DNA On Record..
Discussion
Just for the record.
The 2008 article as linked describes a case where a DNA 'match' at a specified level between unrelated persons should have been 1 in 113 billion 'impossibility'.
In 2009, the United Nations estimated the global population to be 6.8 billion.
Yet two prisoners with that degree of match were found, and following that first case, dozens more followed "seeming to defy impossible odds".
The 2008 article as linked describes a case where a DNA 'match' at a specified level between unrelated persons should have been 1 in 113 billion 'impossibility'.
In 2009, the United Nations estimated the global population to be 6.8 billion.
Yet two prisoners with that degree of match were found, and following that first case, dozens more followed "seeming to defy impossible odds".
G_T said:
As I've said it's in the millions, I actually think it's hypothetically in the 100s of billions and you don't need to test everybody. Just the accused vs the sample.
...for which, of course, you don't need a database. You get your suspect, and your sample, and compare the two. Which does indeed give a very reliable match/no match.The argument is not against that. It is against having lots of people on a database, then taking a sample and fishing in the database for who it might match. That is very much less reliable. See the difference?
Reliable - that's the key.
There is no one level of infallible reliability. Nothing is infallible and the reliability obtained depends on the nature and quality of the sample, the particular approach used in testing, the presence or absence of very basic human errors, and an imperfect level of understanding of the background principles.
This needs pointing out loud and clear to jurors who are capable of understanding it.
Keeping the DNA of innocent people on record has too many potential abuses and won't increase the reliability of any particular test in any particular case.
There is no one level of infallible reliability. Nothing is infallible and the reliability obtained depends on the nature and quality of the sample, the particular approach used in testing, the presence or absence of very basic human errors, and an imperfect level of understanding of the background principles.
This needs pointing out loud and clear to jurors who are capable of understanding it.
Keeping the DNA of innocent people on record has too many potential abuses and won't increase the reliability of any particular test in any particular case.
My DNA is personal information about me. It is mine.
In the same way I don't want the state to routinely track every purchase I make or web page I visit or every phone call I make, I don't want them to routinely collect my DNA.
The State should trust its citizens if it expects to be trusted by it's citizens.
In the same way I don't want the state to routinely track every purchase I make or web page I visit or every phone call I make, I don't want them to routinely collect my DNA.
The State should trust its citizens if it expects to be trusted by it's citizens.
Whether your DNA is held by the DNA database in entirely dependent on the Chief Constable of the police force in which you reside or in which the DNA was taken.
The Chief Constable is fully able to release your data the DNA database, order the destruction of the samples and the results, and expunge all records of the police contact with youirself from their police database.
The circumstances just need to be exceptional.
Last year after my first letter regarding a close relative was sent to him I was told that the circumstances were not exceptional.
After my second letter the circusmstances were not exceptional.
My third letter I sent to my local Conservative MP and copied in the Cheif Constable.
My MP wrote to the Chief Constable.
The police coward then suddenly decided that the circumstances were exceptional after all and all records of contact and DNA were expunged.
DO NOT give in with your demands for your DNA to be removed. Get your MP's involved. You can get the records wiped.
Just one more reason why I wouldn't piss on a policeman if he was on fire.
Cheers,
Tony
The Chief Constable is fully able to release your data the DNA database, order the destruction of the samples and the results, and expunge all records of the police contact with youirself from their police database.
The circumstances just need to be exceptional.
Last year after my first letter regarding a close relative was sent to him I was told that the circumstances were not exceptional.
After my second letter the circusmstances were not exceptional.
My third letter I sent to my local Conservative MP and copied in the Cheif Constable.
My MP wrote to the Chief Constable.
The police coward then suddenly decided that the circumstances were exceptional after all and all records of contact and DNA were expunged.
DO NOT give in with your demands for your DNA to be removed. Get your MP's involved. You can get the records wiped.
Just one more reason why I wouldn't piss on a policeman if he was on fire.
Cheers,
Tony
The Black Flash said:
G_T said:
As I've said it's in the millions, I actually think it's hypothetically in the 100s of billions and you don't need to test everybody. Just the accused vs the sample.
...for which, of course, you don't need a database. You get your suspect, and your sample, and compare the two. Which does indeed give a very reliable match/no match.The argument is not against that. It is against having lots of people on a database, then taking a sample and fishing in the database for who it might match. That is very much less reliable. See the difference?
You do a search of lots of sampels and if one matces you do a closer search? i.e its a way of obtaining a suspect.
I spose the question is in a murder case if you have 1 set of DNA and 20m people on the database how many matches will it give? (assuming guilty person is on there)
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff