Welcome To The Police State..

[*daniel*]

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.

 

Not for much longer linkage

[Alias]

How is DNA stored? If it's digitally could a one-way hash not be stored (don't mean it's the solution to all problems, but it would remove the genetic profiling concern to some extent)?

[Albert Tatlock]

The only person afraid of giving DNA is one who fears detection.

There speaks an uneducated, and/or illiberal man. That argument is a false dichotomy i.e. you are presented with a simple either/or choice - either you’re guilty, and so should be exposed; or you are innocent, in which case nothing will be exposed, and so you have nothing to worry about. Either way, you have no legitimate reason to be concerned. Like all false dichotomies, the problem is that there is at least one more option than the two offered in the either/or choice - in other words think about the other options.

 

The universal declaration of human right states: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks." A compulsory DNA database is an infringement of human rights. The 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear' dichotomy erodes that right by saying "as a matter of course, you should be willing to reveal details about your everyday life which the law has no right to demand that you reveal". If that gets normalised into society, more erosions follow. e.g. DNA databases will soon be linked to identity cards.

 

"Identity cards will not exist on their own; behind them will sit the chilling Identity Register holding rafts of sensitive information about each one of us, to be passed between a range of agencies. The scope of this database will inevitably grow over the years. As with other broad legislative powers, governments of various colours will - by accident or design – be able to use and abuse the scheme to increase the state’s power over the citizen. Simply repeating the phrase 'if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear' is naive in the extreme, and in response 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'.

 

 

This proposal will fundamentally shift the relationship between the citizen and the state. In Britain, the prevailing idea has always been that the government answers to us rather than the other way round. It is one thing to require a licence of those qualified to drive - it is quite another matter to expect every man, woman and child to hold and pay for a licence to live.

 

Even after 9/11, President Bush dismissed any such measure as “too illiberal for the American people”. The scheme planned in Britain would create a single and compulsory identifier; an altogether different beast which would represent a fundamental shift in my relationship with a state that lacks a written constitution. There may be an argument for making such a shift and debates like the one hosted by openDemocracy may cast such arguments into the centre of this important discussion. However it must be said that none of the current government’s arguments are anywhere near persuasive enough. Therefore I, and Liberty, will continue to campaign against this identity card scheme."

 

Shami Chakrabarti Clicky

 

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
  
• Ask: why in London, 57% of all innocent DNA is disproportionately from black people?
  

You really need to think about this a lot more.

 

It is difficult to get these points across at present because civil liberties are out of fashion with the current Labour Government and people like you are being led by the nose by them. This is a government that believes all solutions lie in surveillance, prison and newspaper headlines. They refuse to deal with the root causes, and bundle every repressive measure in the “tough on terrorism” message. We fought the IRA for 25 years and never let them affect our everyday lives, so why are we allowing our values and principles of law to be so eroded? Also consider the amount of data that is currently being stolen from companies - and then the Government’s proposed privatisation of the British Forensic Service. Private companies are there to make profits, and presented with a large pile of data that could be misused for private profit - who knows what will happen.

 

I'll throw an alternative statement to you, because Labour loves people like you - "If you having nothing to think with, then you have nothing to worry about".

[ans]

The only person afraid of giving DNA is one who fears detection.

There speaks an uneducated, and/or illiberal man.

 

And you're speaking as a delusional paranoid man?

 

If a DNA database helps catch a serial sex offender or child killer after one victim, instead of a rampage that leaves a pile of victims over several years, then I have absolutely no problem with it. Waving a civil liberty flag when this has massive potential to save lives and prevent crime is a shockingly selfish act, not to mention blinkered and naive.

[Cronky]

Albert, just out of interest, was the Isle of Man part of the World War Two UK ID system? If so, were ID cards abolished as the same time as in Great Britain?

 

By the way, I think you are right on every single count.

[Albert Tatlock]

The only person afraid of giving DNA is one who fears detection.

There speaks an uneducated, and/or illiberal man.

