DNA Espionage
Mr Akhtar, from Yardley, Birmingham, said: “We have never been accused of taking personal information about individuals from the DNA database. What we are accused of is taking the database itself, not the information.”
Here’s what can happen when we mistakenly trust the bureaucrats with confidential information. And a good reason why you should be thinking about protecting your identity and your finances through legal name changes and offshore anonymous banking.
The UK’s far-reaching identity card scheme is just getting underway and will doubtless eventually be linked to the existing national DNA database, which is the subject of this newsflash. It’s from last year but certainly bears repeating in case you missed it!
The London Evening Standard reports on the story of five civil servants who help run the national DNA database who have been suspended after being accused of industrial espionage. It is alleged they copied confidential information and used it to set up a rival database in competition with their employers, the British Government’s Forensic Science Service.
The FSS - which is suing the five men in the High Court - helps police investigate evidence from crimes and sells its services to commercial customers. It also maintains the controversial database containing DNA samples of almost four million people, the largest in the world.
The case will inevitably raise concerns about the vulnerability of genetic data, especially since the FSS was turned into a Government-owned company in 2005 as the first stage of privatisation.
At the time Tony Blair faced a barrage of protest, with one Labour MP denouncing the scheme as ‘a criminal’s charter’.
Civil rights groups have also been critical, arguing there are no real safeguards to prevent misuse of the DNA database.
Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said the case involving the five men raised serious concerns.
“This is hugely significant and should make every law-abiding person seriously worried. People are looking after these databases who have less and less of a public-service ethic,’ she said.
According to the High Court writ, the FSS began developing a website in 2005 called Iforensic.com targeting international law enforcement and private markets.
It says although the plans were secret, they were known to the five defendants who had access to the DNA database. The writ alleges the men set up their own company, Iforensic Ltd - having appropriated the name from the FSS.
“In order to facilitate the creation of a DNA database to be operated by Iforensic Limited…the defendants copied, retained and/or adapted software and/or other confidential information’ belonging to the FSS, says the writ.
The document adds it would not have been possible for the five men to create the software necessary to produce a DNA database without having had access to ‘and copying and/or retaining copies of the software and/or the database.’
IT specialist Azim Akhtar, 30, is alleged to have registered three internet domain names using the word Iforensic - and later, through a friend, tried to sell one of the names back to the FSS for ‘an attractive price’.
He and the four others worked in the FSS’s Birmingham headquarters in the information systems division, which is responsible for developing and maintaining the DNA database.
The FSS is seeking damages for infringement of copyright, breach of trust, breach of confidence and misuse of confidential information.
It is also seeking injunctions to make the five change their company’s name, return confidential information and transfer internet domain names to the service.
According to the writ, the five set up Iforensic Ltd on September 29, 2006, to unlawfully exploit ‘goodwill in the name’ by extracting money from the FSS for the sale of the company name at an inflated price.
They chose the name with a dishonest motive, to use it as an ‘instrument of fraud’, it is alleged.
It adds they set up Iforensic Ltd to compete with the FSS to provide forensic goods services and products, including national DNA database services.
Mr Akhtar, from Yardley, Birmingham, said: “We have never been accused of taking personal information about individuals from the DNA database.
“What we are accused of is taking the database itself, not the information.”
He added it was never the intention to set up a firm to rival the FSS or the DNA database.
Mr Akhtar went on: “The FSS said if we have registered the domain names using the iforensic word then we must be going to do the same business as them and thus must have taken the database system.”
He added the FSS was making IT redundancies and ‘we plan to set up a company to offer the services the FSS will be looking to outsource.”
The FSS said it could not comment because of the investigation. The Home Office insisted there was no question information held on the database had been ‘compromised’.
