So UK police can't hold data for longer than 3 years unless they ask for an extension. Simple fix, hand the data off to the US where the rules don't apply you can always get a copy back "intel from the US" later should you require.

I did not see anything along the lines of "US signs deal to share police biometric database with UK border guards". My expectations of the UK government are so low that I would have been shocked to see anything of the kind. Perhaps one day we will find out how much UK tax payers paid for the privilege of this one-sided deal.

Perhaps one day we will find out how much UK and three EU countries' tax payers paid for the privilege of this one-sided deal.

Know your place, has-beens.

Where is Jacob Rees-Mogg when you want him?

"Where is Jacob Rees-Mogg when you want him?"

Under what conditions would anyone in the right mind write such an abhorrent sentence?

Test-driving a steam roller?

" Where is Jacob Rees-Mogg when you want him? "

Interfering with himself while looking at some etchings depicting women showing their bare ankles to the artist.

You bastard! I'm going to have that image seared in my brain for years.

I do wonder why the USA is so concerned about border security. I mean if they were concerned about innocent Americans being killed it would make sense to stop risky incomers, but then:

"Firearms deaths are a fixture in American life.

There were 1.5 million of them between 1968 and 2017 - that's higher than the number of soldiers killed in every US conflict since the American War for Independence in 1775.

In 2020 alone, more than 45,000 Americans died at the end of a barrel of a gun, whether by homicide or suicide, more than any other year on record. The figure represents a 25% increase from five years prior, and a 43% increase from 2010."

Problem they have is there are so many firearms (legal and illegal) that banning them would be ineffective even if they could as even in the best scenario only the legal ones and a tiny number of illegal ones would be handed over.

Those holding illegal firearms are unlikely to hand them over or stop shooting each other with them, likewise they will still continue to import them via the border anyway.

People like to compare UK and Australia to the USA in terms of firearms but it's not that straightforward, we don't have similar borders, neighbouring countries or culture when it comes to firearms.

Well that sounds like the USA.

Surrendering and pretending nothing can be done to fix it.

Thoughts and prayers to a fucking invisible flying fairy.

Lets extend that, may as well, Just blow the fucking world up completely, that seems the final end game for you fuckwits.

Something could be done - secure the borders so you control the flow of illegal weapons into the country and gradually remove them, then look at the second amendment - I don't know how you get around that one though as it's an implicit right.

Long term view is the number of weapons will drop if people feel safer, since it's more likely an illegal firearm is used to commit crime anyway statistically.

There is no easy or quick fix, it's also not a left/right or racial issue, gun ownership in minorities has dramatically increased in the past couple of years and is growing faster than any other group.

Many of those invoking the Second Amendment entirely ignore the crucial phrase with which it starts:

" A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State "

However not a few legal theorists have argued on its basis either that the right to bear arms is [1]a collective, not individual right or that it is an individual right but solely in order to support a 'well regulated Militia', some indeed emphasising 'well regulated' by endorsing the view that this explicitly implies regulation of the right itself.

Until these various interpretations are resolved, there can be no progress towards resolving the problem of the civilian death toll from personally held firearms. Regardless of the actual final interpretation, certainty is what is needed before all.

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment

They are more interested in banning abortion than guns.

"Abortion kills, while guns protect!"

/s

Just another reason to not visit the US for me then, along with their right wing supreme court taking away a right to have an abortion after 50 years and thinking a law written in the 18th century on the right to have a gun, has any relevance in modern society.

After 50 years I wouldn't expect you would be likely to need an abortion.

I dunno, there are plenty of politicians over the age of 50 where aborting them would be in the best interests of the mother(country).

The age of the constitution or its amendments shouldn't be an issue. In fact some US court decisions even take English Common Law and the Magan Carta into consideration. A greater problem is the selective blindness of the most recent decisions: states rights behind the decision to uphold bans on abortion, states rights ignored over firearms legislation. The fetish for textualism which chooses to ignore context and indeed other text: the right to bear arms is about the right to raise a militia against an unjust monarch and not a general right to waive them in public.

At some point the legislature should do its job and pass relevant laws and even constitutional amendments. But this will only happen if they can get past their football fan partisanship. So don't hold your breath.

However, I have too many American friends to want to let that get in the way and it wouldn't stop me visting the country.

The data grab is illegal under existing data protection law and the UK and EU countries should be doing everything in their power to stop it.

some US court decisions even take English Common Law and the Magan Carta into consideration.

The US Bill of Rights still contains some sentences lifted almost word for word from Magna Carta, and from the English Bill of Rights.

re: "states rights behind the decision to uphold bans on abortion, states rights ignored over firearms legislation" it's almost as though the US Constitution mentions one of those things and not the other.

How dare the US Supreme Court uphold the US Constitution.

re: "The data grab is illegal under existing data protection law and the UK and EU countries should be doing everything in their power to stop it."

This I do agree with, but good luck holding the current UK Government to account :(

Clarification: The US Supreme Court did not remove any rights. It clarified them, based on an improved reading of the law.

The US Constitution supports States choosing their own laws, and that's exactly what the Supreme Court has said should happen. Instead of boycotting the US, you should research the law in the individual State(s) to which you might travel.

Also avoid Ireland, who ban abortion outright.

I have no idea why the UK governmen think they have the right to pass my police records (if any) to a foreign country, regardless of who they are. I can see a legal challenge coming.

As another commentard has said, it's just another reason NOT to go there.

I have no idea why the UK governmen think they have the right to pass my police records (if any) to a foreign country, regardless of who they are.

Then don't apply to enter the US. This exchange is in the context of the visa waiver scheme.

Far too many commenters assume this is reactive - don't apply for a visa and you won't have a problem.

It's not.

The program is proactive. It's meant to identify future threats. As such I assume ALL police records will be slurped and added to the US databases, not just those of people who have applied for visas.

Is this limited to people actually travelling to (or via) the US, or is it a copy of the complete UK database(s) ?

As the article says, it's part of the visa/visa waiver arrangements.

-> provided the Biometrics Commissioner agrees.

s/Biometrics Commissioner/Rubber Stamp/

Writing from the Emerald Isle, I have suspicions that the ROI might be one of the three EC countries agreeing to go along with this plan. After all, Ireland has two preclearance sites for US customs and immigration in Shannon and Dublin Airports. (One of only six countries in the world to have them). And considering how compromised the Irish Data Protection Commissioner already is at enforcing rights against private operators, that's a scary thought. The Irish government historically has tended to align its policies (and enforcement thereof) with US governmental and private interests. If I'm right, our only hope is that the rest of the EU will save us from ourselves.

https://www.cbp.gov/travel/preclearance

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/ireland-is-worst-bottleneck-for-enforcing-eu-data-privacy-law-iccl-1.4672480

For the EU countries concerned.

I mean, it does rather take the piss to say "we don't want your stinking tracking cookies, but here, take all the personal and unchangeable biometric data that may have been collected by the rozzers regardless of whether or not the person was actually found guilty of something .

Fuckwits.