 

And you're speaking as a delusional paranoid man?

 

If a DNA database helps catch a serial sex offender or child killer after one victim, instead of a rampage that leaves a pile of victims over several years, then I have absolutely no problem with it. Waving a civil liberty flag when this has massive potential to save lives and prevent crime is a shockingly selfish act, not to mention blinkered and naive.

Even when your DNA is obtained by insurance companies, your employer or me etc. ? I suggest you re-read my post about false dichotomy.

 

Bringing an argument down to improbable events (and despite those 'lead people by the nose' headlines - these events are statistically minute - e.g. one child is murdered at home by a parent every week in the UK which hardly ever makes the headlines) - that is not an argument in favour of a DNA database at all, and a naive solution to replacing innocent before guilty and the principles that people have fought and died for over hundreds of years. No one is knocking the usefulness of a DNA database - only the way it is used - I would be happier for people to have to give their DNA - provided that it was destroyed after they were found innocent.

 

As for 'paranoid', I have nothing to hide - I wouldn't be doing my current job if I did. It's comments like that which justify my 'Democracy Good, Dumbocracy Bad' signature. I do however have plenty to fear from the f**wits currently running the government and the dumbos that keep electing them and supporting their ideas without discussing the alternatives or the repercussions. I thought you were cleverer than that Ans.

[feelslikeitshould]

When focusing on the prevention of crime aspect of it, I don't really have a problem I suppose, I'd rather not have my DNA on a database somewhere but if it helps in the ways ans points to, then who am I to refuse.

 

Catching criminals using DNA has been around for years and it's a reliable method.

 

BUT using DNA for research etc. is not that new a practice. The more you allow it to be used for, the more it open to abuse, plus, once your DNA is mapped out on a computer, it's there forever. Who knows what it maybe used for in the future. The laws govening the use of such obviously sensitive material as your DNA should ensure that it can never be used without your consent for anything other than in criminal cases. I hate to think of all the things that information could be used for and given the track records of many Governments in the world, you can see why people would be paranoid about having that kind of information in an easily accessible database.

 

The whole genetics thing is a bit of a legal grey area, advancements are being made in it everyday and there aren't enough specific laws to determine what can and can't be done. Even when there are laws in place, there are plenty of people who would do unethical things with your genes. Stalin tried making a human/ape cross, which may have been successful with todays technology and genetic engineering techniques. Just because laws are there, doesn't mean they aren't abused. Genes are patentable, imagine finding out parts of you were 'owned' by a drugs company who wanted to use them for commercial reasons, if they had free access to your DNA, would they even need to ask your permission to use it?

[Lonan3]

Observer Article:

 

One in every hundred forensic tests performed on the DNA of suspected criminals may give a false result, according to the first research of its kind into laboratory error rates.

The study is the first evidence of widespread mistakes in the sophisticated system of tests. DNA testing is widely used to convince juries of a suspect's guilt or presence at the scene of a crime, and was thought to be almost flawless. The findings will shock British DNA laboratories, which deny that errors exist.

Statisticians in Austin, Texas, gained access to the first accuracy tests carried out on DNA laboratories, which were conducted anonymously. Researchers had asked the labs to match a series of DNA samples. They knew which ones were from the same person, but found that in over 1 per cent of cases the labs falsely matched samples, or failed to notice a match.

The statisticians then calculated that a substantial human error had occurred in 12 in every 1,000 tests.

 

Another link

 

More than half a million names on the controversial DNA database are known to be false, misspelt or incorrect, the Government has admitted.

Ministers have disclosed that more than 500,000 - or one in seven - of the genetic profiles on the database are "replicas".

The disclosure raises urgent questions about the integrity and accuracy of the whole system.

Around 4 million names are on the database, which is the biggest in the world and holds details of not only rapists and murderers, but also suspects arrested but not charged for relatively minor crimes.

Thousands asked to give their details to police upon arrest have given false names or alternative spellings of their names.

