National DNA database
Discussion
Chatting with a colleague and the subject of all citizens having to register a sample of their DNA with the state came up.
I was instantly opposed; my libertarian nature simply couldn't countenance having any more information about me lodged with the government. But I couldn't really come up with many arguments why. And the longer I pondered, the more and more reasons my colleague came up with why it's a really good idea.
The lefty scumbag's wrong, right?
I was instantly opposed; my libertarian nature simply couldn't countenance having any more information about me lodged with the government. But I couldn't really come up with many arguments why. And the longer I pondered, the more and more reasons my colleague came up with why it's a really good idea.
The lefty scumbag's wrong, right?
One reason is the difficulties of DNA evidence when presented to the generally dim that form a jury.
There has been a fair bit of work on this.
If for example, they are presented with evidence that a DNA match is '1 in a million' it can be seen as pretty damning.
What it means statistically is that the suspect is going to be 1 of a pool of 60 people in the UK who match the profile.
1 in a million chance he didn't do it vs 1 in 60 he did, but the same underlying numbers.
Obviously I simplify, but the way the evidence has been presented has been the subject of studies that have undermined it somewhat.
There has been a fair bit of work on this.
If for example, they are presented with evidence that a DNA match is '1 in a million' it can be seen as pretty damning.
What it means statistically is that the suspect is going to be 1 of a pool of 60 people in the UK who match the profile.
1 in a million chance he didn't do it vs 1 in 60 he did, but the same underlying numbers.
Obviously I simplify, but the way the evidence has been presented has been the subject of studies that have undermined it somewhat.
Primarily it's flawed. As said the way the evidence is presented means that it could be somebody else without the Jury realising it. Also it only shows that the DNA was there. A missing girl's DNA was found at a crime scene in Newcastle. She when alive had never been to Newcastle and when they did find her body it was pretty obvious that the evidence had been found after She died. As a tool to help an investigation it can be very useful. As a means to convict somebody it has to be viewed with more sceptical eyes.
Justayellowbadge said:
One reason is the difficulties of DNA evidence when presented to the generally dim that form a jury.
There has been a fair bit of work on this.
If for example, they are presented with evidence that a DNA match is '1 in a million' it can be seen as pretty damning.
What it means statistically is that the suspect is going to be 1 of a pool of 60 people in the UK who match the profile.
1 in a million chance he didn't do it vs 1 in 60 he did, but the same underlying numbers.
Obviously I simplify, but the way the evidence has been presented has been the subject of studies that have undermined it somewhat.
That's not how it's presented. The standard phrase used in DNA reports is "The likelihood of the DNA matching someone other than, and unrelated to, the suspect is 1 in xxxxx". It's not really saying anything about the DNA per se - it's comparing two different hypotheses : a) that the DNA came from the suspect and b) that it came from someone else who isn't a member of the suspect's family.There has been a fair bit of work on this.
If for example, they are presented with evidence that a DNA match is '1 in a million' it can be seen as pretty damning.
What it means statistically is that the suspect is going to be 1 of a pool of 60 people in the UK who match the profile.
1 in a million chance he didn't do it vs 1 in 60 he did, but the same underlying numbers.
Obviously I simplify, but the way the evidence has been presented has been the subject of studies that have undermined it somewhat.
What it means is that if the defence are saying it was someone else, who isn't related to the suspect, and won't identify him, then the stats. say that there are very few people who would have matching profile. It doesn't mean there are 60 people with that profile, it means that the calculations performed on the database say that the number of profiles possible make it very unlikely that someone else would have that profile - but not impossible.
The problem is that explaining the Bayesian method used and the underlying stats., to non-specialists, is difficult - even for someone who knows how it's done!
One of the debates we're having (I sit on several committees which deal with forensic science) is around the ethical use of DNA profiles. e.g. if it is found, through more detailed analysis of DNA than is currently used, that a suspect is pre-disposed to a particular medical condition, should this be disclosed ? And if so, to whom ?
Extend that argument a little - if the whole population's profiles are available for detailed analysis, do you save money on the NHS by rounding up certain categories and putting them into "fitness camps" for their own good ?
Edited by marshalla on Friday 1st March 16:44
The reason why I don't want a national DNA database is simple. I don't trust the government - here's why...
(1) Civil servants are generally incompetent. I wouldn't trust one to tie their own shoelaces, never mind keep my DNA data safe and secure.
(2) How long until the government sells the data to big business.
(3) The government already knows too much about me.
(4) It's my DNA, I'll choose where (and in whom) I deposit it.
(5) profit???
(6) I have no intention of being woken up at 4am by a crack unit of the SAS, just because my DNA somehow got transferred to a scene of crime by accident.
(7) or, just because my DNA is similar to some terrorist.
(8) or, just because the query/data matching algorithm was contracted to the lowest bidder and is therefore borked.
(9) I also don't want my health/life insurance terminated by my insurer after they do number (2) above.
There is not one single useful purpose for a massive DNA database other than to trawl for medical purposes or getting a hit list of potential criminals. Both of which can be done by having smaller targetted databases.
