National Criminal Dna Database

[Chinahand]

The side of me in favour of privacy and civil liberties is highly disturbed by the idea of being forced to give a sample of my DNA and I would definitely be concerned if my child was forced to give a sample even though they had committed absolutely no crime.

 

BBC News Story

 

I realize some people will say if you've committed no crime what would you have to fear. But I'm not convinced.

 

I've no idea if these figures are realistic, but I don't think they are far off ... does anyone know any facts relating to the reliability of the testing and database protocols? And what about the uniqueness of the sequences tested for?

 

Anyway lets say the sequencing done had a detail of 1 in 5 million and was 99.9% reliable.

 

Would you be willing to have your DNA tested and put on the database.

 

[Hint ... do the maths ... I think it will scare you]

[cheesemonster2005]

The side of me in favour of privacy and civil liberties is highly disturbed by the idea of being forced to give a sample of my DNA and I would definitely be concerned if my child was forced to give a sample even though they had committed absolutely no crime.

 

BBC News Story

 

I realize some people will say if you've committed no crime what would you have to fear. But I'm not convinced.

 

I've no idea if these figures are realistic, but I don't think they are far off ... does anyone know any facts relating to the reliability of the testing and database protocols? And what about the uniqueness of the sequences tested for?

 

Anyway lets say the sequencing done had a detail of 1 in 5 million and was 99.9% reliable.

 

Would you be willing to have your DNA tested and put on the database.

 

[Hint ... do the maths ... I think it will scare you]

 

Governments aren't to be trusted. Today's innocent activity could be tomorrow's crime and once they have your DNA they've got you for life.

 

I've no problems carrying a national ID card but this is too far. Mistakes can happen with DNA testing and at the end of the day the police are there to solve crimes so if we had a record of all DNA they'd be out of a job for many crimes. The fed of police officers wouldn't be happy with that.

 

How about we see if China decides to do this first. If they do then we can be sure it's not the best idea.

[ans]

Would you be willing to have your DNA tested and put on the database.

 

Absolutely. Without a second thought.

[TheTool]

This is the first step to losing your freedom.

 

I can understand if there has been a crime and they need to test people the eliminate them from the investigation but to take your DNA and store it is a breach of you freedom.

 

As for ID cards i am against that because i have never comited a crime so i don't need to carry one, this again is a way of taking away your freedom.

 

ID cards are ok for imagrants then once they have been in the uk for say 10 years they can live ID card free.

 

We have driving licence's and passports thats ID aint it.

[ans]

We have driving licence's and passports thats ID aint it.

 

Not everyone drives or has a current passport. Hell, my Grandmother (97 years old) has never been anywhere that needed a passport to go to and has never driven.

 

I agree with the ID card in principle, but I strongly believe it shouldn't cost anything to provide to the public. Ok, I know we ultimately pay for it whichever way it's done, but it would be hard to swallow this much mooted £100 charge to have something that they say is compulsary.

 

How exactly do you lose your freedom btw? What is there that you can no longer do?

[lectro]

how many of you have shoprite or tesco club cards? still worried about privacy? these companies know more about you then any govt would even want to know...

 

i have no problem with an id card provided it replaces my driving licence, passport, organ donor card, etc...

 

personally the day every person can be uniquely identifiable, accountable and recognised will be a good day for humanity.

[Chinahand]

Would you be willing to have your DNA tested and put on the database.

 

Absolutely. Without a second thought.

 

Without a second thought ... and there I was hinting that a second's thought, and a bit of mathematics, was exactly what was needed.

 

The issue isn't about successfully identifying murderers and rapists, its about the people caught up due to a false positive.

 

Here's the maths ... I am pretty certain people are going to be shocked by this.

 

A data base is created with 60,000,000 people on it. When a crime is committed I've said there is a 1 in a thousand chance that the sample is misidentified, there's a mix up in the lab etc [i personally think giving the police are 99.9% reliable is being pretty generous]. So 1 in a thousand of 60,000,000 is 60,000 people could be incorrectly identified. The test has an accuracy of 1 in 5,000,000: the entire sequence isn't done, only segments etc. So again in a population of 60,000,000 there are 12 people who have the same sequence.

 

Add the false positive results to the true positive results: 60,012 people could be identified as the criminal, but only 1 person committed the crime.

 

Ans are you really saying you'd put your DNA into this data base without a second thought when in 60,011 times out of 60,012 times it doesn't give an accurate result.

 

The police use statistics like 1 in 5 million and 99.9% reliable to make it look like its fool proof. It isn't at all, almost quite the opposite. The problem is the difference between the accuracy needed to identify single individuals (actually well more than 1 in 5 million), and the precision of the result: 1 in 1000 chance of a cock up. The fact that the probability of an error is 5000 times larger than the accuracy you need to achieve means it swamps the results.

 

Here's a similar example from the Economist Magazine

 

Try and work out the answer before scrolling down ... IT IS REALLY REALLY IMPORTSNT LAY PEOPLE GET THIS SORT OF THING: JURIES CAN MAKE TERRIBLE MISTAKES IF THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT A 1 IN 5 MILLION DNA SEQUENCE AND A 99.9% ERROR RATE MEANS. WITHOUT OTHER EVIDENCE IT IS VERY UNCLEAR IF THE PERSON IS GUILTY OR NOT

 

You are given the following information. [a] In random testing, you test positive for a disease. In 5% of cases, this test shows positive even when the subject does not have the disease. [c] In the population at large, one person in 1,000 has the disease. What is the probability that you have the disease?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nearly everyone replies: 95%. This is not quite right. The answer is 2%. To see why, consider a population of 1,000 people. Of these, on average, one will have the disease, but 50 others will also test positive. Of those who test positive, therefore, only one in 51, about 2%, will turn out to have the disease. The key is to see that the information in © is crucial. Most people think it irrelevant: the test is “95% reliable”, and that’s that. Try this one on doctors. It deflates their egos wonderfully: they do hardly any better than laymen. In a study carried out in the 1970s, 80% of those questioned at a leading American hospital gave the wrong answer, most of them saying 95%.

