Welcome To The Police State..

[Grianane]

Lets get back to basics and recognise the offender and the victim. I'm on the side of victims, I want the offenders caught and punished. I get completely hacked of by the legalistic crap pushed about human rights which serves only to line the pockets of the legal profession who will quite happily say whatever their client tells them in court if they can successfully defend the case and be paid for it.

 

Make it simple - protect the rights of the innocent by all means, but if you can't operate within the law then you should not expect to be afforded the same level of protection as the rest of the population who do.

[Albert Tatlock]

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..

It can be stored digitally - storing 13 numbers which represent the DNA coding on 13 segments of DNA.

[Albert Tatlock]

Make it simple - protect the rights of the innocent by all means, but if you can't operate within the law then you should not expect to be afforded the same level of protection as the rest of the population who do.

That's precisely what we are talking about - and the fact it's a lot more complex than your false dichotomy of "nothing to hide, nothing to fear".

 

[Lonan3]

Lets get back to basics and recognise the offender and the victim. I'm on the side of victims, I want the offenders caught and punished. I get completely hacked of by the legalistic crap pushed about human rights which serves only to line the pockets of the legal profession who will quite happily say whatever their client tells them in court if they can successfully defend the case and be paid for it.

 

Make it simple - protect the rights of the innocent by all means, but if you can't operate within the law then you should not expect to be afforded the same level of protection as the rest of the population who do.

And do your 'victims' include those who are falsely accused of heinous crimes - tried and found guilty by the disgusting elements of the British press - and then left to pick up the pieces by themselves even though they'll be forever associated with a very nasty crime?

Until DNA testing becomes 100% reliable - until the capacity for human error is removed from it - and until a database can be proven to be totally dependable - the idea of everyone's DNA being held on file is utterly repugnant.

[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.

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

Name me one such government database at present.

 

Ok, I'll play. You name me all the databases that don't and give me specific examples of security breaches.

 

And when you're done with that, explain to me why I should actually give a toss that someone has my DNA signature. I'm more concerned with them getting my bank details or my medical history.

 

Honestly, you need to calm yourselves down and remember that this isn't a Phillip K Dick novel and nobody is going to descend from the sky to snatch you away and incarcerate you because your DNA was found at a crime scene. It's a tool to assist crime prevention and detection, nothing more.

[ans]

And do your 'victims' include those who are falsely accused of heinous crimes - tried and found guilty by the disgusting elements of the British press - and then left to pick up the pieces by themselves even though they'll be forever associated with a very nasty crime?

 

Yeah, because that doesn't happen at all ever now. Maybe we should get rid of the fingerprint database, dental records and mugshots too just to be safe.

[Lonan3]

nobody is going to descend from the sky to snatch you away and incarcerate you because your DNA was found at a crime scene. It's a tool to assist crime prevention and detection, nothing more.

 

LINK - AGAIN

 

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.”

[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.

 

Ok, I'll play. You name me all the databases that don't and give me specific examples of security breaches.

I can name at least three major DBs - but fortunately I'm not stupid or irresponsible enough to do it on here.

[*daniel*]

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.

 

Ok, I'll play. You name me all the databases that don't and give me specific examples of security breaches.

 

And when you're done with that, explain to me why I should actually give a toss that someone has my DNA signature. I'm more concerned with them getting my bank details or my medical history.

 

Honestly, you need to calm yourselves down and remember that this isn't a Phillip K Dick novel and nobody is going to descend from the sky to snatch you away and incarcerate you because your DNA was found at a crime scene. It's a tool to assist crime prevention and detection, nothing more.

 

Not so much of database hacking inparticular, but still, it was only in the news the other day about the "most successful cyber attack on the US defence department". And after you hear about all the stories of the governments computers being hacked into because of computer illiterate workers, what would make this database any different?

[ans]

I can name at least three major DBs - but fortunately I'm not stupid or irresponsible enough to do it on here.

 

How convenient...

[Albert Tatlock]

I can name at least three major DBs - but fortunately I'm not stupid or irresponsible enough to do it on here.

 

How convenient...

...but true nevertheless.

[tameelf]

theres no need to name data bases. when the establisment controls them.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guildford_Four

[P.K.]

And when you're done with that, explain to me why I should actually give a toss that someone has my DNA signature. I'm more concerned with them getting my bank details or my medical history.

Twat. Your DNA can give reliable indicators of your medical future never mind your medical history!

 

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”

The reason there is an Association of Chief Police Officers is to protect civil liberties. To guard against a "1984" if you like the police were split up into autonomous regional forces which can operate pretty much independently because they are funded by the local ratepayers and therefore accountable to them. The two exceptions are the London Met who are part funded by central Gov because of the Royals, Heathrow, every embassy you care to mention etc etc. The other exception is the training school at Hendon which is one of the rare places which can be considered "national" and that is why the PNCU was based there. It saves all that messy legislation stuff and the civil liberty tree-huggers getting so excited they get a blow-out in their sandals.... It also helps make national databases like the PNCU secure from abuse. Note I said "helps" not "guarantees".

 

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.

I could name you lots. But for the moment let's consider what was in place. Every station had "collators cards" which was basically intelligence on the folks on their patch. It was already in existance but computerising it meant two things. Firstly it was much more national and therefore much more efficient but secondly it then meant it was more open to abuse. There are also finger prints. Treated similarly as DNA in it's infancy it has solved umpteen crimes and is computerised.

 

At the end of the day would the civil libertarians be satisfied with a promise that any DNA samples taken from someone who turned out to be innocent would be promptly destroyed? Probably but I wouldn't believe it. Why? Having been part of the operation there is no way I would ever throw away such an advantage. So there's the rub. The only upside is that those who want DNA samples are doing it beacuse of their dedication to protecting you, Joe Public. And the last thing they would want is it being abused because they all get tarred with the same brush. I want my family to get the best protection possible so my vote is in favour.

[Pat Ayres]

One question springs to my mind;

If I have never been arrested for any offense and therefore have not had my DNA taken and there is a crime in my town/area where DNA is found but not matched to anyone on the database.

Do I therefore become a suspect and liable to arrest and questioning, thereby having my DNA taken and stored.

Am I suspected because I have never been suspected before?

All this sounds questionable in the utmost. I agree that there is nothing to fear if you are innocent, but this amounts to guilty until proven innocent rather than 'innocent until proven guilty' and totally against any idea I have of a decent and reasonable society and the basis of law in this society.

[Cronky]

Interesting post found via the No2ID forum:

 

http://blogs.sun.com/racingsnake/entry/jud...nal_dna_profile

 

By almost direct analogy: the jail system is not 'unjustifiable' because it discriminates between those people who have committed a crime and those who have not: that is exactly its purpose. A jail system would be unjustifiable if it failed to discriminate between people who have been convicted of a crime and those who have not. And that is the unfairness in the current DNA database.

 

And:

 

By almost direct analogy: the jail system is not 'unjustifiable' because it discriminates between those people who have committed a crime and those who have not: that is exactly its purpose. A jail system would be unjustifiable if it failed to discriminate between people who have been convicted of a crime and those who have not. And that is the unfairness in the current DNA database.