If that is the case their record should be wiped at the end of their sentence. What's the point of a record if it can't be used to warn people of your past?
Who makes the rules about how long these records can be stored and so on? Do citizens have a say? I feel I’d be ok with this as long as the data was used once for a quick criminal check or whatever and then discarded. Of course, we need strong verification that the data is really deleted.
They're probably not erased after a few years; these records have already been used for criminal investigations. Considering their utility, I'd be surprised if they were erased.
"Expunging" criminal records might be a bit too much, since this information might be still be useful for public statistics bureaus and for policy makers. Making criminal records past a certain period unavailable to the public would suffice.
Maybe I'm nuts, but I don't think a person's record should be available. Maybe in extreme circumstances, like they're still a danger to those around them, but beyond that, once the sentence has been completed it should be 100% back to normal.
I think that in the context of the US, this would correspond to removing certain crimes from a person's record after a given amount of time.
This seems reasonable to me too, since it allows a uniform way to control the public information on a person's background. A conviction, even a violent one, that happened 30 years ago, is not necessarily something that should be part of the public record.
It should be like a credit report. If it's been at least 7 years since your last public criminal record, they should then just fall off your "report," and no longer be visible except to the courts.
It used to be that you could pay your debt, and unless your crime was infamous, the "memory" of it would fade from society rather quickly. The internet and private databases have definitely hampered this facility and perhaps it should just be regulated with the same forthrightness we apply to credit decisions.
Or more accurately, accidentally deleted. 'losing' these records would actually be a lot worse. I wouldn't underestimate the police's ability suffer a breach and lose the records either.
It's worth remembering many of these records are are kept on the basis of non conviction (though there is a time limit).
Maybe, but public interest is subjective. The line should probably be drawn at legal offenses. If you commit a sexual offense (e.g. sex in public) that warrants a police record, it should remain. However, if your privacy is violated by someone else when you were not committing an offense then you should have the right for that to be forgotten.
I doesn't seem to me that having what I consider a reasonable retention period would be too bad, where "reasonable" is on the order of 7-30 days. If a person hasn't reported a crime within that time, then the tapes (or drives or whatever) are wiped. Any shorter than 7 days, and you risk the person being in a state of shock/in a period of "I should report this - no, wait, I don't want any trouble - no wait, it could happen to other people," etc.
As I understand, '[f]ingerprint, DNA and arrest history records were deleted', but it's fine because 'the wiped records were those of people arrested and released when no further action was taken'.
If the police cannot be trusted to put basic data protection measures in place (such as backups), perhaps they should not keep biometric data about people that have done nothing wrong[0]?
[0]: more accurately, have not been charged with wrongdoing, meaning either there was insufficient evidence, or prosecution was not deemed to be in the public interest.
As I understand, '[f]ingerprint, DNA and arrest history records were deleted', but it's fine because 'the wiped records were those of people arrested and released when no further action was taken'.
If the police cannot be trusted to put basic data protection measures in place (such as backups), perhaps they should not keep biometric data about people that have done nothing wrong[0]?
[0]: more accurately, have not been charged with wrongdoing, meaning either there was insufficient evidence, or prosecution was not deemed to be in the public interest.
I think the judicial system ought to be free to expunge its records when they have outlived their usefulness in the judicial system. However, a mechanism to force another to expunge its records because a third-party objects seems to me an extreme position.
Possibly like the DNA database - really hard to get off. IIt's worse than just convicted criminals being stuck on the database though. A bunch of people are arrested, and have their photo and DNA taken and added to databases, but they're never tried and thus never convicted, but their details stay on the system unless they apply to have them removed.
This is absolutely true, which is why I'm categorically against long lived record keeping in centralized databases when it comes to stuff like this.
Eventually it will hit the street and eventually it will be abused, you can pretty much count on it.
That's also the reason why I have yet to get a new passport because I don't think the government should have my fingerprints on file, given their history with respect to data loss and internal abuse cases.
Yes, treatment should be always the same - the records stay. Two things though - many thigs that are considered a crime shouldn't be a crime, and second, if the crime is minor or irrelevant, the record won't hurt the person, otherwise it's a proof that it's not as irrelevant as you think. For example in my country, you will get even parking offenses (repeated, but still) written in your record. It hurts nobody because nobody cares.
reply