PDA

View Full Version : National DNA Database Compulsary?



MarillionFan
23rd February 2008, 08:11
Does the Panel think that the national database is an infringement of Human Rights?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7260164.stm

Diver
23rd February 2008, 08:18
I think it would be a good thing, and long overdue.

threaded
23rd February 2008, 09:09
If you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear, just ask that Shirley McKie (http://www.innocent.org.uk/misc/fingerprints.html)

moorfield
23rd February 2008, 09:16
No. But we all know the implementation of such a database will be a complete balls up.

Troll
23rd February 2008, 09:22
No. But we all know the implementation of such a database will be a complete balls up.But the database is already up and running -so it would presumably be a matter of scaling up (more tin?) but I'm sure EDS or similar would be involved to completely redesign, upscale, cross link and completely ar*e up what is currently there, in return for billions

Troll
23rd February 2008, 09:38
Does the Panel think that the national database is an infringement of Human Rights?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7260164.stmAnnoyingly I can see both sides of the argument- it would be easy to capture from birth with the neonatal diagnostic screening blood sample - so would only require the intermediate 70 years of citizens to register.

But there again:
why should I be on it if I done nothing wrong
who would have access to the information
What use would the information be put
they could identify all those ciggie butts I've littered over the years

and there again
It would provide a quick method for identifying suspects
possibly deter offences


dunno :confused:

MarillionFan
23rd February 2008, 09:44
No-one ever seems to bring up the point that this system is the ultimate big brother.

All DNA for all people. Screening, insurance purposes, family similarities, the abuse of such a system would be appalling. Within a 10 year cycle political swings can be massive.

How about a Nazi style government, or the repatriation of all foriegners with a particular DNA strand, just Pakistanis, or Iraqis, or Jews.

Then as technology moves forward, the ability to clone, the ability to track or 'sniff' for DNA remotely, from space, by camera.

The system is an abomination and the pro's of crime detection are not outweighed by the cons of misuse and big brother.:mad

scooterscot
23rd February 2008, 09:55
Does the Panel think that the national database is an infringement of Human Rights?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7260164.stm

A DNA database would be a wonderful thing when it comes to finding the criminal.

A DNA database would be a awful thing for the rest of us law abiding citizens.



I would not trust the government for a second on such a proposal no matter how much they sexed it up.
Agree with MF where would it end?



As for the criminals, it does not seem to me the answer we should be seeking is 'how quickly we can find them after the said crime has been committed', but rather preventing the crime from ever taking place in first instance.


I think a first step towards this would be proposing a sentence that fits the crime.

VectraMan
23rd February 2008, 10:36
The danger is that it's seen as irrifutable proof. Even if the science is 100%, the human component isn't and a CSI-type might make an honest mistake, or a malicious one, and match a sample with an innocent person.

It doesn't even need to be tested in court: the innocent accused might be best advised not to try to clear his name but plead guilty in the hope of a lighter sentence. And then we might never know how many mistakes are being made.

Still, no matter how paranoid you are you have to admit that it'll *probably* work in 99% of cases, and will result in guilty people being caught sooner.

OwlHoot
23rd February 2008, 10:50
No-one ever seems to bring up the point that this system is the ultimate big brother.

All DNA for all people. Screening, insurance purposes, family similarities, the abuse of such a system would be appalling. Within a 10 year cycle political swings can be massive.

How about a Nazi style government, or the repatriation of all foriegners with a particular DNA strand, just Pakistanis, or Iraqis, or Jews.

Then as technology moves forward, the ability to clone, the ability to track or 'sniff' for DNA remotely, from space, by camera.

The system is an abomination and the pro's of crime detection are not outweighed by the cons of misuse and big brother.:mad

Well said MF. Damn right!

Also, the more entries in the DNA database the closer they are to each other on average, which increases the chance of wrong matches and at the very least reduces the reliability of matches. I think there have already been DNA mismatches in this country, although I can't be bothered to check.

There's also the trust aspect, which isn't so easy to pin down exactly but is just as important in the long run: Putting everyone on the database makes us all potential suspects who need actively excluding in every case of murder and rape.

By seeking to eliminate the need for trust in people's good sense and responsibility (even if that trust is sometimes misplaced), it demeans us all, similar to how the Government's bossy nannying campaigns infantilizes everyone and restricts their freedom indiscriminately.

