The UK Home Office has admitted that DNA stored in the UK National DNA Database has been shared with other countries.

UK has today one of the largest law enforcement DNA database with profiles from 3.5 million people, including 500 000 children under 16 years old. The database was established in 1995.

Privacy concerns regarding the database have been expressed, especially when the database was revealed to contained more than 50 000 DNA profiles of children who have never been charged with any offence.

Recently, the UK Home Office Minister Joan Ryan has answered a question from the Liberal Democrat Home Affairs spokeswoman Lynne Featherstone regarding the access of foreign law enforcement authorities to the database content. Ryan said that there have been 519 requests for details from the database

The Czech Senate, upper chamber of the Parliament, approved on 25 May 2006 the amendment of the Criminal Proceedings Code and Police Act, which empowers police officers to take DNA samples and other identification samples as fingerprints.

According to the draft police can take the DNA samples even by using force in case of resistance. Currently, a person may refuse to provide the saliva sample, which could result only in aprocedural fine of maximum 2800 Eur.

The new amendment foresees that the DNA samples can be taken from people suspected, charged, accused, sentenced or in execution of protective measures. The amendment also contains provisions authorizing massive DNA sampling from all people that are imprisoned for wilful crimes. This purposed measure will concern approximately 12 000 people.

Tony Blair stated a strong support for the ID card Act that was initially rejected by the House of Lords in January this year.

The Government had considered the card as essential in the fight against crime, illegal immigration, and identity theft. However, the House of Lords required from the Government to give further clarifications related to detailed costs for such a system, a higher security in recording and storing personal data and asked for a change in one of the purposes of the system from 'securing efficient and effective provision of public services' to preventing 'illegal and fraudulent access to public services'.

The 'Identity Project' report of the London School of Economics had also stated that the government proposal lacked defined goals without clearly showing the impact upon terrorism or identity theft and also considered the

The draft of new Police Act has raised a lot of criticism in the last days from privacy activists and legal experts on its broad encroachment upon citizens' right to privacy, granted by the Slovenian Constitution. Through the suggested act, the Slovenian government grants more power to the police, using terrorism, the Schengen treaty and recent serious crimes as a handy excuse.

The Minister for Interior Affairs replied that changes to the Police Act were inevitable due to demands of the Schengen treaty. Experts agree that the Police Act should recieve some new provisions if Slovenia wants to fully enter the Schengen regime, however, such disproportionate and overall measures are not required by the Schengen treaty.

Goran Klemencic from the Faculty of Criminal Justice and Security says that

The 6th edition of the French Big Brother Awards taking place in Paris on 3 February has chosen the following in the 5 different award sections, for causing the most damage to personal privacy.

The Orwell Award for State official - the winner was Jean-Michel Charpin, Directeur de l'Insee (INES) for his participation in the INES project (Electronically Secured National Identity card). By this project he created a direct link to the Ministry of Interior Affairs ignoring the separation between population statistics and police administration. The card will include two biometric identifyers on a RFID chip.

The section for enterprises was won by Lidl (at close range to Carrefour) for having installed 65 video cameras for the surveillance of 60 employees in a store. The company has had similar policies in other countries as well.

Over a 100 phone numbers of Greek Government officials were illegally wiretapped for 11 months, during and after the 2004 Olympic games. This was confirmed on 2 February 2006 by three ministers during the daily Greek government press conference.

The illegal wiretaps were discovered in March 2005 during a routine control at Vodafone, one of the main mobile providers in Greece. Those under surveillance included the Prime Minister, many ministers, the police, army and intelligence heads and headquarters, along with left wing political activists, journalists, and lawyers. The system was deactivated by the mobile operator too soon to trace the perpetrators, yet their approximate location was interpreted by some in the media as being suspiciously close to the US embassy in Athens.

In a public opinion from 20 January 2006, Mr. Peter Hustinx, the European Data Protection Supervisor, was very critical about the wide access possibilities the European Commission wanted to give to the new Visa Information System. The Commission published its "Proposal for a Council Decision concerning access for consultation of the Visa Information System (VIS)" on 24 November 2005.

VIS will be a central database of all visa applications for most EU countries. The database will be connected to national systems that can be accessed by consulates and similar competent authorities within the Member States.

Mr. Hustinx thinks the Commission pays considerable attention to data protection, but he stresses that access must be granted only under specific circumstances, on a case-by-case basis and with strict safeguards.

On 17 January 2006, a full House of Lords debated at length the purposes,
costs, and details of the proposed identity cards scheme. And in three votes
serious obstacles were raised against the Government. The Government
contends that the card is essential for combating crime, illegal
immigration, and identity theft, and can be achieved for an operating cost
of 584 million pounds per year. Other estimates vary widely, as some have
questioned the ability of the scheme to be delivered, or to be delivered at
cost, and the likelihood that the delivered system will have the desired
effects.

The first vote was on a set of amendments that required the Government to
halt the scheme until detailed costs could be clarified. The vote was 237 to
156 in favour of the amendment, setting the Government back by 81 votes. The