Slight hiccup due to my host moving the site to a different server.
However it is all up and running again complete with the 8 minute video.

There are currently around 850,000 people stored on the DNA database that should not be there. The EU courts have ruled storing them as illegal and the governments response? Well they'll get around to complying in 6 to 12 years.. if you're good.

And how to get yourself off it?
Well as Mark Thomas describes, it's certainly not easy.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/19/dna-database-comment

ID cards are back in the media again, with talk of Manchester to be the trial city and retail stores getting all your details so the government does not have to. Think you can avoid it by giving up shopping? Well do not try to get a student loan either. Does the government have you from every angle? Or is this just one database too far?
Even the David Blunkett, the former home secretary is calling for the scheme to come to an end.

All this at what cost?
In 2005 if was set to cost £30
Now they estimate the cost to be £60
What about if/when they are finally unveiled? Just how much will the public be expected to pay for something they do not want.
With debt rising can we really justify the billions of pounds such a scheme will cost?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2009/feb/27/westminster-cctv-control-centre

Unfortunately The Guardian website does not seem to allow embedding however the above link leads to a video showing you the CCTV surveillance control room for Westminster in London where as The Guardian put it they use "the latest remote technology, the cameras rotate 360 degrees, 365 days a year, providing a hi-tech version of what the 18th century English philosopher Jeremy Bentham conceived as the "Panopticon" - a space where people can be constantly monitored but never know when they are being watched".

Gallery is up containing photography from around Aberdeen mostly concentrating on the area I filmed for my panoptic, with a few looking at the element of CCTV in Aberdeen, from the cameras to the seagulls!

As well as recording our every move in the real world the government has turned its attention to what we do in the virtual one. E-mail and internet phone call data can and will soon be kept for 12 months.
The results?
The government claim it will be another tool in the war against terrorism. Really, it'll be a bulk of information to great to do anything with, another needless expense and another part of our privacy chipped away.

"Internet service providers are to keep records of emails and online phone calls under controversial new government regulations that come into force today.

ISPs will be legally obliged to store details of emails and internet telephony for 12 months as a potential tool to aid criminal investigations. Although the content of emails and calls will not be held, ISPs will be asked to record the date, time, duration and recipients of online communications.

The new regulations are contained in an EC directive on data retention that already applies to telecoms providers and is now being extended to ISPs. "

CCTV, DNA databases, the risks and the benefits of a the risks of a "surveillance society". Just how much information is enough to fight/prevent crime and just how much is too much and who is any position to stop the databases growing.
When our every move, purchase and phone call are tracked and cross referenced.
Even the House of Lords are starting to say enough is enough.

"Electronic surveillance and collection of personal data are "pervasive" in British society and threaten to undermine democracy, peers have warned.

CCTV cameras and the DNA database were two examples of threats to privacy, the Lords constitution committee said.

It called for compensation for people subject to illegal surveillance.

The government said CCTV and DNA were "essential" to fight crime but campaign group Liberty said abuses of power mean "even the innocent have a lot to fear...

...In its report, the Lords constitution committee said growth in surveillance by both the state and the private sector risked threatening people's right to privacy, which it said was "an essential pre-requisite to the exercise of individual freedom".