In other cases, mistakes have been made by police in the spelling of names. Some files include names belonging to someone else, or names of people who do not exist. Altogether there are 550,000 "replica" files.

MPs have questioned whether the false data could lead to innocent people, whose names may have been maliciously given to police by suspects, being questioned about crimes they have not committed.

 

And Another

 

UCI Professor William C. Thompson has played a key role in uncovering a miscarriage of justice that sent a Houston man to prison for a rape he did not commit. Thompson, who is a professor in the Department of Criminology, Law & Society, has studied and written about forensic DNA evidence for over fifteen years. He uncovered the error while helping a group of news reporters investigate allegations of fraud and incompetence in the Houston Police Crime Laboratory.

In July 1999, Josiah Sutton, then 16 years old, was convicted of rape based largely on DNA tests performed by the Houston Police Crime Laboratory. Thompson reviewed the evidence in Sutton’s case in January and found a serious problem. “The jury was led to believe that the DNA evidence uniquely identified Sutton as one of two rapists,” Thompson said. “In fact, when correctly interpreted, the DNA evidence showed it was very unlikely that Mr. Sutton could have been one of the rapists.”

 

The problem is that we''ve been presented with DNA testing as incontravertible proof in most cases - and judges and juries have come to accept it as such.

A nation wide database that can be so clearly prone to error is not satisfactory. If it "helps catch a serial sex offender or child killer after one victim, instead of a rampage that leaves a pile of victims over several years," then that is undoubtedly beneficial but, that has to be weighed against the fallout if it totally destroys the life of an entirely innocent person.

[Albert Tatlock]

One in every hundred forensic tests performed on the DNA of suspected criminals may give a false result...

In a population of 60 million - I make that 600,000 potential errors - let's not bother discussing it of course, the obvious ANSwer is to just build more prisons.

[ans]

Even when your DNA is obtained by insurance companies, your employer or me etc. ? I suggest you re-read my post about false dichotomy.

 

I'm not advocating that this is a public database, and I dont think any sane person would. To jump on this as a counter argument is ridiculous. A secure and accurate database, with appropriate controls and laws has no such issues.

 

As for your tired rhetoric about the freedoms so many other had fought for and blah blah fucking blah. Really. Nobody gives a shit. There wasn't the scale of violent crime that there was back then and it's a different world.

 

DNA evidence is a tool to assist the detection of crime. Perhaps you'd prefer to go back to men in tweed striding around sucking on their pipes solving crime, but I'd prefer to see the technology that's available to help in any way it can. You want old fashioned, ineffective detection? Go watch Life on Mars.

[Lonan3]

A secure and accurate database, with appropriate controls and laws has no such issues.

 

If/when that becomes possible, and the probability of human error is removed - probably many years in the future - I will have no problems with it. Until then, evidence supported by DNA should be treated with at least a reasonable degree of caution rather than being regarded as a perfect solution.

[Pragmatopian]

There are some interesting human rights issues raised by this - either in retaining the DNA fingerprints of those arrested for recordable offences or, as has been suggested this week, for the entire population and visitors to the UK.

 

I certainly see a system by which all DNA fingerprints are recorded as fairer and more useful in crime detection than one where only DNA for those who have been arrested are kept. The question for me is then 'Do the benefits of retaining DNA fingerprints outweigh the costs?'. Both benefits and costs are somewhat difficult to quantify, and I am yet to be persuaded either way.

[Albert Tatlock]

Even when your DNA is obtained by insurance companies, your employer or me etc. ? I suggest you re-read my post about false dichotomy.

A secure and accurate database, with appropriate controls and laws has no such issues.

Name me one such government database at present.

[bluemonday]

Quite right, UK government has a well documented history of expensive and ill conceived IT disasters.

[Alias]

Once again.. can you not do a one-way hash of it (assuming it's stored digitally)? If it's not stored digitally then surely it's not gonna be scaleable enough to accomodate 50 million new entries anyways..