By Peter Nagle and Richard Summerrell

On 10 August 1987 the then Prime Minister, the Honourable R J L Hawke, announced the formation of a Royal Commission to investigate the causes of deaths of Aboriginals while held in State and Territory jails. The Royal Commission was established in response to a growing public concern that deaths in custody of Aboriginal people were too common and poorly explained. This Commonwealth Royal Commission was the 108th since Federation. The establishment of the Commission and the appointment of the Honourable Mr Justice Muirhead as Royal Commissioner had the support of all State and Territory governments….Access to records collected or created by government has always been subject to opposing pressures. Access to records is seen as providing a check on arbitrary government power, but privacy considerations and other sensitivities also need to be protected….”

National Archives of Australia. 1996. 85p.

GLABERSON, STEVIE; TSE, EMERALD; TUCKER, EMILY

From the document: "[W]hat if the government had access to a copy of your DNA and could track you based on this involuntary, unstoppable trail without your consent? [...] This dystopia is fast becoming reality for millions of people, many of them already vulnerable because of over-policing, excessive surveillance, or economic insecurity. The federal government is amassing a huge trove of DNA, starting with a racialized, often traumatized, and politically powerless group: noncitizens. And it is using the federal agency that operates with the fewest practical constraints and least oversight -- the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) -- to do it. That's what this report is about. [...] The 2005 DNA Fingerprint Act -- which passed with little public scrutiny as an amendment to the reauthorization bill for the popular Violence Against Women Act -- for the first time extended compulsory DNA collection to people outside of the criminal legal context: detained noncitizens. But because of the exceptions in the implementing regulations, and because previous administrations thought it was a good idea to use those exceptions to avoid escalating DNA collection from noncitizens, DHS never mounted a large-scale DNA collection program. That is, until 2020. This report, which is based on publicly available records, as well as interviews with people who have had their DNA taken by immigration authorities and legal service providers working with them, is the first attempt to examine in-depth what happened after the 2020 rule change, and to explain the legal and political implications of these developments."

GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY. LAW CENTER. CENTER ON PRIVACY & TECHNOLOGY. 21 MAY, 2024.

By American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona

This report documents the U.S. government’s inhumane practice of confiscating migrants’ most essential and prized personal belongings as they cross our southern border, including vital medications and medical devices, legal and identity documents, religious items, and items of practical or sentimental importance. Drawing on case examples and perspectives of border organizations that interface directly with migrants and work on this issue firsthand, we present an in-depth depiction of the severe harms caused by the U.S. Border Patrol’s confiscation of migrants’ personal belongings. We also offer concrete policy solutions to help ensure that Border Patrol treats migrants and their belongings with care and respect.

United States, ACLU. 2024, 46pg