DNA database allready has 1 in 8 entries falsely recorded.
Discussion
Following discussions about wether the DNA database should be made national for everyone..
It was revealed today that 1 in 8 of current entries have either misspelt or wrong names linked to samples.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/7340713
Criminals giving false id mean innocent suspect could be charged with serious crimes despite being innocent.
DNA testing taking three weeks or more will mean innocent people could hypothetically be remanded without bail and immediately arrested dependent on the sevsrity of the offence the original dna donor commited.
God help you if he commits a terrorist act.
Despite being innocent you could find your life in turmoil due to slack record keeping.
So not only can you get speeding fines for someone else using your number plate you could be arrested for murder because someone else used your name when arrested....
It was revealed today that 1 in 8 of current entries have either misspelt or wrong names linked to samples.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/7340713
Criminals giving false id mean innocent suspect could be charged with serious crimes despite being innocent.
DNA testing taking three weeks or more will mean innocent people could hypothetically be remanded without bail and immediately arrested dependent on the sevsrity of the offence the original dna donor commited.
God help you if he commits a terrorist act.
Despite being innocent you could find your life in turmoil due to slack record keeping.
So not only can you get speeding fines for someone else using your number plate you could be arrested for murder because someone else used your name when arrested....
Edited by mark69sheer on Wednesday 27th February 21:31
s2art said:
Chrispy Porker said:
Nonsense, I am afraid.
On several levels.
Well......On several levels.
Secondly that DNA evidence is based on the sample you give when arrested, NOT what someone purporting to be you provided on a previous occasion.
Thirdly if a criminal tries to give false details his/her prints are checked in seconds on NAFIS, which makes it very difficult.
Fourthly address checks will prove Mr Innocent is not the man the custody officer has in front of him.
Fifthly, to properly drop someone in it, a criminal would need to know their place and date of birth.
I could go on, but this is the gist of it.
Chrispy Porker said:
s2art said:
Chrispy Porker said:
Nonsense, I am afraid.
On several levels.
Well......On several levels.
Secondly that DNA evidence is based on the sample you give when arrested, NOT what someone purporting to be you provided on a previous occasion.
Thirdly if a criminal tries to give false details his/her prints are checked in seconds on NAFIS, which makes it very difficult.
Fourthly address checks will prove Mr Innocent is not the man the custody officer has in front of him.
Fifthly, to properly drop someone in it, a criminal would need to know their place and date of birth.
I could go on, but this is the gist of it.
So, you get DNA from a SOC and it matches with someone on the database. I guess that person is arrested. Sure, it would be sorted, but his fingerprints would match (if they had been taken), so it would take a re-sample of his DNA to expose the error.
Chrispy Porker said:
Fifthly, to properly drop someone in it, a criminal would need to know their place and date of birth.
To be fair, that information is hardly secret! Banks advise against using it for internet passwords because it is easy to obtain. Hell, our own government posts this info around in the mail!Chrispy Porker said:
Well just for a start, no-one has ever been charged on DNA evidence alone.
Secondly that DNA evidence is based on the sample you give when arrested, NOT what someone purporting to be you provided on a previous occasion.
So the DNA is used to identify possible suspects, who are then investigated, arrested, give a DNA sample to prove the database was correct in the first place. This seems a rather cyclical argument.Secondly that DNA evidence is based on the sample you give when arrested, NOT what someone purporting to be you provided on a previous occasion.
The link is here...
read the last paragraph...
'Hillier acknowledged that more than half a million names on the database are wrong, often because the same individual was referred to by two or more false or misspelled names.'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/7340713
read the last paragraph...
'Hillier acknowledged that more than half a million names on the database are wrong, often because the same individual was referred to by two or more false or misspelled names.'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/7340713
Edited by mark69sheer on Wednesday 27th February 21:29
Chrispy Porker said:
Of course the same could probably be said of the fingerprint database, but for some reason that does not excite people so much.
Yes but proving your fingerprints don't match is an easy task...waiting for weeks on remand after firstly getting the authorities to test your dna if they even believe they have to and then wait for the results is a very different scenario... a frightening one.On the dna issue
Lets just say even if you had sex consensually with a lady and then she is subsequently raped and killed by an intruder after you had left who being dna savvy wore gloves and a condom.
mark69sheer said:
Chrispy Porker said:
Of course the same could probably be said of the fingerprint database, but for some reason that does not excite people so much.
