Welcome To The Police State..

[Amadeus]

Police want DNA from speeding drivers and litterbugs on database

 

Police are seeking powers to take DNA samples from suspects on the streets and for non-imprisonable offences such as speeding and dropping litter.

 

The demand for a huge expansion of powers to take DNA comes as a government watchdog announced the first public inquiry into the national DNA database.

 

There is growing concern among MPs and civil liberties groups about the number of children under 10 and young black men on the database — the biggest in the world. But a number of police forces in England and Wales are backing proposals that would add millions more samples to it.

 

The Association of Chief Police Officers gave a warning, however, that allowing police to take samples for non-recordable offences — crimes for which offenders cannot be imprisoned — might be perceived as indicative of “the increasing criminalisation of the generally law-abiding public”.............

 

WTF!

 

How did one guy say on telly this morning: "It's only one step away from taking your sample at birth"....

[Albert Tatlock]

Have a read of this article.

• It allows the permanent retention of DNA samples and records from anyone arrested for virtually any offence, regardless of whether they are charged or convicted;
  
• Uses of the Database are not adequately documented or controlled;
  
• Legislation has been rushed through without adequate public or parliamentary debate, in a political context where there are increasing concerns about a growing police state or surveillance society;
  
• It will not make a significant difference to the detection of serious crime.
  

etc.

[Cambon]

If they want to add to the list of DNA samples, they should just add all the members of the police force to the database. They would probably solve half the outstanding crimes in no time!

[Cronky]

This is an appaling, but predictable, growth of the UK Police State. I hope to God no one thinks of extending DNA collection to the Isle of Man. They are treating people like cattle in the UK. It's got to stop.

[dmrbike]

Sorry Cambon. You are out of order mate.

 

The police DO provide DNA samples when they join the job. Primarily to eliminate them from investigations. These samples stay on record forever.

 

The manx Police are (apart from one recent well publicised exception) a thoughly honest and professional bunch. If you belive that Police officers are responsible for outstanding crimes, I'd like some examples. The Police get little enough thanks as it is without their integrity being questioned as well.

 

I realise you are being flippant, but this sort of comment hit's a nerve with me.

 

My view is that everyone SHOULD provide DNA at birth to be used for law inforcement. It is 99% accurate (Identical twins cause a problem I belive), and I can't think of a miscarriage of justice surrounding DNA evidence.........................Somebody know otherwise ?.

 

You should only be concerned by this if you have commited a crime.

[dmrbike]

Sorry cambon, you are out of order mate.

 

The police DO provide DNA samples when they join the job. These are held on record forever.

 

I realise you are being flippant, but the Manx Police are a trustworthy and honest bunch who get little thanks for what they do. Appart from the well publicised investigation a few years ago, I can't reccolect a Police officer commiting a crime on the Isle of Man. Give the lads (and lasses) some credit.

 

I personally don't have a problem with providing DNA samples. Surely the only people with anything to fear are criminals ?.

[Albert Tatlock]

Sorry Cambon. You are out of order mate.

 

The police DO provide DNA samples when they join the job. Primarily to eliminate them from investigations. These samples stay on record forever.

Your comments suggest that you have not explored all of the arguments/issues properly.

 

See report

In England and Wales: Every police force has asked all officers who come into contact with scene of crime evidence to provide a DNA sample so that they can be eliminated from

subsequent investigations. This information is kept on a database that is separate to the NDNAD and speculative searching is not allowed, so the police are not treated as criminal

suspects. However, thousands of existing police officers have refused, based on the concern that their genetic information could still be used against them, for example in paternity suits. By 28 February 2003, the FSS had samples from about 48% of officers, but this percentage will have increased by now as new recruits must now give a DNA sample as a condition of service.

 

The Human Genetics Commission has criticised this regulation, arguing that it amounts to a requirement for a genetic test as a condition of employment.

 

There are other concerns such as this

 

...and this:

 

Few people have problems with the use of DNA in criminal cases. The permanent retention of DNA in a database for use in future investigations is, however, another matter. An individual captured in a police database becomes an automatic suspect for all future criminal investigations in which database searches are used. This undermines the presumption of innocence that is central to many criminal justice systems.

 

DNA databases are operated and maintained by people and people make mistakes...clearly highlighted in several of the references above. Tie this in with ID cards, vehicle recognition, mobile phone location details and a bunch of civil servants - all of which when linked and misused has very dangerous potential. You only have to look at the private data that has already been released 'accidently' or stolen in numerous companies.

 

Personally I would be happy to provide DNA to clear my name, such as screening local populations in the hunt for someone, or to prove my innocence if wrongly arrested. However, I have major problems in anyone holding and keeping data on me longterm. If someone is innocent they are innocent.

 

Otherwise this stuff is the basis of a police state - tied into business when dna services are sold on to others.

 

Simply repeating the phrase 'if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear' is naive in the extreme, and in resposne I would say to you 'if I have nothing to hide, why should I have to prove it to you all the time?, and that who I am and what I'm doing as an innocent person is none of your or the government's business'.

[Cambon]

Sorry cambon, you are out of order mate.

 

The police DO provide DNA samples when they join the job. These are held on record forever.

 

I realise you are being flippant, but the Manx Police are a trustworthy and honest bunch who get little thanks for what they do. Appart from the well publicised investigation a few years ago, I can't reccolect a Police officer commiting a crime on the Isle of Man. Give the lads (and lasses) some credit.

 

I personally don't have a problem with providing DNA samples. Surely the only people with anything to fear are criminals ?.

http://www.theroyalgazette.com/siftology.r...mp;sectionId=60

http://www.theroyalgazette.com/siftology.r...mp;sectionId=60

http://www.hindu.com/2007/08/03/stories/2007080354821700.htm

http://www.karisable.com/crlebc.htm

 

A 2 minute trawl of the net seems to point to the fact that the police are not whiter than white.