This is more than just some a philosophical argument which doesn't affect anyone's attitude, because people come to behave in ways expected of them, and if those expectations are low to non-existent the whole tone of society deteriorates to a state where everyone becomes literally a slave to the collective will.

Clippy
23rd February 2008, 12:06
Very valid views which are probably held by a lot of the public.

However, if something like this looks like coming in, does anyone seriously think the general public will mobilise (march, protest) to prevent this?

I seriously doubt it - the degree of apathy that seems to afflict us nowadays is shocking.

As a society, the more we seem to advance technologically, the more willing we seem to be to having our civil liberties infringed upon.

It's only a matter of time before some national db comes into existence to which additional elements can then be added to - DNA, travel history etc.

Would I protest? No.
Why? Because it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference!

On a similar theme (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/feb/23/uksecurity.terrorismandtravel).

Paddy
23rd February 2008, 12:35
Does the Panel think that the national database is an infringement of Human Rights?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7260164.stm


No. Infact I am just getting my sample blob ready, only two more minutes to go.

The Lone Gunman
23rd February 2008, 12:38
I have concerns that pressure will be brought to bare by insurance companies and others to have access to this database and will possibly stop offering insurance due to genetic make up of the client. It may require better technology but that will come.

There have already been errors with DNA matching for crimes. I cant quote but do remember that a method used by UK does not match whole DNA but uses a much more rapid matching system that uses partial samples. There is some concern as to its validity. Last I heard we had the usual "we wouldn't use it if it didn't work" when clearly we do.

There are so many chances for failure of the base wrong ID with DNA etc. I do not trust the competance of those who will get the job.

On the other hand I would be happy to see teh Police being able to go straight to the front door of the scrotes.

ASB
23rd February 2008, 13:00
Annoyingly I can see both sides of the argument- it would be easy to capture from birth with the neonatal diagnostic screening blood sample - so would only require the intermediate 70 years of citizens to register.

I understand the a number - perhaps all - health authorities take samples at birth. This is primarily for defence in case of medical negligence cases.

I find it difficult to accept these are genuinely destroyed or unavailable to anybody else.

Most forces will test groups of population under certain circumstances "to eliminate them from our inquiries". The default is that these are recorded, and kept, on the national database.

Curiously our government and chief constables believe that the vast majority of active criminals now have their DNA recorded. If the purpose of it was remotely related to crime I think rather more crime would be solved using it.

Personally having seen the criminal justice system from the wrong side there is no way on gods earth I would ever give a DNA sample voluntarily.

scooterscot
23rd February 2008, 13:53
Would I protest? No.
Why? Because it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference!



know what you mean. Tony and friends ignored thousands of protesters on the street leading up to the iraq war, it was like we were not there.

That memory will stay with me for a long time to come.

Paddy
23rd February 2008, 14:28
know what you mean. Tony and friends ignored thousands of protesters on the street leading up to the iraq war, it was like we were not there.

That memory will stay with me for a long time to come.

Me too. It was also an eye-opener to the purposeful misreporting from the BBC. The BBC played down the numbers of protesters to a “only few thousand marchers” when there was well over 2,000,000. To belittle the marchers a couple of weeks latter the BBC reported that 3,000,000 people crowded in London to watch the England Rugby Team in Oxford Street which was an absolute outright lie.

Bagpuss
23rd February 2008, 14:44
It is possible to carry the DNA of people you have never met from places you have never been, DNA evidence is not allways in itself conclusive in proving guilt, yet it is perceived to be.

What is freedom? should the state be entitled to your organs? should they have your DNA, should they own us? perhaps we should ask for permission when leaving the house? Unless you have something to hide (and we suspect you do) what is the problem?

Moscow Mule
23rd February 2008, 17:03
Unless you have something to hide (and we suspect you do) what is the problem?

This is a very poor argument for removing civil liberties.

The problem is, once everybody's DNA is available who is to say who can have access to that DNA profile. If insurance companies get hold of it then we will definitely see people being excluded from cover.

We've already seen feature creep on the DVLA database, with private companies being allowed access to the data.

It is a fact that government cannot be trusted to safeguard this data.

OwlHoot
23rd February 2008, 19:27
Me too. It was also an eye-opener to the purposeful misreporting from the BBC.

It's not just the BBC - Channel 4 for some reason is now every bit as bad if not worse.

Only yesterday I happened to see an interview on Channel 4 News with an anti-DNA-database campaigner. She was an unassuming academic, who put her points firmly and cogently, but was confronted (literally) by some obnoxious hectoring harpy of an interviewer blatantly trying to rubbish everything she said.

