This paper investigates the legal implications of the S. and Marper v United Kingdom ruling by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) which found that the UK Government’s deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) retention policy breached Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The aim of the presentation is to look beyond the changes that have been instigated in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, since the landmark decision by the ECtHR was made; toward the legal implications of the sharing of DNA data across the borders of European Union member states. Of significance here are the outcomes of the Prüm Treaty of 2005 which initially saw seven countries, not including the UK, agree to share DNA data, fingerprint and vehicle registration data for the purpose of countering acts of terror and bringing criminals to prosecution. By June 2007 the provisions of Prüm had found their way into the legislative framework of the European Union at large. The findings of the study indicate that there is a mismatch, especially in the number of years that personal DNA data is retained between member states in the EU and how that data is used. To allow DNA data sharing across borders, when definitions over what constitutes the right to retain a DNA sample differ so widely, as well as the length of retention, would be creating a situation destined for disaster. All this in light of the problems associated with DNA evidence to begin with, the potential for errors in sampling, and the risks inherent in data losses, and the potential unanticipated future uses without the commensurate safeguards in place, are catapulting the EU into a surveillance society.