Dna Database Breaches Human Rights

[Jack Meoff]

People are so quick to spout off the HUMAN RIGHTS act, when what is proposed would not infact effect anyones life at all. Except in helping find those guilty of crime.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

People are so quick to spout off the HUMAN RIGHTS act, when what is proposed would not infact effect anyones life at all. Except in helping find those guilty of crime.

 

I don't think people are too quick to spout off human rights. If they are talking about them they are almost always relevant. In terms of human rights you are talking about permissions and abilities given to citizens by the government. In this case the one in question would relate to privacy and privacy of ones details. In terms of these rights, everyone is entitled to their privacy or privacy to some extent. The idea of DNA being held when the vast majority of people it relates to is innocent is to invade that privacy, it doesn't matter whether it is the State or some lone individual.

 

I think the problem for those who find it hard to recognise the issue of privacy in cases such is this is because they are under the impression that the State is always on their side and doing the right thing, and that we are completely dependent on it to play the role of some parent. From my perspective the State is instrusive and compromises the freedoms that I should have as a human being.

 

If you find the human rights argument to not be satisfying enough my stance is anarchist, not about rights that are afforded or bestowed. I do not believe most people should be convicted for most crimes, because most crimes are the result of capitalism and existence of the state (the very thing storing this DNA). Hypothetically, as a free individual who has committed no crime AGAINST another why should I have my details stored when my behaviour is no longer criminal. I am no longer acting in a mode that is anti-societal so what should be my personal possession should not be stored or recorded.

[Chinahand]

but you have still not told me how it affects your "human rights" by being on this database.

 

As for spouting off, am i not only exerting my opinion.

 

Seems its ok for you to exert yours, but mine is only spouting off.

Of course you can exert your opinion, but when you claim that the only people interested in stopping a DNA database are villians and their fellow travellers it makes for a rather weak opinion which is been exerted, should I say spouted, with almost no justification and which ignores the doubts and qualifications about the uses of technology and genetics by large numbers of thoughtful and reasoned people (which villians and their mates are not!).

 

You disagree with the opinons of the likes of Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, Liberty etc etc - even the opinon of 17 Human Rights Judges selected for their expertise in this subject from all over Europe. Fine and dandy - but don't claim their arguments are spurious or unconcerned with stopping crime. They are attempting to balance these issues and I very much agree with them it isn't as simple as you make out.

[Jack Meoff]

You seem to use the fact it an abuse of human rights, In my opinion its not, so I disagree with the rest of the world, so what.

 

Here is the basic reason why.......................................

 

The conflict in Congo, Human Torture, Slave Trading, Human Trafficking. That is abuse of human rights, keeping your name on a computer with your DNA make up does not rank up there in my opinion.

 

You have still not explained to me "how" this storage of data effets your human rights. How does it effect your life in a negative way at all?

[Albert Tatlock]

People are so quick to spout off the HUMAN RIGHTS act, when what is proposed would not infact effect anyones life at all. Except in helping find those guilty of crime.

You really need to think about this issue a lot more.

 

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 are currently not present i.e. not least

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

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 - and the innocent removed from the database
  
• An end to the practice of allowing genetic research using the database
  
• Independent research into the effectiveness of the DNA database in tackling crime (there is currently little evidence it does), and the implications of new technologies
  
• A public debate about who should be included on the database and for how long
  

 

Also consider the amount of data that is currently being lost/stolen from government/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 could happen if the current system carries on without the control and accountability it does not have. Already: the DVLA has been exposed for selling data to wheel clamping firms; and a million civil service employees have access to contactpoint (the records of 11 million children in England).

 

We currently have a UK 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, and lost millions fighting in world war two fighting for the rights of the individual, so why are we allowing our values and principles of law to be so eroded now?

 

Within living memory, both fascist and communist governments in Europe have used personal records as a means of oppressing different populations. You seem to infer that such things could never happen in the UK, by design or accident. DNA testing and entering profiles onto a database takes time and has to be prioritised, so ask: why in London for example, is 57% of all innocent DNA disproportionately from black people? The UK government have made repeated and serious mistakes in their handling of personal data: they have lost vital records, allowed others to be stolen, and misused yet more.

 

Then tie the collation of DNA to ID cards and the 53 item proposed database behind them - which even after 9/11 Bush said ID cards were too illiberal for the American people.

 

I'll also just remind you of Winston Churchills speech at the start of world war two: "It is a war, viewed in its inherent quality, to establish, on impregnable rocks, the rights of the individual, and it is a war to establish and revive the stature of man. Perhaps it might seem a paradox that a war undertaken in the name of liberty and right should require, as a necessary part of its processes, the surrender for the time being of so many of the dearly valued liberties and rights. In these last few days the House of Commons has been voting dozens of Bills which hand over to the executive our most dearly valued traditional liberties. We are sure that these liberties will be in hands which will not abuse them, which will use them for no class or party interests, which will cherish and guard them, and we look forward to the day, surely and confidently we look forward to the day, when our liberties and rights will be restored to us, and when we shall be able to share them with the peoples to whom such blessings are unknown."