If an interviewee is a politician, or obviously being evasive, then by all means give them the Paxman treatment. Even play devil's advocate with cooperative interviewees, to cover more angles and express both sides of the argument. But this seemed like sickening and totally unjustified partiality.

Gonzo
23rd February 2008, 20:07
There's also the trust aspect, which isn't so easy to pin down exactly but is just as important in the long run: Putting everyone on the database makes us all potential suspects who need actively excluding in every case of murder and rape.This is the big thing for me.

I haven't checked, but I am pretty sure that the Police have no idea about who I am.

Creating the DNA database turns us all into suspects for every crime. That is a colossal shift in the relationship between the individual and the state, and not one that I would want to see.

Although it could be argued that it is no shift at all because we are technically all subjects of the monarch and not citizens, but I think most of us believe that we should be citizens.

Sadly, I am sure that it will eventually come in, but I see a potential plan B here. You need a crime committing? Then I am sure that someone can get a foreigner in to do it for you. :rolleyes:

Lucifer Box
25th February 2008, 11:32
There are so many things wrong with this proposal I don't even know where to start. I would go to prison rather than hand over my or my childrens' DNA profile. What right does the state have to something that is inherently mine? Ooooh, I'm so cross I can scarcely type.

Just a handful of the many points that should be made.

1. It turns policing from pro-active crime prevention into reactive crime solution. Resources will be diverted into capturing, maintaining and using the database rather than detering crime. Possible even crime will rise but detection rates will too so target boxes are ticked so who cares. This is similar to the problem with traffic policing now. Traffic cops are few and far between because resources have been switched into cameras and fining and so on.

2. Because DNA profiling does not compare genomes and only about 20 fingerprint sections, your "profile" is shared by, on average, 6-10 people. Those 6-10 people are most likely to live somewhere within your geographic area of origin. It constantly amazes me that in courts it is stated by the prosecution and without challenge that the chances of this DNA not being yours are a billion to one. Well, that's true if DNA profiles are distributed randomly around the globe, but they're not. The true odds could be as low as a millionth of that for small communities.

3. How long before this information is used to deny free NHS treatment to "at risk" groups in the interests of "fairness"?

4. Argh, I could go on forever but have lost the will in the face of this creeping fascism.

daviejones
25th February 2008, 11:33
Does the Panel think that the national database is an infringement of Human Rights?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7260164.stm

No, Next.

DimPrawn
25th February 2008, 11:37
There are so many things wrong with this proposal I don't even know where to start. I would go to prison rather than hand over my or my childrens' DNA profile. What right does the state have to something that is inherently mine? Ooooh, I'm so cross I can scarcely type.

Just a handful of the many points that should be made.

1. It turns policing from pro-active crime prevention into reactive crime solution. Resources will be diverted into capturing, maintaining and using the database rather than detering crime. Possible even crime will rise but detection rates will too so target boxes are ticked so who cares. This is similar to the problem with traffic policing now. Traffic cops are few and far between because resources have been switched into cameras and fining and so on.

2. Because DNA profiling does not compare genomes and only about 20 fingerprint sections, your "profile" is shared by, on average, 6-10 people. Those 6-10 people are most likely to live somewhere within your geographic area of origin. It constantly amazes me that in courts it is stated by the prosecution and without challenge that the chances of this DNA not being yours are a billion to one. Well, that's true if DNA profiles are distributed randomly around the globe, but they're not. The true odds could be as low as a millionth of that for small communities.

3. How long before this information is used to deny free NHS treatment to "at risk" groups in the interests of "fairness"?

4. Argh, I could go on forever but have lost the will in the face of this creeping fascism.

DNA holds clues to your health and well being.

When insurance companies, banks, employers and the like start offering New Lie large sums of money for access to the data, you can bet they will get access, and you will become a victim of DNA discrimination.

Also, when you are suspected of not voting labour, not paying your "fair" share of tax, or look a bit like a "terrorist", you might find you DNA at a crime scene. Know what I mean? :wink

Lucifer Box
25th February 2008, 11:52
No, Next.
No reason to rest easy. We already have the largest DNA database in the world containing many records, including those of children, who have never been charged with or cautioned for any offence.

The police already have the power to forcibly take a DNA sample from you at any time as they no longer have to provide you with a reason for arrest or indeed have one themselves. It is no longer a requirement to suspect a crime to arrest someone, it can be done merely if the arresting officer believes it is "necessary".