The government that introduces this, is the one that ends up barricading itself into Downing street whilst massed ranks of villagers with burning torches start gathering...
...you might guess, I am opposed to this!
(1) Civil servants are generally incompetent. I wouldn't trust one to tie their own shoelaces, never mind keep my DNA data safe and secure.
(2) How long until the government sells the data to big business.
(3) The government already knows too much about me.
(4) It's my DNA, I'll choose where (and in whom) I deposit it.
(5) profit???
(6) I have no intention of being woken up at 4am by a crack unit of the SAS, just because my DNA somehow got transferred to a scene of crime by accident.
(7) or, just because my DNA is similar to some terrorist.
(8) or, just because the query/data matching algorithm was contracted to the lowest bidder and is therefore borked.
(9) I also don't want my health/life insurance terminated by my insurer after they do number (2) above.
There is not one single useful purpose for a massive DNA database other than to trawl for medical purposes or getting a hit list of potential criminals. Both of which can be done by having smaller targetted databases.
The government that introduces this, is the one that ends up barricading itself into Downing street whilst massed ranks of villagers with burning torches start gathering...
...you might guess, I am opposed to this!
Well, Imagine you had a civil war going on and one section of the population didn't like another and wanted rid of them, a little like the Serb/Croat ethnic clensing that went on in the late 90s. A big database of who has what DNA might make it very easy to systematically eliminate a whole group. The late 90s were not long ago, have we really advanced sice then ?
Take it further back into history and you will see one group/race have been collectivly picking on other groups/races for as long as man has walked the Earth, we WILL continue to do so.
Right now a lot of people are enjoying a false sence of "it could never happen again" and "oh we are better than that now".
Please note I did not raise the Nazis in case any of the Godwin police pop up and feel smug.
Take it further back into history and you will see one group/race have been collectivly picking on other groups/races for as long as man has walked the Earth, we WILL continue to do so.
Right now a lot of people are enjoying a false sence of "it could never happen again" and "oh we are better than that now".
Please note I did not raise the Nazis in case any of the Godwin police pop up and feel smug.
tangerine_sedge said:
The reason why I don't want a national DNA database is simple. I don't trust the government - here's why...
(1) Civil servants are generally incompetent. I wouldn't trust one to tie their own shoelaces, never mind keep my DNA data safe and secure.
(2) How long until the government sells the data to big business.
(3) The government already knows too much about me.
(4) It's my DNA, I'll choose where (and in whom) I deposit it.
(5) profit???
(6) I have no intention of being woken up at 4am by a crack unit of the SAS, just because my DNA somehow got transferred to a scene of crime by accident.
(7) or, just because my DNA is similar to some terrorist.
(8) or, just because the query/data matching algorithm was contracted to the lowest bidder and is therefore borked.
(9) I also don't want my health/life insurance terminated by my insurer after they do number (2) above.
There is not one single useful purpose for a massive DNA database other than to trawl for medical purposes or getting a hit list of potential criminals. Both of which can be done by having smaller targetted databases.
The government that introduces this, is the one that ends up barricading itself into Downing street whilst massed ranks of villagers with burning torches start gathering...
...you might guess, I am opposed to this!
Yeah, that about sums up my views on this too.(1) Civil servants are generally incompetent. I wouldn't trust one to tie their own shoelaces, never mind keep my DNA data safe and secure.
(2) How long until the government sells the data to big business.
(3) The government already knows too much about me.
(4) It's my DNA, I'll choose where (and in whom) I deposit it.
(5) profit???
(6) I have no intention of being woken up at 4am by a crack unit of the SAS, just because my DNA somehow got transferred to a scene of crime by accident.
(7) or, just because my DNA is similar to some terrorist.
(8) or, just because the query/data matching algorithm was contracted to the lowest bidder and is therefore borked.
(9) I also don't want my health/life insurance terminated by my insurer after they do number (2) above.
There is not one single useful purpose for a massive DNA database other than to trawl for medical purposes or getting a hit list of potential criminals. Both of which can be done by having smaller targetted databases.
The government that introduces this, is the one that ends up barricading itself into Downing street whilst massed ranks of villagers with burning torches start gathering...
...you might guess, I am opposed to this!
I don't trust the government with it. I don't trust the government with any of my data frankly. How many USB sticks and laptops get left on trains every week that we don't hear about? What other information are they selling to the highest bidder we don't know about?
More and more security related tasks are also being auctioned off to the lowest bidder. Bidders whose sole purpose is profit. Not the sort of organisations I want responsible for anything relating my sensitive information.
I'd also echo the sentiments about what data future governments will have access to. A lot can happen in a few months never mind my life time.
More and more security related tasks are also being auctioned off to the lowest bidder. Bidders whose sole purpose is profit. Not the sort of organisations I want responsible for anything relating my sensitive information.
I'd also echo the sentiments about what data future governments will have access to. A lot can happen in a few months never mind my life time.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff