Nubian Rights Forum & 2 others v Attorney General & 6 others; Child Welfare Society & 9 others (Interested Parties) [2020] eKLR stated as follows in the said Working Document, which it adopted on 1st August 2003: “A further point which is crucial from a data protection point of view is the fact that some biometric systems are based on information, like fingerprints or DNA samples, that may be collected without the data subject being aware of it since he or she may unknowingly leave traces. In applying a biometric algorithm to the fingerprint found on a glass, one may be able to find out if the person is on file in a database containing biometric data, and if so, who he is, by proceeding with a comparison of the two templates. This also applies to other biometric systems, such as those based on keystroke analysis or distance facial recognition, on account of the specific features of the technology involved. The problematic aspect is, on the one hand, that this data collection and processing may be performed without the knowledge of the data subject and on the other hand that regardless of their current reliability, these biometric technologies lend themselves to blanket utilisation on account of their "low-level intrusiveness". Therefore, it seems necessary to lay down specific safeguards in respect of them.” 767. These observations confirm the Petitioners’ concerns as raised as regards the intrusive nature of some of the biometric characteristics that are provided for in section 3 of the Registration of Persons Act, including DNA. Irrespective of the fact that there are legitimate uses of DNA in identification, as pointed out by the Respondents, we are mindful of the risks of indiscriminate collection of genetic information and other biometric identifiers which makes such information susceptible to extraneous use, including negative profiling of individuals for ulterior motives as observed by Dr. Malombe in his affidavit. He noted that this can be done by matching a DNA profile or other biometric characteristic that can be collected without a person’s knowledge or consent, and he gave the example of how a DNA profile from a coffee cup can be compared with a stored DNA profile or other biometric characteristic in the identification database, and provide details about an individual’s name and address, among other things, and can be used to profile the individual. 768. On the concerns raised on the privacy and surveillance risks posed by the requirement to give information on GPS co-ordinates, this Court takes judicial notice of the fact that the GPS technology is satellite-based and its usage has different aspects, and is more commonly used in cars and phone mobiles which help in determining directions and locations. The potential usage of such technology may include information from the providers of internet and telecommunication services that permits real-time tracking of the directions, speed and locations of monitors. The privacy implications and risks arising from the use of GPS monitors is that the said devices can be used to track and monitor people without their knowledge. 769. The U.S. Supreme Court addressed these risks and threats in a unanimous decision in United States v. Antoine Jones 565 US (2012), and ruled that law enforcement must obtain a warrant prior to attaching a GPS device to a suspect's vehicle in order to monitor its movements. The issue before the Court was whether the attachment of a Global-Positioning-System (GPS) tracking device to an individual’s vehicle, and subsequent use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements on public streets, constitutes a search or seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment provides in the relevant part that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. 770. Sotomayor J. in his concurring judgment observed that the Government had usurped Jones’ property for the purpose of conducting surveillance on him, thereby invading privacy interests long afforded, and undoubtedly entitled to Fourth Amendment protection, and held as follows in this regard: “GPS monitoring generates a precise, comprehensive record of a person’s public movements that reflects a wealth of detail about familial, political, professional, religious, and sexual associations……Disclosed in GPS data will be trips the indisputably private nature of which takes little imagination to conjure: trips to the psychiatrist, the plastic surgeon, the abortion clinic, the AIDS treatment center, the strip club, the criminal defense attorney, the by-the-hour motel, the union meeting, the mosque, synagogue or church, the gay bar and on and on The http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 126/174