Troll
25th February 2008, 12:43
There are so many things wrong with this proposal I don't even know where to start. I would go to prison rather than hand over my or my childrens' DNA profile. What right does the state have to something that is inherently mine? Ooooh, I'm so cross I can scarcely type.

Just a handful of the many points that should be made.

1. It turns policing from pro-active crime prevention into reactive crime solution. Resources will be diverted into capturing, maintaining and using the database rather than detering crime. Possible even crime will rise but detection rates will too so target boxes are ticked so who cares. This is similar to the problem with traffic policing now. Traffic cops are few and far between because resources have been switched into cameras and fining and so on.

2. Because DNA profiling does not compare genomes and only about 20 fingerprint sections, your "profile" is shared by, on average, 6-10 people. Those 6-10 people are most likely to live somewhere within your geographic area of origin. It constantly amazes me that in courts it is stated by the prosecution and without challenge that the chances of this DNA not being yours are a billion to one. Well, that's true if DNA profiles are distributed randomly around the globe, but they're not. The true odds could be as low as a millionth of that for small communities.

3. How long before this information is used to deny free NHS treatment to "at risk" groups in the interests of "fairness"?All valid points... but if, God forbid something untoward happened to your kids would you be so negative?

If we had a Yorkshire Ripper style serial killer on the loose (and remember he innocent women too) would it not be helpful in tracking down the suspect before he killed again?

BrilloPad
25th February 2008, 12:51
All valid points... but if, God forbid something untoward happened to your kids would you be so negative?

If we had a Yorkshire Ripper style serial killer on the loose (and remember he innocent women too) would it not be helpful in tracking down the suspect before he killed again?

contender for post of the week?

certainly if anything happened to my kids I would (probably) change my mind instantly. But I have been on the receiving end of a government with no morals just because I dont like being screwed over when I got divorced.

One could argue that freedom is just the freedom to commit crime. We should all be tagged and monitored lest we should suddenly become a criminal.

I would also change my mind if I was made prime minister.

Marina
25th February 2008, 12:54
No, Next.

Sometimes a terse dismissive response is funny, but in a serious discussion like this it just looks a bit sad.

Care to elaborate on "No", or are you one of the self-deluding "nothing to fear if you're innocent" brigade?

tay
25th February 2008, 12:57
Sometimes a terse dismissive response is funny, but in a serious discussion like this it just looks a bit sad.

:yay:

Troll
25th February 2008, 13:06
contender for post of the week?

certainly if anything happened to my kids I would (probably) change my mind instantly. But I have been on the receiving end of a government with no morals just because I dont like being screwed over when I got divorced.

One could argue that freedom is just the freedom to commit crime. We should all be tagged and monitored lest we should suddenly become a criminal.

I would also change my mind if I was made prime minister.Hence my earlier post in seeing both sides of the argument.

There seems to be a large amount of old but still open crimes being 'soved' by revisiting in the light of advances in DNA technique especially 'familiar' DNA where a match can be extrapolated from a familiy relative - must be a good thing to give closure to a long running grievance.

The chap who was only aquitted of murder after 18? years because DNA testing proved he couldn't be responsible - & the real murderer caught because a motoring offence resulted in a sample - have to say I expect both parties would have views on the matter

My gut reaction is to say no to national sampling as I have done nothing wrong - but if because of this someone went undetected to commit another crime is that right?

Marina
25th February 2008, 13:13
All valid points... but if, God forbid something untoward happened to your kids would you be so negative?

If we had a Yorkshire Ripper style serial killer on the loose (and remember he innocent women too) would it not be helpful in tracking down the suspect before he killed again?

Someone like that would almost certainly have committed some violent offence in the past and be on the DNA database anyway. Hardly anyone disputes that serious criminals convicted of violent offences should have their DNA retained for a long time or indefinitely.

And with assurances that samples wouldn't be kept, or used in any other less serious investigation , there'd be every reason for responsible people, or even suspects, not on the database to volunteer samples and narrow down the suspects.


Not many would if DNA testing was being used for everything, including frivolous purposes like the example someone mentioned earlier of testing fag butts and litter found in the street.

It might not seem like it, but there is a difference between this and keeping samples of everyone to test at will - One puts trust in citizens to cooperate, and the other treats them like children (as OwlHoot mentioned earlier).

Ruprect
25th February 2008, 13:17
Personally I'm sickened that this ever came to a national debate. What do you think your government is there for?