 

We are not at war. But because Labour loves people like you, and you see the issue 'so clearly', I'll throw an alternative statement to you to consider - "If you have nothing to think about, then you have nothing to worry about".

[Jack Meoff]

Because I question someones point of view and that my opinion differs to yours does not mean I do not think it through.

 

I agree with you on many points with the control.

 

Because i agree with the principle of the storage of the data, does not mean that I believe this information should be available to all.

[Lost Login]

If you don't understand the issue that the state should maintain as few records on its citizens as possible. That citizens have a right to privacy and a presumption of innocence by the state etc etc they you must be pretty out of touch with the legal traditions of the Enlightenment.

 

I am betwixt and between as I agree that the state etc should maintain as few records on its citizens as poosible, that we all have a right to privacy etc

 

However I struggle to see it as a Human Rights issue as my view on what are human rights tend to be much bigger issues in my opinion such as such as the right to life, liberty, freedom of expression, equality before the law; right to participate in culture, the right to food, the right to work, the right to education etc.

 

OK these might be fundamental human rights rather some of the more specific rights but I really struggle to understand that the issue of DNA records is any more a human right issue than the right to smoke whilst havinbg a pint in a pub is. But I freely omit I struggled to grasp the theory of relativity at school and apparently just because I fail to grasp the theory does not nean it is wrong!

[La_Dolce_Vita]

If you don't understand the issue that the state should maintain as few records on its citizens as possible. That citizens have a right to privacy and a presumption of innocence by the state etc etc they you must be pretty out of touch with the legal traditions of the Enlightenment.

 

I am betwixt and between as I agree that the state etc should maintain as few records on its citizens as poosible, that we all have a right to privacy etc

 

However I struggle to see it as a Human Rights issue as my view on what are human rights tend to be much bigger issues in my opinion such as such as the right to life, liberty, freedom of expression, equality before the law; right to participate in culture, the right to food, the right to work, the right to education etc.

 

OK these might be fundamental human rights rather some of the more specific rights but I really struggle to understand that the issue of DNA records is any more a human right issue than the right to smoke whilst havinbg a pint in a pub is. But I freely omit I struggled to grasp the theory of relativity at school and apparently just because I fail to grasp the theory does not nean it is wrong!

 

What about freedom of privacy? And even if you look away from the issue of human rights do you think somebody else other than you should be allowed to keep very personal details about you that are used for a purpose different to that which they were originally?

[Jack Meoff]

I am not saying just anyonr, I am saying that someone should be allowed.

 

Yes there should be tight/strict control on use of that data, but I still believe that there is no reason why it should not be kept.

[Albert Tatlock]

I am not saying just anyonr, I am saying that someone should be allowed.

 

Yes there should be tight/strict control on use of that data, but I still believe that there is no reason why it should not be kept.

I don't think anyone is arguing against a DNA database per se. The nub of the argument is surely about two types of database:

 

a) A DNA database with specific individuals on it for the purpose of detecting criminals'

versus

b) A DNA database with everyone on it for deterring/preventing crime and catching criminals.

 

Personally I have no objection to option a) but I have profound objections to option b) for the following reasons:

 

1. Even though the DNA database has expanded massively to include innocent individuals, the chances of catching criminals using DNA remains much the same at around 0.36% (home office/Hansard figures). DNA is also not always accurate (especially the Low Copy Number technique from a single cell often used) which can lead to wrongful convictions - using more advanced methods are also very costly.

2. There are too many risks and threats to privacy (covering employment, insurances, health, family relationships, biosurveillance, misuses, mistakes, witness protection programmes etc.) - there have already been several cases where people have been suspended for accessing and keeping such data. Probability (and if you don't like maths, just look at current government form for stolen/lost/misused data) leads me to believe that with substantial numbers able to access the data it is only a matter of time until some of it is lost/stolen/misued.

3. An all inclusive list creates a permanent 'list of suspects' that could be misued by governments or others.

4. Discrimination in the judicial system - already evident in the DNA database itself by the disproportionate number of Black people on it.

5. Using the database for genetic research (which has been done without consent before). Once the data is collected on an all inclusive database, who knows what research might be carried out unauthorised/authorised by a government.

6. The stealth approach to its introduction - undemocratic, slipped through, with little public or democratic accountability.

 

...and many other reasons.

