National DNA Database Compulsary?

[MarillionFan]

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]

I think it would be a good thing, and long overdue.

[threaded]

If you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear, just ask that Shirley McKie

[moorfield]

No. But we all know the implementation of such a database will be a complete balls up.

[Troll]

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]

Does the Panel think that the national database is an infringement of Human Rights?

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

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.

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

[MarillionFan]

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.

[scooterscot]

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]

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]

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.

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.