Yes but proving your fingerprints don't match is an easy task...waiting for weeks on remand after firstly getting the authorities to test your dna if they even believe they have to and then wait for the results is a very different scenario... a frightening one.On the dna issue
Lets just say even if you had sex consensually with a lady and then she is subsequently raped and killed by an intruder after you had left who being dna savvy wore gloves and a condom.
With a rape there would be other evidence of DNA other than semen or fingerprint trace. Medical evidence would also play a part regards time of death and injuries being post or pre death. Evidence of forced entry to house etc.
You would be questioned no doubt though. Its a very unlikely scenario.
Chrispy Porker said:
s2art said:
Chrispy Porker said:
Nonsense, I am afraid.
On several levels.
Well......On several levels.
Secondly that DNA evidence is based on the sample you give when arrested, NOT what someone purporting to be you provided on a previous occasion.
Thirdly if a criminal tries to give false details his/her prints are checked in seconds on NAFIS, which makes it very difficult.
Fourthly address checks will prove Mr Innocent is not the man the custody officer has in front of him.
Fifthly, to properly drop someone in it, a criminal would need to know their place and date of birth.
I could go on, but this is the gist of it.
In other words, I fully agree with you.
Spokey said:
Chrispy Porker said:
s2art said:
Chrispy Porker said:
Nonsense, I am afraid.
On several levels.
Well......On several levels.
Secondly that DNA evidence is based on the sample you give when arrested, NOT what someone purporting to be you provided on a previous occasion.
Thirdly if a criminal tries to give false details his/her prints are checked in seconds on NAFIS, which makes it very difficult.
Fourthly address checks will prove Mr Innocent is not the man the custody officer has in front of him.
Fifthly, to properly drop someone in it, a criminal would need to know their place and date of birth.
I could go on, but this is the gist of it.
In other words, I fully agree with you.
Mr_annie_vxr said:
Spokey said:
Chrispy Porker said:
s2art said:
Chrispy Porker said:
Nonsense, I am afraid.
On several levels.
Well......On several levels.
Secondly that DNA evidence is based on the sample you give when arrested, NOT what someone purporting to be you provided on a previous occasion.
Thirdly if a criminal tries to give false details his/her prints are checked in seconds on NAFIS, which makes it very difficult.
Fourthly address checks will prove Mr Innocent is not the man the custody officer has in front of him.
Fifthly, to properly drop someone in it, a criminal would need to know their place and date of birth.
I could go on, but this is the gist of it.
In other words, I fully agree with you.
Unnoficial head of the EU with france tagging along as 2nd in command...
Lisbon treaty?
Those poor b
ds that died in the poppy fields for nothing.mark69sheer said:
Chrispy Porker said:
Of course the same could probably be said of the fingerprint database, but for some reason that does not excite people so much.
Yes but proving your fingerprints don't match is an easy task...waiting for weeks on remand after firstly getting the authorities to test your dna if they even believe they have to and then wait for the results is a very different scenario... a frightening one.On the dna issue
Lets just say even if you had sex consensually with a lady and then she is subsequently raped and killed by an intruder after you had left who being dna savvy wore gloves and a condom.
Up to a few years ago matching fingerprints took quite a long time too.
I think there are a lot more safeguards against false ID in place now than there were, even 10 years ago.
Don't forget, if you give your name at a custody desk, and you are known a photo and all sorts of info appears on the screen instantly.
mark69sheer said:
The link is here...
read the last paragraph...
'Hillier acknowledged that more than half a million names on the database are wrong, often because the same individual was referred to by two or more false or misspelled names.'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/7340713
[footnote]Edited by mark69sheer on Wednesday 27th February 21:29[/footnote
Thank you, that is somewhat worrying.....read the last paragraph...
'Hillier acknowledged that more than half a million names on the database are wrong, often because the same individual was referred to by two or more false or misspelled names.'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/7340713
[footnote]Edited by mark69sheer on Wednesday 27th February 21:29[/footnote
More Worrying that the press aren't up in arms about it.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff