• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

National DNA Database Compulsary?

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #11
    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.

    Comment


      #12
      Originally posted by MarillionFan View Post
      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.
      "A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices," George Orwell

      Comment


        #13
        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.
        I am not qualified to give the above advice!

        The original point and click interface by
        Smith and Wesson.

        Step back, have a think and adjust my own own attitude from time to time

        Comment


          #14
          Originally posted by Troll View Post
          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.

          Comment


            #15
            Originally posted by Clippy View Post

            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.
            "Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience". Mark Twain

            Comment


              #16
              Originally posted by scooterscot View Post
              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.
              "A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices," George Orwell

              Comment


                #17
                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?
                The court heard Darren Upton had written a letter to Judge Sally Cahill QC saying he wasn’t “a typical inmate of prison”.

                But the judge said: “That simply demonstrates your arrogance continues. You are typical. Inmates of prison are people who are dishonest. You are a thoroughly dishonestly man motivated by your own selfish greed.”

                Comment


                  #18
                  Originally posted by Bagpuss View Post
                  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.
                  ‎"See, you think I give a tulip. Wrong. In fact, while you talk, I'm thinking; How can I give less of a tulip? That's why I look interested."

                  Comment


                    #19
                    Originally posted by Paddy View Post
                    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.
                    Work in the public sector? Read the IR35 FAQ here

                    Comment


                      #20
                      Originally posted by OwlHoot View Post
                      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.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X