[LoneWolf]

There isnt any suggestion the Database would, in addition to storing data, be used as judge, jury, surrogate detective etc, etc.

Shouldnt pose a problem to anyone and on the contrary might have the potential to make a positive contribution to a lot more than crime detection toolkits.

[mannin]

Chinahand, lets say that your partner had been attacked, and there was a sample of DNA left behind, even n your own math, the police would be starting from 60,012:1 (as opposed to 60,000,000:1) chance of finding the right person, if they then dismissed all those on the other side of the world and other factors the would discount them.

Are you starting to get the picture?

[ans]

^^ What they said.

 

I'm more than happy for my DNA profile to be used in conjunction with normal policing procedures. Sorry, but if you can't see this as anything other than a positive step to assist authorities to catch criminals, then you need to take off your tinfoil hat and look at the bigger picture.

 

The wonderful thing about statistics is that you can turn them into anything, as you've so obtusely demonstrated above.

[Chinahand]

^^ What they said.

 

I'm more than happy for my DNA profile to be used in conjunction with normal policing procedures. Sorry, but if you can't see this as anything other than a positive step to assist authorities to catch criminals, then you need to take off your tinfoil hat and look at the bigger picture.

 

The wonderful thing about statistics is that you can turn them into anything, as you've so obtusely demonstrated above.

 

The issue for me is this is no panacea and is going to profoundly change the way policing is done ... the risk the normal policing procedures are going to weaken because of over reliance on the data base is what I am highlighting.

 

Put a venerable person, say a 16 year old, a lazy policeman and a distorted use of "science" to get a confession and you will get multiple miscarriages of justice. Because the confession is there the checks and balances raised by other posters will be less likely to occur. I definitely don't want the person who hypotheticaly raped my sister to get away with it and an innocent person to be conficted because of a flawed use of statistics and science.

 

What happened to the McGuire Seven (was it seven?) and Guilford Four after flawed forensics were used is informative here. They lost 20 plus years of their lives because "the science" said they did it.

 

There are multiple nuances hear and I accept most of what has been said by Lone Wolf, Ans and Mannin, but I feel there should be more acceptance of the problems this will bring than an absolute acceptance without a second thought ... trying to get people to think about this issue is why I posted the topic; it isn't as clear as people (an especially the home office and chief inspectors) claim.

[Chinahand]

Chinahand, lets say that your partner had been attacked, and there was a sample of DNA left behind, even n your own math, the police would be starting from 60,012:1 (as opposed to 60,000,000:1) chance of finding the right person, if they then dismissed all those on the other side of the world and other factors the would discount them.

Are you starting to get the picture?

 

 

Yes I understand, but did the murderer really smoke that cigarette stub, or drink from that glass, or even is that smear sample really from the rapist and not from someone else: sperm can survive in the body for 5 days and one persons sperm forms clumps and blockages in the cervix to stop another persons getting in.

 

There are multiple ways that what is thought to be definitive evidence is in fact a mis-direction and when you've millions and millions of people on the database and 100's of thousands could give a false positive match the vernerable, the alcoholic and the mad are at risk.

[LoneWolf]

Put a venerable person, say a 16 year old, a lazy policeman and a distorted use of "science" to get a confession and you will get multiple miscarriages of justice. Because the confession is there the checks and balances raised by other posters will be less likely to occur. I definitely don't want the person who hypotheticaly raped my sister to get away with it and an innocent person to be conficted because of a flawed use of statistics and science.

Dont think so ChinaHand. Miscarriages of justice would, in principle, be far fewer. The issue you raised previously about false positives is a case in point. Database errors would be swiflty corrected, it would only take a follow up DNA test.

 

What happened to the McGuire Seven (was it seven?) and Guilford Four after flawed forensics were used is informative here. They lost 20 plus years of their lives because "the science" said they did it.

 

A decent data system would have helped their case not worsened it.

I think its probably worth mentioning that the database contains much more than DNA data. It also includes a lot of detailed information about the individuals the DNA belongs to. This is intended to lessen the possibility of false identifications. However, it is this which has caused some concern amongst some civil liberty activists and which has the potential, if misused, to compromise an individuals privacy. This sort of IS, which by definition would be excluded from the Data protection Act, needs careful regulation as to its use in order to protect the right to privacy. Personally, I dont see it is an issue.

[Gladys]

Chinahand

 

How many 16 year olds are venerable?

 

The fear of widespread knowledge in the hands of the authorities who, after all, are only human and subject to the same frailities as the rest of us, is understandable. But, a DNA database must have more certainties than has ever been in the criminal justice system in the past. As with any new criminal detection techniques, it does have an attraction, but care needs to be exercised. I'm sure fingerprints were subject to the same suspicion, but now they are part and parcel of any criminal investigation and, probably now,out-moded by DNA techniques.

[Alex]

Would you be willing to have your DNA tested and put on the database.

Absolutely not. Never.

 

Fingerprints may well have been viewed with suspicion when first introduced, but there is no compulsory fingerprint testing existing either - and I would not be willing to have my fingerprints taken and stored either.