There was a good piece in the observer yesterday about this - pointing out that both of the offenders were picked up due to the fact that they had committed other crimes.

We need a government that is representative of the people and respectful of their privacy. This government is the opposite of that. New Labour New Socialism - we're currently sleepwalking towards an Orwellian police state. Please lets do something about it before its too late.

scooterscot
25th February 2008, 13:21
My gut reaction is to say no to national sampling as I have done nothing wrong - but if because of this someone went undetected to commit another crime is that right?

No it's not.

I understand what you are saying, yes, what if someone who is realised early commits another crime, what if someone who social services fail to assess properly and make a poor decision is realised early and commits crime, no one can argue with this.

All these stories tell me, when I read them, is the drastic failing of our once proud services who are now struggling in an overcrowded overcommitted country.

I think it would be all too easy for everyone to turn on the blinkers and not see this argument for what it is, from the position of the government, one quick solution to solve all problems. What an arrogant lazy assumption.

Bottom line, at no point should the liberties of the masses be sacrificed for the criminal few.

PS. Queenie would you please sack your government, they are failing those who they are meant to serve.

Churchill
25th February 2008, 13:27
All valid points... but if, God forbid something untoward happened to your kids would you be so negative?

If we had a Yorkshire Ripper style serial killer on the loose (and remember he innocent women too) would it not be helpful in tracking down the suspect before he killed again?

Why do people insist on dragging up this emotional chestnut?

Think of the kiddies, oh my god think of the kiddies!!!!

Get ****ed!

Ruprect
25th February 2008, 13:28
Bottom line, at no point should the liberties of the masses be sacrificed for the criminal few.


:yay: :yay: :yay: :yay: :yay: :yay: :yay: :yay:

Well said.

DimPrawn
25th February 2008, 13:33
Why do people insist on dragging up this emotional chestnut?

Think of the kiddies, oh my god think of the kiddies!!!!

Get ****ed!

Well said.

Anyone who is against a national DNA database is effectively giving the green light to criminals to kill all our children and rape our wives. Something like that.

Troll
25th February 2008, 13:33
Why do people insist on dragging up this emotional chestnut?

Think of the kiddies, oh my god think of the kiddies!!!!

Get ****ed!
Because the most emotional crimes are those that involve children who are unable to physically defend themselves and rely on adults to protect them

The rest tends to be the usual outside the kebab shop Saturday night type stuff

HTH

SueEllen
25th February 2008, 13:34
Well said.

Anyone who is against a national DNA database is effectively giving the green light to criminals to kill all our children and rape our wives. Something like that.

Most children are killed by people who are well-known to them and in fact related to them.

And most rapes are done by men well-known to the woman.

DimPrawn
25th February 2008, 13:37
Most children are killed by people who are well-known to them and in fact related to them.

And most rapes are done by men well-known to the woman.

I know. But without the emotional blackmail, how are the New Lie going to reach their dystopian goals?

Troll
25th February 2008, 13:44
Most children are killed by people who are well-known to them and in fact related to themand they are the ones that are usually easy to solve with existing techniques.

It's the attacks by strangers that this (mainly) would address

Troll
25th February 2008, 13:45
All these stories tell me, when I read them, is the drastic failing of our once proud services who are now struggling in an overcrowded overcommitted country.So it's the fault of the immigrants.... like it!

Churchill
25th February 2008, 13:57
Because the most emotional crimes are those that involve children who are unable to physically defend themselves and rely on adults to protect them

The rest tends to be the usual outside the kebab shop Saturday night type stuff

HTH

I refer you to my earlier post.

And for clarification...

Get ****ed again!

SueEllen
25th February 2008, 13:59
and they are the ones that are usually easy to solve with existing techniques.

It's the attacks by strangers that this (mainly) would address

Can't remember the statistics for it but attacks from strangers for both children and women are very rare.

All the DNA will prove is that the person known to the family or indeed family member is likely to be the child's killer.

BankingContractor
25th February 2008, 14:00
That's just a stupid question to ask - of course he'd change his mind if that scenario happened.

The point is to come up with the answer that is best for society, rationally, responsibly and honestly, and not when someone's under extreme emotional stress.

We all moan how Middle East punishements are so barbaric when they end up killing the perpetrator, but then go on a vigilante hunt and ask to bring back hanging when a heinous crime is commit. We need to decide before the event and not in a reactionary manner afterwards.



All valid points... but if, God forbid something untoward happened to your kids would you be so negative?

