Being Fingerprinted, DNA taken, etc
Discussion
So when a person is arrested they have their fingerprints taken, along with a photo and with DNA samples. Presumably this is kept even if a person is later found to be innocent, the argument for doing so being that it might help with enquiries later in the future, for completely different crimes.
So why not take DNA samples at birth? (or do they?) If the police are insistant that they have a DNA sample for an innocent person 'just in case', then why not do a complete sweep and get everyones DNA on file now?
So why not take DNA samples at birth? (or do they?) If the police are insistant that they have a DNA sample for an innocent person 'just in case', then why not do a complete sweep and get everyones DNA on file now?
ehyouwhat said:
So when a person is arrested they have their fingerprints taken, along with a photo and with DNA samples. Presumably this is kept even if a person is later found to be innocent, the argument for doing so being that it might help with enquiries later in the future, for completely different crimes.
There's no argument - it's establishing a national DNA database by stealth. Arrests without enquiry are common, arrests for breathing too loud are now possible, anything's possible and there's no need for difficult prevention so long as there's easy scientific detection. ehyouwhat said:
So why not take DNA samples at birth? (or do they?) If the police are insistant that they have a DNA sample for an innocent person 'just in case', then why not do a complete sweep and get everyones DNA on file now?
That would require political and popular approval, both (the latter in particular) would be difficult. So, easy peasy, arrest people for anything and bingo you're well on the way without bothering parliament or the people.So, and I recognise that this would be impossible to get proof of, people should really be able to ask that their personal specifics are removed from any database should they not be convicted of a crime?
A pal of mine got pulled and arrested for Dangerous Driving a little while back. He left the police station a couple of hours later with no ongoing charges, but he commented that he'd had a mouth swab, fingerprints and photo taken. Seems very unfair given that he hadn't done anything wrong.
A pal of mine got pulled and arrested for Dangerous Driving a little while back. He left the police station a couple of hours later with no ongoing charges, but he commented that he'd had a mouth swab, fingerprints and photo taken. Seems very unfair given that he hadn't done anything wrong.
The Police love DNA. Mathematically illiterate juries actually buy the "there is 1 in 30 billion chance of this being wrong" line ; which is absolute cr*p, as any educated fule kno.
Unfortunately illiterate statistical arguments sound good to the cretinous mob that forms the modern jury.
Unfortunately illiterate statistical arguments sound good to the cretinous mob that forms the modern jury.
shuvitupya said:
When did DNA samples start being kept, after a person was not charged after being arrested?
I thought DNA samples used to be destroyed?
I thought DNA samples used to be destroyed?
The Criminal Justice & Police Act 2001 amended Sec 64 of The Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984, so that fingerprints & DNA samples can be retained indefinitely where they are taken from a person in connection with the investigation of an offence.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 8th October 16:28
Doesn't apply in Scotland though, YET, so samples are destroyed if you aren't charged or convicted. ACPOS want to change the law up here so it's the same as it is down south.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4
Interesting snippet from the article
The law in England and Wales has been challenged on human rights grounds.
However, Mr Rae said the House of Lords had upheld the practice on several grounds, one of which was that the public gain was "vastly more important than the marginal individual loss of rights".
I'm a bit disappointed he didn't say "if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4
Interesting snippet from the article
The law in England and Wales has been challenged on human rights grounds.
However, Mr Rae said the House of Lords had upheld the practice on several grounds, one of which was that the public gain was "vastly more important than the marginal individual loss of rights".
I'm a bit disappointed he didn't say "if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear"
Edited by MrsMiggins on Sunday 8th October 16:37
Unfortunately that's what it's being used for. The problem is it simply doesn't work as used.
If you use it to identify a suspect you can't then use it as conviction evidence as well "as is" (this is a *very* basic statistical error). The figures quoted are comically dishonest and effectively meaningless.
It's a good bet that whenever anyone says something like "the chances of this being wrong are 1 in 100 billion" then they are talking out of their backsides.
