Supreme Court Rules Police Can Take DNA
The Associated Press reports that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled police can take DNA swabs from individuals upon arrest without warrant. In a “sharply divided” 5-4 ruling, the majority said DNA testing is a legitimate police procedure. Justice Anthony Kennedy said, “Taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.” Four dissenting justices argued that the ruling gives police new powers. Justice Antonin Scalia said, “Make no mistake about it: Because of today’s decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason.” Editor’s Note: A recent Privacy Perspectives blog post looked into the work of Heather Dewey-Hagborg, who will be speaking at Navigate, and the privacy implications surrounding DNA collection and use.
Consent is King in Latin America; Brazil’s Draft Law Talks a Big Game
While Latin American privacy laws have largely been based on European frameworks in order to facilitate business, their prescriptive nature on data breach disclosures and cross-border transfers may more likely keep businesses away than draw them in. That was the message in a recent IAPP web conference on “Keeping Up with Data Privacy Developments in Latin America,” led by Matthew S. DelNero, partner at Covington & Burling, and Mariana Tavares de Arujo, partner at Levy & Salomao Advogados, who also discussed Brazil’s impending data protection law. While not expected to pass for some time, the law could have profound effects on business, with fines for violations that could total 20 percent of a company’s turnover.
The Regulation, Its Future and Questions on Profiling: A Roundup
A look through EU headlines from the past week yields a consistent theme: the proposed data protection regulation. Reports highlight concerns voiced by European Data Protection Supervisor Peter Hustinx and German Rapporteur Jan Philip Albrecht as well as worries from charitable organizations that the regulation could impact their ability to reach donors. As Field Fisher Waterhouse’s Eduardo Ustaran, CIPP/E, notes in his recent blog on the regulation and the issue of profiling, “The Working Party appears to sit somewhere in the middle between the commission’s proposal and Albrecht’s approach. That is still a very strict position to adopt, clearly aimed at eliminating the perceived risks of profiling...” This roundup for The Privacy Advisor highlights concerns from officials and organizations.
If you want to comment on this post, you need to login.