If we had a Yorkshire Ripper style serial killer on the loose (and remember he innocent women too) would it not be helpful in tracking down the suspect before he killed again?

KathyWoolfe
25th February 2008, 14:08
I am against a National DNA database mainly because I distrust the people who would run it and the people who would use it.

Yes, it would make finding criminals easier and even easier to convict someone when they are caught.

But what happens when you run foul of some policeman (say in traffic) and he makes a wrong call and you get the best of him.
What is to stop him getting revenge by planting your DNA at some crime scene. Not a lot I suspect.

It wasn't that long ago that an innocent guy was shot dead in a tube train and all the police got in way of remonstration was a reproof for "not following Health and Safety Guidelines".

So, no. The system is far too open to abuse and pure downright incompetence to be considered.
I would rather a guilty man go free than an innocent man be convicted.

Troll
25th February 2008, 14:09
I refer you to my earlier post.

And for clarification...

Get ****ed again!diddums

Churchill
25th February 2008, 14:39
diddums

You're the one playing the emotional blackmail card.

It's tits like you who end up doing the government's dirty work for them.

scooterscot
25th February 2008, 15:23
So it's the fault of the immigrants.... like it!

I think they have a hand to play...

Lucifer Box
25th February 2008, 16:13
All valid points... but if, God forbid something untoward happened to your kids would you be so negative?

If we had a Yorkshire Ripper style serial killer on the loose (and remember he innocent women too) would it not be helpful in tracking down the suspect before he killed again?
No, because that is a null argument.

You could make that argument about any procedure and to justify any procedure. For example, CCTV cameras in everyone's house and all citizens to wear locator tags at all times. After all, it would stop your children from being killed by a serial killer right?

Wrong.

Peoplesoft bloke
25th February 2008, 17:13
This is a (mostly) quality debate.

I am opposed to a universal DNA database for the same reasons I've been actively campaigning against ID cards for the last 3 years.

It is morally wrong to change the relationship we have with the state and assume we are all suspects.

However, even if it wasn't morally wrong, it just won't do the wonderful things claimed for it - any more than CCTV has stopped crime or speed cameras have stopped people speeding.

That said, one could argue that slavery was pointless because machines were more effective - but slavery would still be morally wrong, and so is any form of the government stealing our identities and licensing them back to us.

SueEllen
25th February 2008, 17:39
I think they have a hand to play...

No the UK government has a hand to play.

There the ones who brought in the legislation inviting people into the UK from the Commonwealth, allowing people UK citizenship based on marriage and allowing people from other EU states to work in the UK unchecked.

Anyway are EU nationals going to be on the DNA database? If they are what is the criteria for putting them on the database? Will other EU states shout foul if their nationals are on the UK database?

Otherwise all unsolved crimes are just going to be blamed on EU nationals as non-EU nationals in the UK are going to have to provide DNA samples as part of UK entry requirements according to other government proposals.

scooterscot
25th February 2008, 19:16
And the ones that weren't invited? I'm nearly certain those are the ones causing the problems...

Peoplesoft bloke
25th February 2008, 19:50
And the ones that weren't invited? I'm nearly certain those are the ones causing the problems...
If that is true, of course, there's no chance of ID cards and/or compulsory DNA testing being any use in combating the problems......

Sysman
25th February 2008, 21:05
But what happens when you run foul of some policeman (say in traffic) and he makes a wrong call and you get the best of him.

What is to stop him getting revenge by planting your DNA at some crime scene. Not a lot I suspect.

As an example of policemen abusing their power, sometime back in the 1980s I was chatting up a rather nice lady, and a bloke came up and threatened me that he was a copper, she was his brother's gf, and if I didn't leave her alone, I'd get harassed by the local squad.

As simple as that, no legal offence involved. Needless to say, I cleared off.

OwlHoot
25th February 2008, 21:11
It may sound slightly corny by now, but there's yet another angle to this: just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done.

Aside from the Government's fascist tendencies, and no doubt also those of the EU and the US egging them on officially or otherwise, I think there's a naive impulse at work here simply to adopt a new technology to its utmost just because it's there and new (and God knows, Liebore are novelty hounds if nothing else).

As IT contractors we must all have seen at some time (or written - I've been guilty now and then in self-training mode!), way over-engineered software using all kinds of bells and whistles that may be ideal in some situations but are beyond what is required for a typical application.

