DNA On Record..

[Jonny671]

So ITV News have just run a story about peoples DNA being on record.

Apparently anyone who is arrested for a certain reason their DNA is taken and put on record.

27% of the Black population are on there.
6% of the White population are on there.

They had a chap on there who said it loses the confidence in the Police Force, why is this?

Everyone should be on record IMO.. no reason to hide anything then?

[odyssey2200]

opcorn:

[TankRizzo]

The problem with "if you have nothing to hide then why not" is that it does not stop at DNA on a database. This is why we very nearly all had to carry ID cards to prove who we were.

If you have nothing to hide then I suppose you won't mind having a CCTV camera in your front room pointed at your sofa 24 hours a day, right?

[TankRizzo]

And you didn't have to be arrested to have your DNA on the database. My friend had his taken to rule him out of forensics after his girlfriend was attacked...on the database now and can't get it off.

[Olf]

You tell me how accurate it is and I'll tell you whether I want to be on there with 65,000,000 other Britons. Make sure your research is extensive and objective now. I don't want the standard 1 in 100 billion.

[Jonny671]

TankRizzo said:

The problem with "if you have nothing to hide then why not" is that it does not stop at DNA on a database. This is why we very nearly all had to carry ID cards to prove who we were.

If you have nothing to hide then I suppose you won't mind having a CCTV camera in your front room pointed at your sofa 24 hours a day, right?

Hmm. I don't agree with the CCTV idea, I understand your point with that.

I just can't see why it's that much of a problem with DNA. A rape is committed, DNA found there is run through the database and bing you've a 99% positive culprit for it?

Though.. It is our government, I'm not sure I'd trust them with my shoe size let alone DNA

[odyssey2200]

so ther is a difficult, high profile case that the old bill are bksed on and can't find a culprit.

Given a jury's likelihood to accept DNA as beyond doubt, plod "finds" some DNA in their database that fits the need.

Jury finds the patsy guilty, Plod gets pat on back, public sleep soundly.

You want you DNA available to the police???

[Jonny671]

Olf said:

You tell me how accurate it is and I'll tell you whether I want to be on there with 65,000,000 other Britons. Make sure your research is extensive and objective now. I don't want the standard 1 in 100 billion.

Well this is from a Forensic Scientist..

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2002-02/10147...

Apologies on my iPhone so can't copy the exact section.

[Sheets Tabuer]

Send me a lock of your hair.

I'm on it with threats of force if I refused to give it. I don't want my details on there, I don't want the police to have it and I certainly don't want the government to have it.

[CaptainSlow]

Jonny671 said:

So ITV News have just run a story about peoples DNA being on record.

Apparently anyone who is arrested for a certain reason their DNA is taken and put on record.

27% of the Black population are on there.
6% of the White population are on there.

They had a chap on there who said it loses the confidence in the Police Force, why is this?

Everyone should be on record IMO.. no reason to hide anything then?

Until the government brings in some laws that you may want to hide from, but governments don't do that do they.

[Jonny671]

Sheets Tabuer said:

Send me a lock of your hair.

I'm on it with threats of force if I refused to give it. I don't want my details on there, I don't want the police to have it and I certainly don't want the government to have it.

Why?

Not saying your wrong as it's a discussion.. Just wonder why you object to it.

[Sheets Tabuer]

Apart from the fact the last government allowed 3rd party access to the data without asking me if I consented I just don't bloody trust them, I don't trust them to keep it safe as demonstrated, I don't trust them to use it for its purpose and I don't trust them to not develop profiling based on it.

I don't mind my doctor holding a record of a cold I had when I was 12 but I do object to a man in a suit holding my DNA

[CaptainSlow]

Sheets Tabuer said:

Apart from the fact the last government allowed 3rd party access to the data without asking me if I consented I just don't bloody trust them, I don't trust them to keep it safe as demonstrated, I don't trust them to use it for its purpose and I don't trust them to not develop profiling based on it.

I don't mind my doctor holding a record of a cold I had when I was 12 but I do object to a man in a suit holding my DNA

[Jonny671]

Sheets Tabuer said:

Apart from the fact the last government allowed 3rd party access to the data without asking me if I consented I just don't bloody trust them, I don't trust them to keep it safe as demonstrated, I don't trust them to use it for its purpose and I don't trust them to not develop profiling based on it.

I don't mind my doctor holding a record of a cold I had when I was 12 but I do object to a man in a suit holding my DNA

Understood.. I agree with this. Though if there were new laws etc brought in to prevent what previous governments done would you let them hold it on record?

[Sheets Tabuer]

No, I never know what the next government will do, look at what the last one did.

I will never trust a politician no matter what they say so I'd feel safer if they never had it.

[The Black Flash]

Jonny671 said:

I just can't see why it's that much of a problem with DNA. A rape is committed, DNA found there is run through the database and bing you've a 99% positive culprit for it?

It doesn't work like that.

The answer to the question "does this DNA belong to this one person" can indeed be answered with a great deal of confidence.

The answer to the question "which of these 65,000,000 people does this DNA belong to" is much less certain, and will implicate innocent people.

And that's before we get into the inevitable misuse of the information by the state.

No thanks.

[dandarez]

Jonny671 said:

So ITV News have just run a story about peoples DNA being on record.

Apparently anyone who is arrested for a certain reason their DNA is taken and put on record.

27% of the Black population are on there.
6% of the White population are on there.

They had a chap on there who said it loses the confidence in the Police Force, why is this?

Everyone should be on record IMO.. no reason to hide anything then?

In the morning (oops, it's morning now!), well you know what I mean.
Get yourself down to the Library (or a decent bookseller if you don't mind parting with a small amount of cash) and say: 'I've been recommended a good book, do you have a copy? It's called 1984 by some chap called Orwell.'

Read it. Then you'll understand.

Of course, if you don't want to read an 'old' book, which is basically a novel, then how about a more recent book? This one will convince you as to why you should never agree to having your DNA taken for no reason.

This book is very recent... like now! And it's not fiction, it's truth!

It's called 'The Silent State - Secrets, Surveillance and the Myth of British Democracy'. It's written by Heather Brooke.

Don't tell me, you have never heard of her?
She is the mastermind behind the uncovering of MP's Expenses.
And you thought it was the Daily Telegraph...

Edited by dandarez on Friday 2nd July 00:19

[ymwoods]

The current Goverment may well only want to use it for law enforcement but then the Goverment only originally took details of the owners of cars for that reason too.

Now the DVLA sell that information and people recieve Private parking charges sent to their home address (from private companies) they recieve marketing not only by mail but by interactive bill board signs too (starting to become popular, you pass a billboard that reads your numberplate and then it checks the database for your car details. It then flashes up a relevant ad for the Oil recomended for you car, for example)

Whats to stop the next Goverment, or the next after that to start selling our DNA records. We sit down infront of our TV, which is on Sky, they have your name and address, so our identity is known. Our identity is checked against a database which was sold to Sky, or the advertising agency, by the Goverment. Our DNA shows them that we are 20% more likely to get hayfever than someone else so up pops hayfever adverts...

Another one is that our DNA shows we are more likly to die younger, life insurance premiums will go through the roof.

What if in the future it is possible to "replicate" DNA at home...a rapist with a contact then effectivly clones my DNA, just like someone clones a registration plate. I get arrested for rape as my DNA was left everywhere at the scene.

Lots of reasons I do not want my DNA on a database...thats just a few.

[Jasandjules]

Jonny671 said:

Hmm. I don't agree with the CCTV idea, I understand your point with that.

But why not? What do you have to hide? What crimes do you commit in your lounge?

[jshell]

Jonny671 said:

So ITV News have just run a story about peoples DNA being on record.

Apparently anyone who is arrested for a certain reason their DNA is taken and put on record.

27% of the Black population are on there.
6% of the White population are on there.

They had a chap on there who said it loses the confidence in the Police Force, why is this?

Everyone should be on record IMO.. no reason to hide anything then?

Read this: http://www.shirleymckie.com/

That's what happens when they misread a fingerprint and the whole machine goes after you. It's utterly terrifying. They tried to ruin her life, a serving poilce officer!

IQ test:

Q. Do you object to a nationwide DNA database?
A. No.

Ah, I see, you're a complete idiot and shouldn't be allowed to breed.