Think about your first post "Primarily to eliminate them from investigations". Not to prosecute them.

 

As a foot note, my comments are not about the Manx Police, but corruption within police forces which is undeniable.

[Cambon]

Otherwise this stuff is the basis of a police state - tied into business when dna services are sold on to others.

 

Exactly. DNA can be used by to predict whether or not you are going to contract heart disease, Cancer and many other problems in later life. This can be used by banks and insurance to prevent you getting a mortgage or life insurance, or in fact medical treatment.

 

The problems are far wider reaching than most people imagine.

[feelslikeitshould]

Otherwise this stuff is the basis of a police state - tied into business when dna services are sold on to others.

 

Exactly. DNA can be used by to predict whether or not you are going to contract heart disease, Cancer and many other problems in later life. This can be used by banks and insurance to prevent you getting a mortgage or life insurance, or in fact medical treatment.

 

The problems are far wider reaching than most people imagine.

 

Imagine, you apply for life insurance, they check you DNA and charge much more you on the grounds of you having genes that increase your chance of bowel cancer by 20%, and that's the first you hear about it. I wouldn't like someone in a Mumbia call centre to tell me I had an 80% chance of developing Parkinsons or something like that.

 

I wouldn't mind giving DNA to prove my innocence but I wouldn't want it taken 'for future reference'. No thank you. Even if they could ensure that my data would only be used for elimination in criminal cases or anonymous research in to genetics I would still feel quite uneasy about it all. I mean, what if there was a way to change the names of samples in the database (I can't see it being tamper-proof), people will do anything for a price and criminals would soon befriend some needy soul in order to clear themselves and put someone else in the frame. Think of the number of bank details that change hands for a few £ per line of information. Or am I just being paranoid...?

[ai_Droid]

What's the big deal? You leave DNA all over the place. The goverment have all sorts of ways of identifying you, why's this any different?

[Albert Tatlock]

What's the big deal? You leave DNA all over the place. The goverment have all sorts of ways of identifying you, why's this any different?

...because the government serves the people and not vice versa - and the government need hold only that information needed to do so.

 

Most people accept the usefulness of and need for a DNA database, but that it needs to be operated within limits and with adequate safeguards and supervision - which it is not at present.

 

i.e. not least

• Brings an increasing threat to 'genetic privacy' if information is revealed about health or family relationships, not just identity
  
• Creates a permanent 'list of suspects', including anyone arrested for a recordable offence, even if they are never charged
  
• Increases the potential for discrimination in the criminal justice system
  

Within living memory, both fascist and communist governments in Europe have used personal records as a means of oppressing different populations.

 

The minimum is needed:

• The creation of an independent, transparent and accountable governing body
  
• The destruction of individuals' DNA samples once an investigation is complete, after the DNA profiles used for identification have been obtained
  
• An end to the practice of allowing genetic research using the database
  
• Independent research into the effectiveness of the DNA database in tackling crime and the implications of new technologies
  
• A public debate about who should be included on the database and for how long
  

[Cronky]

Within living memory, both fascist and communist governments in Europe have used personal records as a means of oppressing different populations.

 

Quite so. Some years ago I had my fingerprints taken as I had been a passenger in car, belonging to a friend, which had been vandalised. I had no problem giving my fingerprints as I signed a document which stated that the records would be kept for a few months then destroyed.

 

The then British 'State' served me as an individual so I was happy to help out. Now it is the other way round and you are definately better off living your life below the radar by avoiding giving the Government (in the UK that is) any information about yourself.

 

The point about privacy is that it is part of the Human Rights Act and is now systematically being abused by the British Government. It is the last freedom we must defend.

 

Interestingly, the country with the strongest privacy laws is Germany. This is because they know only too well the dangers of giving Government total control over private information. If it can be abused then you can bet your bottom dollar it will be.

[Albert Tatlock]

From the Beeb: "All UK 'must be on DNA database'", says a senior judge.

 

Judge says its "indefensable that some innocent people are on the database. - so the solution is put ALL innocent people on the database." Anyone else confused by that statement - in the land where you're supposed to be innocent before proven guilty?

 

This attitiude is a cop out (no pun intended) - eliminate the innocent from the database instead, because, if the database is skewed ethnically it reflects the truth: that we are indeed a bunch of racists.

 

No yellow star for me thanks! Stalin would be proud of us the way we are going - you can stuff '1984' AFAIC.

 

"But Professor Stephen Bain, a member of the national DNA database strategy board, warned expansion would be expensive and make mistakes more likely. If the information about you is exposed due to illegal or perhaps even legalised use of the database, in a way that is not currently anticipated, then it's a very difficult situation."

 

Time we reminded our politicians and senior judges that they are there to serve us - and not vice versa. Jeebus! this is enough to get even me back into politics. It's well past the time to remove these w***kers who are destroying everything the UK and the IOM ever stood for.

[Grianane]

The only person afraid of giving DNA is one who fears detection. I can accept the concerns regarding access to databases and alternative uses but can't see why DNA shouldn't be collected if an offence is suspected or committed. Perhaps the answer is to time limit the retention of data, say 1 year unless a conviction result, and restrict use to criminal investigation only.

 

The use of DNA is solving crime is a step forward, anything which improves the detection of offenders must be good.

 

Rather than rant about rights (don't forget the rights of the victim to have their attacker caught and punished) perhaps its time to think rationally about what is being sought to be achieved and how best it can be done while protecting the rights of innocents but maximising the detection of crime.

 

Finally if avoidance of paternity obligations is an issue then they perp should have though of that before he consented to the act.