The same thing happens with most new technologies - take castles for example. The oldest surviving Norman castle is the Keep at Montmacon in France, completed in about 1000, which was about the time they started using stone in place of wood.

And with these new stone castles a bizarre fashion started - walling people up and leaving them to starve and/or suffocate to death in a sealed room. They even had a phrase for it: "mewing up" (presumably from the pitiful noise a starving prisoner made, assuming they could be heard).

This went on for two or three hundred years - For example, Bad King John had several dozen French knights starved to death in the dungeons of Corfe Castle (although in fairness the Frogs were doing the same to a comparable number of English soldiers and refused an exchange).

It was quite a while before people twigged that bricking people up in rooms wasn't such a good idea, because with half the rooms inaccessible and occupied by skeletons there was (a) less room for the living, (b) more irate ghosts wandering the corridors, and (c) maybe a bit more cruel than necessary and inviting similar retialiation.

Hopefully this grim example doesn't sound too offbeat and irrelevant to the problem of DNA databases. But if nothing else it shows how enthusiastic control freaks can misuse a new technology even where one might least expect that was possible!

Sysman
25th February 2008, 21:20
No, because that is a null argument.

You could make that argument about any procedure and to justify any procedure. For example, CCTV cameras in everyone's house and all citizens to wear locator tags at all times. After all, it would stop your children from being killed by a serial killer right?

Wrong.

On the Yorkshire Ripper case, I lived in West Yorkshire when he was still on the loose. There were tons of late night roadblocks where you had to give your name, address, car number, but this was in the days before cheap computing came along, so they were analysing the information with a paperwork system. It turned out that the Ripper had owned half a dozen cars during a critical period of the investigation, and that threw them (I would make the guess here that the paperwork system was indexed by car number). In other words, they had the data to make him a suspect, but not the technology to process it effectively.

In fact they did take him in for questioning at least once, but let him go. Just a simple database instead of that paperwork system would have probably supplied enough evidence to hold him for longer.

MarillionFan
25th February 2008, 21:26
Last edited by Sysman as 21:22.

Mmmmm. What are you hiding Jack?????!!!!!!!

Peoplesoft bloke
25th February 2008, 21:52
On the Yorkshire Ripper case, I lived in West Yorkshire when he was still on the loose. There were tons of late night roadblocks where you had to give your name, address, car number, but this was in the days before cheap computing came along, so they were analysing the information with a paperwork system. It turned out that the Ripper had owned half a dozen cars during a critical period of the investigation, and that threw them (I would make the guess here that the paperwork system was indexed by car number). In other words, they had the data to make him a suspect, but not the technology to process it effectively.

In fact they did take him in for questioning at least once, but let him go. Just a simple database instead of that paperwork system would have probably supplied enough evidence to hold him for longer.
Do you have any detailed knowledge of how they conducted this investigation or are you just supposing they were hampered by lack of a database rather than other factors?

How exactly do you think a database would have delivered evidence allowing them to hold the ripper for longer?

DimPrawn
25th February 2008, 22:05
Surely if New Labour had a DNA database of everyone in the UK, and CCTV cameras on every street and electronic tagging with GPS of every citizen and every home were bugged and spy satellites tracked every living being, and every telephone conversation were recorded, we'd live in a crime free utopia?

Can't wait.

AtW
25th February 2008, 22:11
Good idea - should be enforced by all chat boards to prevent multiple IDs as well :mad

Sysman
25th February 2008, 22:40
Mmmmm. What are you hiding Jack?????!!!!!!!
Nowt. Just added the last sentence.

Sysman
25th February 2008, 23:04
Do you have any detailed knowledge of how they conducted this investigation or are you just supposing they were hampered by lack of a database rather than other factors?

I was already in IT at the time, and we discussed this at work. We knew what data they were collecting, as we were in plenty of checks ourselves. We even had a (possibly beer fuelled) discussion about offering our services to write the software to get the data at least indexed (we didn't have a proper database system at the time). That still wouldn't have helped if just looking for a match on car numbers of course.

I'm pretty sure the fact that he'd had 6 different cars was reported in the press as a reason that had hindered the investigation. Simple human error - an assumption that the Ripper wouldn't have had so many cars.


How exactly do you think a database would have delivered evidence allowing them to hold the ripper for longer?