It's simple abuse of the justice system. The CJS knows well that squawking "DNA was found at the scene" will make your average thick jury member assume "he must've done it then".
Oddly, Scottish Police Officers objected strenuously to their DNA being taken to eliminate them from crime scenes because it would be so easy to plant evidence to fit them up (it would be). This, however, has not been generalised.
If you use it to identify a suspect you can't then use it as conviction evidence as well "as is" (this is a *very* basic statistical error). The figures quoted are comically dishonest and effectively meaningless.
It's a good bet that whenever anyone says something like "the chances of this being wrong are 1 in 100 billion" then they are talking out of their backsides.
It's simple abuse of the justice system. The CJS knows well that squawking "DNA was found at the scene" will make your average thick jury member assume "he must've done it then".
Oddly, Scottish Police Officers objected strenuously to their DNA being taken to eliminate them from crime scenes because it would be so easy to plant evidence to fit them up (it would be). This, however, has not been generalised.
vonhosen said:
shuvitupya said:
When did DNA samples start being kept, after a person was not charged after being arrested?
I thought DNA samples used to be destroyed?
I thought DNA samples used to be destroyed?
The Criminal Justice & Police Act 2001 amended Sec 64 of The Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984, so that fingerprints & DNA samples can be retained indefinitely where they are taken from a person in connection with the investigation of an offence.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 8th October 16:28
And another nail is driven into the coffin of the right to privacy and basic dignity.
I know of a number of children who have had their DNA taken after simple playground fights - really nothing serious. There was no need for hysterical parents to call the police, but that's irrelevant - the point is that the taking of DNA for the flimsiest excuse is becoming a bit sinister.
You don't have to be arrested. Witnesses and others (e.g. householders at a burglary) can have DNA samples taken ... and they're not destroyed (except in some very rare cases - on 24 April 2006, an ACPO report stated "exception cases will by definition be rare"
. Rare cases might include instances where a cime had not been committed. So, by implication, even if a crime had not been committed, DNA samples taken during its investigation could well not be removed from the National DNA Database.
In January this year, it was widely reported that the DNA of some 24,000 innocent children was retained on teh database.
Now, factor in the latest developments ("DNA Boost" from the FSS regarding separation of different DNA from SOC samples (announced earlier this week), and you have an "intersting" (in the sense of the Chinese curse) situation.
The separation relies to a great extend on identifying elements of the mixed DNA sample with the national DNA database. If there's a hit, then that person will come under serious scrutiny. Now, there may be many legitimate reasons why your DNA is part of the sample. You might also have been a witness at another crime, so your DNA sample (if taken) is on the DNA database. Bingo! You're in the frame for the crime from which the sample was taken.
Now, suppose you had consensual sex with someone and left your DNA on (or in) them. Later that day/night, that person is raped. Some of your DNA will still be present (and modern techniques capture a lot of DNA samples from the SOC). The rapist's DNA is not on the national database ... but your is.
See where this might lead?
Speaking on TV at the announcement of DNABoost, Paul Hackett (DNA manager at the FSS) appeared not to appreciate that the DNA of non-criminals was on the national database. He seemed to think that only crims were on the database.
The National DNA Database currently contains some three million samples - making it the largest in the world. Only Iceland, where all persons have DNA samples taken at birth (since the late '40s) comes close.
There are other issues too. LGC - a company that analyses DNA samples to populate the datavase has been retaining data including names, addresses, ages and skin colour.
But, don't worry ... if you've nothing to hide ... !
Pah!
Streaky
. Rare cases might include instances where a cime had not been committed. So, by implication, even if a crime had not been committed, DNA samples taken during its investigation could well not be removed from the National DNA Database. In January this year, it was widely reported that the DNA of some 24,000 innocent children was retained on teh database.