 

On the one hand, people in favour of an all inclusive DNA database seem to seek to undermine the so called 'tin hatters' and the 'paranoids' against this by somehow inferring Britains' history and concepts as a democracy, magna carta etc. means 'this is Britain, so we wouldn't do such things...so an all inclusive DNA database would be fine, no worries'. Whilst at the same time failing to acknowledge how those against see those concepts being fundamentally undermined through all this, ignoring comparisons of how other states in recent history have abused information collected and used it against their citizens, and ignoring the 'surveillance society' we are being pushed into, with its ID cards, CCTV, vehicle recognitiopn and the DNA database - and ignoring all the mission creep that is already happening with all of this (e.g. KSF assets seized under anti-terror legislation and many other flagrant abuses of what these laws were supposedly initially about).

 

They also seem to fail to understand that the collection of significantly more DNA records of the innocent is hardly making a difference. They seem to be dreaming of some idealistic state where 'if you having nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear', failing to realise that this arguement is a false dichotomy, and not so clear-cut when there are actually many other issues to take into account.

 

IMO, people need to think a little about the future we are being goose-step-marched into.

 

Just because you can do something with technology, doesn't always mean you should. And if you believe that all these problems can all be solved by simply tightening access to the DNA database, you are clearly living in that 'cloud cuckoo' land many of now recognise as dumbocratic Britain.

 

FFS wake up!

[jimbms]

Albert, I often call people for doing long posts, your's is an exeption, not long winded, informative, not resorting to spouting off idealistic shite and for once got me to read it all not just flash read the main parts. Thank you.

[Lost Login]

What about freedom of privacy? And even if you look away from the issue of human rights do you think somebody else other than you should be allowed to keep very personal details about you that are used for a purpose different to that which they were originally?

 

If you read my post I never stated that there should be no resrictions or controls. I believe there should. If that was the argument I would agree. Where I am struggling is that is classed as a human right!

[Albert Tatlock]

What about freedom of privacy? And even if you look away from the issue of human rights do you think somebody else other than you should be allowed to keep very personal details about you that are used for a purpose different to that which they were originally?

 

If you read my post I never stated that there should be no resrictions or controls. I believe there should. If that was the argument I would agree. Where I am struggling is that is classed as a human right!

In terms of this judgement, it was based on the fact that keeping the DNA of an innocent person violated their human rights. Human rights in this case are outlined in Article 8 of the legislation:

 

(1) Everyone has the right for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

 

(2) There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

 

The judgement was based on the belief that the UK has overstepped the mark in a democratic society by keeping innocent records on the database i.e. the “blanket and indiscriminate nature of keeping data on individuals...failed to strike a fair balance between the competing public and private interests."

 

i.e. he is innocent and yet on the database, you are innocent and yet not on the database - but keeping anyone on the database who is innocent is an undue interference by a public authority in a democratic society.

[Lost Login]

In terms of this judgement, it was based on the fact that keeping the DNA of an innocent person violated their human rights. Human rights in this case are outlined in Article 8 of the legislation:

 

(1) Everyone has the right for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

 

(2) There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

 

The judgement was based on the belief that the UK has overstepped the mark in a democratic society by keeping innocent records on the database i.e. the “blanket and indiscriminate nature of keeping data on individuals...failed to strike a fair balance between the competing public and private interests."

 

i.e. he is innocent and yet on the database, you are innocent and yet not on the database - but keeping anyone on the database who is innocent is an undue interference by a public authority in a democratic society.

 

I read and understand the judgement as it has been posted but it does not alter my view that I struggle to see this as a human rights issue. I am not disagreeing with the judges decision in law it is just that my view of what are human rights does not tally with what the law appears to be. In my view, although per law it is obvioulsy wrong, is this is a subject that requires serious controls, legislation etc etc but I just can not reconcile it my mind it being a human rights issue.

 

My view is reinforced by the fact that it only appears to apply to people who are innocent. My view is that in respect of most human rights they should apply in the main to you whether you are innocent or guilty of past crimes. Yes some may be restricted whilst you are serving a sentence but once you have served your punishment should they not all be resorted. I struggle who see how in respect of retention of DNA records it is human right for it not to be retained if you have never been found guilty of an offence but not if you have no matter how minor or how long ago.

 

As I previously stated I understand my view does not obviously agree with that of the courts but it remains my opinion.

[John]

Well put Lost Login, I also struggle to see where the violation off my Human Rights comes into play. There will always be argument that people could use the data against you or clone you etc etc.

 

This only re-enforces that the issue they have is more to do with the control of the data, rather than the actual right or wrong of storing it.

 

Albert let me put it this way:

 

The DNA of every person is stored at Birth on a database, this information is only accessible by a very select few and is only used in very selective circumstances, there are no test done on the data, except in the case of the identification of a person or persons.

 

 

Would you still have such an objection?

 

I understand your statistic on the success rate of DNA linked Evidence, but this is surly because of the following:

 

1, There is not a complete database

2, The science is still in its infancy when it comes to testing (its not quite CSI yet)

 

 

I am sure that the issue of Fingerprints was not such a "Human Rights Issue" 100 years ago.