A simple database query on name and address instead of car number. Of course that's with the benefit of hindsight. :(

Peoplesoft bloke
27th February 2008, 13:00
I was already in IT at the time, and we discussed this at work. We knew what data they were collecting, as we were in plenty of checks ourselves. We even had a (possibly beer fuelled) discussion about offering our services to write the software to get the data at least indexed (we didn't have a proper database system at the time). That still wouldn't have helped if just looking for a match on car numbers of course.

I'm pretty sure the fact that he'd had 6 different cars was reported in the press as a reason that had hindered the investigation. Simple human error - an assumption that the Ripper wouldn't have had so many cars.



A simple database query on name and address instead of car number. Of course that's with the benefit of hindsight. :(

This is interesting, but doesn't really answer the question about what it is about having the data in a database that would have allowed for earlier capture or longer detention of the ripper.

To be clear, I don't disagree that a database would have enabled much faster searches and comparisons - but I'm not convinced (either way) that it would have been a significant factor without the appropriate thinking from the users :-)

MarillionFan
28th April 2018, 09:04
Does the Panel think that the national database is an infringement of Human Rights?

BBC NEWS | UK | Mandatory DNA database rejected (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7260164.stm)

Worrying turn, now they're searching ancestor sites and using that data.

Serial killer search led to wrong man in 2017 | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5663551/Use-DNA-serial-killer-probe-sparks-privacy-concerns.html)

http://www.michellgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/big-brother-is-watching-you.png

MF was right.

Zigenare
28th April 2018, 09:10
Worrying turn, now they're searching ancestor sites and using that data.

Serial killer search led to wrong man in 2017 | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5663551/Use-DNA-serial-killer-probe-sparks-privacy-concerns.html)
MF was right.

There's always a first time.

SueEllen
28th April 2018, 10:10
There's always a first time.

In the form of "a stopped clock is right twice a day" you mean/

vetran
28th April 2018, 10:58
Worrying turn, now they're searching ancestor sites and using that data.

Serial killer search led to wrong man in 2017 | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5663551/Use-DNA-serial-killer-probe-sparks-privacy-concerns.html)


MF was right.

so a historical brutal rapist & murderer is caught by DNA but the false positive of a relative they came across first because the database wasn't properly organised or regulated had to provide a DNA sample. So long as the sample was taken politely and they didn't take the BBC's helicopter I have no issue with it.


It is no different to police investigating a pie theft talking to a witness and them saying " I saw this really fat bloke trying to run away smeared with pastry shouting 'I should be in the first class lounge'" and them interviewing any suspects that came to mind :grin.

I'm all for Police using DNA if it is properly managed. We use fingerprints, why not DNA?

SueEllen
28th April 2018, 12:33
so a historical brutal rapist & murderer is caught by DNA but the false positive of a relative they came across first because the database wasn't properly organised or regulated had to provide a DNA sample. So long as the sample was taken politely and they didn't take the BBC's helicopter I have no issue with it.


It is no different to police investigating a pie theft talking to a witness and them saying " I saw this really fat bloke trying to run away smeared with pastry shouting 'I should be in the first class lounge'" and them interviewing any suspects that came to mind :grin.

I'm all for Police using DNA if it is properly managed. We use fingerprints, why not DNA?

The police in England and Wales have already done that.

There was a man's sister(?) on the database and they got him by using her DNA.

Runster
28th April 2018, 12:42
But the database is already up and running -so it would presumably be a matter of scaling up (more tin?) but I'm sure EDS or similar would be involved to completely redesign, upscale, cross link and completely ar*e up what is currently there, in return for billions

It is. I worked two contracts at the Forensic Science Service on it when they hosted it. Govt got rid of FSS, think it went to the Home Office afterward.

vetran
28th April 2018, 12:51
The police in England and Wales have already done that.

There was a man's sister(?) on the database and they got him by using her DNA.

Good!

If my DNA was a familial match to a serial killer I would be morally obliged to help, wouldn't you?

MarillionFan
28th April 2018, 16:23
Good!

If my DNA was a familial match to a serial killer I would be morally obliged to help, wouldn't you?

Depends if it was your dad and he was a cereal killer.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-hjFLyD9fwos/VNd9zOGGYYI/AAAAAAAAPAs/IyELOzR7n0k/s1600/honey%2Bmonster.jpg

Benny
28th April 2018, 17:35
There's always a first time.

Have you ever been a Volvo owner perchance?

SueEllen
28th April 2018, 17:42
It is. I worked two contracts at the Forensic Science Service on it when they hosted it. Govt got rid of FSS, think it went to the Home Office afterward.It went extinct as police forces started using outside companies.