And, from the department of "it's not just the U.S. doing it" comes this article, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/nov/24/dna-database-inquiry" source="Guardian" author="Alan Travis">Police routinely arresting people to get DNA, inquiry claims</a>, which the recently released results of an inquiry into the national DNA database maintained by the various police forces of the U.K. Similar to U.S. policy when it comes to deciding on whom to keep an eye, the U.K. is strongly racially biased, with the report <iq>raise[ing] the possibility that the DNA profiles of three-quarters of young black males, aged 18 to 35, are now on the database.</iq>, all the more fascinating in light of the fact that 90% of Britain is white (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_Kingdom#Ethnicity" source="" author="">Wikipedia</a>). Though 5 million DNA samples have already been collected, there is, as yet, neither a <iq>clear statutory basis</iq> nor any <iq>independent oversight</iq> or regulatory mechanism for the database. Which goes a long way to explaining why the police have managed to stuff it full of samples from black people who haven't even committed any crimes. They pull off this trick by collecting DNA from everyone they arrest, regardless of whether they are subsequently even charge with a crime---to say nothing of convicted of one. The proposed fix is to continue to retain those DNA records, but only for <i>six years</i>. Presumably, that will allow the British police to continue their current practice unchanged, simply by ensuring that they arrest 3/4 of the black men in the country once every six years. It almost goes without saying that retaining all of this highly sensitive information on individuals is not <iq>clearly matched by an improvement in convictions</iq>. Before Americans celebrate, thinking that---for once, at least---they are not the worst at something, remember that though the British tend to copy many of the more draconian American law-enforcement policies, they also tend to have more open and honest discussions of them.<fn> Initial search results---<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/16/AR2008041602729.html" source="Washington Post" author="" date="April 2008" title="U.S. to Expand Collection Of Crime Suspects' DNA: Policy Adds People Arrested but Not Convicted">U.S. to Expand Collection Of Crime Suspects' DNA</a> and <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-04-16-fed-dna_N.htm" source="USA Today" author="">Feds to collect DNA in every arrest</a>---are not very reassuring. Happily, there are also those in the States willing to defend basic rights---<a href="http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/aclu-lawsuit-challenges-california-s-mandatory-dna-collection-arrest" source="ACLU" author="">ACLU Lawsuit Challenges California’s Mandatory DNA Collection at Arrest</a> and <a href="http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/journals/264/debating-DNA.htm" source="NIJ" author="Sarah B. Berson">Debating DNA Collection</a>---though it doesn't seem to interest the mainstream media very much. <hr> <ft>See, for example, the ongoing inquiry into the justification for entering into the Iraq War that is currently putting Tony Blair and many of his former ministers in hot water.</ft>