Now, factor in the latest developments ("DNA Boost"
from the FSS regarding separation of different DNA from SOC samples (announced earlier this week), and you have an "intersting" (in the sense of the Chinese curse) situation. The separation relies to a great extend on identifying elements of the mixed DNA sample with the national DNA database. If there's a hit, then that person will come under serious scrutiny. Now, there may be many legitimate reasons why your DNA is part of the sample. You might also have been a witness at another crime, so your DNA sample (if taken) is on the DNA database. Bingo! You're in the frame for the crime from which the sample was taken.
Now, suppose you had consensual sex with someone and left your DNA on (or in) them. Later that day/night, that person is raped. Some of your DNA will still be present (and modern techniques capture a lot of DNA samples from the SOC). The rapist's DNA is not on the national database ... but your is.
See where this might lead?
Speaking on TV at the announcement of DNABoost, Paul Hackett (DNA manager at the FSS) appeared not to appreciate that the DNA of non-criminals was on the national database. He seemed to think that only crims were on the database.
The National DNA Database currently contains some three million samples - making it the largest in the world. Only Iceland, where all persons have DNA samples taken at birth (since the late '40s) comes close.
There are other issues too. LGC - a company that analyses DNA samples to populate the datavase has been retaining data including names, addresses, ages and skin colour.
But, don't worry ... if you've nothing to hide ... !
Pah!
Streaky
james_j said:
I know of a number of children who have had their DNA taken after simple playground fights - really nothing serious. There was no need for hysterical parents to call the police, but that's irrelevant - the point is that the taking of DNA for the flimsiest excuse is becoming a bit sinister.
National datase by stealth. Another step to a totalitarianist control freak way of life. Wonderful. "Ordinary innocent people have nothing to fear"
It would take a rise by a factor of at least 10 in the calibre of police and government scientist recruiting, and in general public scientific awareness, for that to be half true.
ehyouwhat said:
So, and I recognise that this would be impossible to get proof of, people should really be able to ask that their personal specifics are removed from any database should they not be convicted of a crime?
You can ask but they'll say no thanks. You actually have to ask to get a mugshot removed from plod's holiday snaps album. They won't do it automatically even though they know someone was released without charge, after all plod released them and have the paperwork 
If I put my sensible head on I think "Hell, why shouldn't the authorities just take samples from us all at birth. I've nothing to hide." But then I realise that's it's just not on.
When I was about eight or nine a local bobby came to my school to talk to us about something - I can't remember what. During the course of the day he talked to us about fingerprinting and he allowed us all to 'have a go' and he took everyone's fingerprints with ink...
...he didn't take mine though as my Mum had written a note excusing me from the exercise on account of my eczema. I do sometimes wonder what happened to the fingerprints taken of every other kid
When I was about eight or nine a local bobby came to my school to talk to us about something - I can't remember what. During the course of the day he talked to us about fingerprinting and he allowed us all to 'have a go' and he took everyone's fingerprints with ink...
...he didn't take mine though as my Mum had written a note excusing me from the exercise on account of my eczema. I do sometimes wonder what happened to the fingerprints taken of every other kid
Genetic fingerprinting works on the basis of highly variable repeating sequences (at certain places or loci) within an entire DNA signature that's virtually identical across the entire human population. We share 50% of our genetic code with a fruit fly ffs!
Typically a court may hear that the chance of a random match of DNA, rather than a guilty-as-sin match, is 1 in 5 million which sounds very convincing but that's still matching 12 people in the country's population of 60 million - were the three or four remaining 'suspects' of the correct gender and age range identified and removed from the enquiry? Let's get serious! Not a freakin hope! So the pure 'chance' thing is more accurately put at about 3 or 4 to 1 against any one individual. But then there may be other evidence that needs to be considered alongside the DNA. Even so it's easy to see how the general public would find it difficult to go from a five million to one guilty 'certainty' to the true odds of about four to one against (or more).
