why are they being arrested in the first place?"

That's how UK law works. You can be arrested on suspicion while the police look for evidence. Basically guilty until proven innocent.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Apr 2016 @ 7:38am

To bad they didn't pay people a nickel everytime somebody behind a counter/phone says something along the lines of "But the computer said / won't let me...".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John85851 (profile), 6 Apr 2016 @ 8:43am

Re: Maybe...
Not necessarily- people could be arrested for something minor, such as being drunk in public. The police will arrest them, hold them overnight until they sober up, and release them the next morning. The DA probably won't file charges unless it's worth prosecuting over.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Apr 2016 @ 9:50am

Speedy?
"as the forces “clearly feel under pressure” to meet the Home Office's guidance to bring charges within 28 days of an initial arrest."

"Speedy trials are a good thing, but the UK's legal system apparently can't handle cases this quickly."

Speedy? A trial in four weeks would be speedy. Four weeks to bring a CHARGE is the opposite of speedy. Come on now, if you can't even figure out what it is that you think the guy did within 28 *hours*, you almost certainly shouldn't have arrested him in the first place. It's not like you have to prove everything beyond a reasonable doubt to charge someone.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Apr 2016 @ 10:20am

Collecting DNA
I am unaware of the UK requirements to compel surrendering of fingerprints and DNA. I would suspect that the police are using these arrests to route around those requirements. Whether its because they dont have enough to meet those requirements or are too lazy to do so. However, now they are running into the deletion of that data and again are bypassing proper procedures to retain it. If they followed proper procedures then the data would be tied to the investigation file. Instead its tied to the arrest file and as proper when not charged is deleted after a short time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Shadow Firebird, 6 Apr 2016 @ 10:44am

'Getting worse'
I suspect, in fact, that we've been this bad for quite a while now. And we're not exactly alone.

'Who guards the guardians'is old enough to be in latin for a good reason.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Apr 2016 @ 11:43am

It is a race to which western country's police can get their citizens to revolt first.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Apr 2016 @ 11:47am

Re:
the latter
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rekrul, 6 Apr 2016 @ 3:07pm

Re: Thank Goodness...
Thank Goodness...
...we rebelled!

You mean back in 1775 when a bunch of domestic terrorists committed treason to overthrow the legal, ruling government of the time?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Apr 2016 @ 6:00pm

They can steal biometric data from people, but people cannot copy movies and music that they already bought.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wendy Cockcroft, 8 Apr 2016 @ 5:52am

Re:
The word you're looking for is "mercantilist." At its absolute worst, their addiction to Laissez-faire economic principles will cause them to create conditions that exacerbate the effects of natural disasters on the populace, then blithely announce that the market will take care of it. While they were doing it to "the foreigners*" nobody gave a rat's.

Now they're doing it here where they live. The only reason they're not getting the same treatment Thatcher did before she was forced out of office is because they've managed to convince most of the people I know (which probably means most of the people) that raising the minimum wage makes everybody else worse off, so the poorest workers need to try to manage better on starvation wages, dwindling tax credits, and food banks.

Sooner or later even the most dense of us will realise that austerity does NOT make things better for the rest of us, and that day can't come soon enough.

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Fami ne_of_1876%E2%80%9378
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wendy Cockcroft, 8 Apr 2016 @ 5:53am

Re: Re: Thank Goodness...
Ah, I see someone is awake. :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 9 Apr 2016 @ 10:35pm

Re: Re: Maybe...
The US has a similar thing. You can be held for up to 72 hours without being charged with anything whatsoever.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 9 Apr 2016 @ 10:39pm

Re: Speedy?
I agree. But there's a gotcha in that whole "speedy trial" thing. In the US, you can be held for 72 hours without a charge. The courts have decided that anything over that would begin to infringe on the "speedy trial" portion of the Constitution.

However, there's a loophole that can be used to circumvent this if they really want to screw with you. They simply charge you with something that is bogus, then you wait in jail for your court date. Shortly before your court date, the charges get dropped. Mission accomplished.
[ link to this | view in thread ]