It's even more fun and games with relatives. The probability that two relatives will have matching genotypes is much greater than for two randomly chosen MoPs. The probability that two siblings match at two DNA loci would be about 10% and at four loci about 1%. Whenever there is a possibility that a suspect is not the perpetrator but could be closely related to the perp, this uncertainty should be clearly pointed out to the court. Is it? I don't think so.
Relatives of a suspect, or the twelve or so total strangers with matching DNA, could be excluded by testing their genotypes directly, provided that their DNA could be obtained and that no doubt will be a principle abused in order to move towards a full national database.
Typically a court may hear that the chance of a random match of DNA, rather than a guilty-as-sin match, is 1 in 5 million which sounds very convincing but that's still matching 12 people in the country's population of 60 million - were the three or four remaining 'suspects' of the correct gender and age range identified and removed from the enquiry? Let's get serious! Not a freakin hope! So the pure 'chance' thing is more accurately put at about 3 or 4 to 1 against any one individual. But then there may be other evidence that needs to be considered alongside the DNA. Even so it's easy to see how the general public would find it difficult to go from a five million to one guilty 'certainty' to the true odds of about four to one against (or more).
It's even more fun and games with relatives. The probability that two relatives will have matching genotypes is much greater than for two randomly chosen MoPs. The probability that two siblings match at two DNA loci would be about 10% and at four loci about 1%. Whenever there is a possibility that a suspect is not the perpetrator but could be closely related to the perp, this uncertainty should be clearly pointed out to the court. Is it? I don't think so.
Relatives of a suspect, or the twelve or so total strangers with matching DNA, could be excluded by testing their genotypes directly, provided that their DNA could be obtained and that no doubt will be a principle abused in order to move towards a full national database.
ehyouwhat said:
If I put my sensible head on I think "Hell, why shouldn't the authorities just take samples from us all at birth. I've nothing to hide." But then I realise that's it's just not on.
When I was about eight or nine a local bobby came to my school to talk to us about something - I can't remember what. During the course of the day he talked to us about fingerprinting and he allowed us all to 'have a go' and he took everyone's fingerprints with ink...
...he didn't take mine though as my Mum had written a note excusing me from the exercise on account of my eczema. I do sometimes wonder what happened to the fingerprints taken of every other kid
When I was about eight or nine a local bobby came to my school to talk to us about something - I can't remember what. During the course of the day he talked to us about fingerprinting and he allowed us all to 'have a go' and he took everyone's fingerprints with ink...
...he didn't take mine though as my Mum had written a note excusing me from the exercise on account of my eczema. I do sometimes wonder what happened to the fingerprints taken of every other kid
They would never have gone on the database.
vonhosen said:
ehyouwhat said:
If I put my sensible head on I think "Hell, why shouldn't the authorities just take samples from us all at birth. I've nothing to hide." But then I realise that's it's just not on.
When I was about eight or nine a local bobby came to my school to talk to us about something - I can't remember what. During the course of the day he talked to us about fingerprinting and he allowed us all to 'have a go' and he took everyone's fingerprints with ink...
...he didn't take mine though as my Mum had written a note excusing me from the exercise on account of my eczema. I do sometimes wonder what happened to the fingerprints taken of every other kid
When I was about eight or nine a local bobby came to my school to talk to us about something - I can't remember what. During the course of the day he talked to us about fingerprinting and he allowed us all to 'have a go' and he took everyone's fingerprints with ink...
...he didn't take mine though as my Mum had written a note excusing me from the exercise on account of my eczema. I do sometimes wonder what happened to the fingerprints taken of every other kid
They would never have gone on the database.
I'll take your word for it Von.
vonhosen said:
shuvitupya said:
When did DNA samples start being kept, after a person was not charged after being arrested?
I thought DNA samples used to be destroyed?
I thought DNA samples used to be destroyed?
The Criminal Justice & Police Act 2001 amended Sec 64 of The Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984, so that fingerprints & DNA samples can be retained indefinitely where they are taken from a person in connection with the investigation of an offence.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 8th October 16:28
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff