DNA database

zanes

mask of sanity wrote:

Thanks for all the replies. Given me a lot of things to think about.

Those of you who think it's a violation of your privacy, what makes you feel that? Do you agree that convicted criminals should have their profile on the database? If so, is that not a violation of their rights? If I were to tell you that a DNA profile that they have on the database is a tiny proportion of all your DNA would you change your opinion?

1. I am not specifically sure. As others have said, another step down the long slippery slope this country is on

2. I don't know. Part of me says yes, part of me says time served/rehabilitation etc. I am well aware of the view of hypocrisy this will generate in people like you.

3. See above

4. I know. See previous post re german governments concerns. I suspect they know more about this kind of stuff than you or me or anyone else on here does.

There is an excellent article re. the accuracy/chance of random matches in an E&T magazine a few months ago. Trying to find it now.

Bunneh

They will clone us all and replace us with more obediant people...

*THUMP*

Sorry, that was just me being silly. There are no clones and there never will be, carry on.

*drags body outside*

mask of sanity

zanes wrote:

mask of sanity wrote:

Thanks for all the replies. Given me a lot of things to think about.

Those of you who think it's a violation of your privacy, what makes you feel that? Do you agree that convicted criminals should have their profile on the database? If so, is that not a violation of their rights? If I were to tell you that a DNA profile that they have on the database is a tiny proportion of all your DNA would you change your opinion?

1. I am not specifically sure. As others have said, another step down the long slippery slope this country is on

2. I don't know. Part of me says yes, part of me says time served/rehabilitation etc. I am well aware of the view of hypocrisy this will generate in people like you.

3. See above

4. I know. See previous post re german governments concerns. I suspect they know more about this kind of stuff than you or me or anyone else on here does.

There is an excellent article re. the accuracy/chance of random matches in an E&T magazine a few months ago. Trying to find it now.

I missed your post before but the fact that you used the word alleles indicates you have a fair understanding on the subject?

Isn't it possible that the German government had their concerns because they were worried about the way the public would react to it as supposed to the actual holding of the DNA profile? I'm playing devils advocate with all these question.

With regard to the chance of a random match, the discriminating power is approximately 1 in 6 billion but this is all statistical so their could still be random matches. I believe they are locating additional alleles to increase the discriminating power but at the end of the day it will always be statistical so can never be conclusive

zanes

mask of sanity wrote:

I missed your post before but the fact that you used the word alleles indicates you have a fair understanding on the subject?

GCSE biology and a mind that likes to explore issues FTW! Half way through an engineering masters, so like to read around these issues

Isn't it possible that the German government had their concerns because they were worried about the way the public would react to it as supposed to the actual holding of the DNA profile? I'm playing devils advocate with all these question.

Like I said, I am not entirely sure what the exact issue was. If there was an issue with public perception, surely their government would have engaged in some sort of PR campaign/consultation exercise to allay them? The fact they didn't suggests to me there may be more here than meets the eye.

With regard to the chance of a random match, the discriminating power is approximately 1 in 6 billion but this is all statistical so their could still be random matches. I believe they are locating additional alleles to increase the discriminating power but at the end of the day it will always be statistical so can never be conclusive

Exactly (though from the article I read it is possible to be way less than that for a "good" partial or even a total match (matching all 20 recorded alleles is not the same as two samples being from the same person). Also, the issue is with media/prosecuters/the government presenting this stuff as "beyond any doubt" in all cases.

Also, to clarify my points, I understand how excellent a tool (AS PART OF A TOOL BOX OF THEM) this stuff is, it's a slippery slope.

Anonymous

The biggest issue I have is that people think it's the be all and end all, if your DNA was at the scene you are guilty. It is an excellent tool for assisting cases, that is all.

mask of sanity

Well, I'm impressed Zanes.

It's good to see that people are aware that DNA is far from the best evidence type. One of the big issues is people on the jury over estimating the usefulness of DNA.

To put it into perspective, I just did a mock crime investigation whereby we collected evidence from the crime scene and examined it in the lab. We were able to get a partial DNA profile that matched the suspect and a shoe mark that had unique damage matching the shoe of the suspect and a liquid on it that was present at the crime scene. In the report for the case I hardly mentioned the DNA. The shoe evidence carried so much more evidential value then DNA ever could. Granted, it was all set up but it doesn't change the significance of the evidence types.

zanes

I could put a tin foil hat on and start raving, if you like

I'd say really there's nothing in my posts that takes a genius to grasp. An enquiring mind and some research skills are all thats needed. Whether the government wants to remove the former from this country I believe is a whole nother debate.

morstar

"If you've done nothing wrong, you've nothing to hide".

It's an interesting statement isn't it? Now, envisage a time when CCTV, DNA technology and other forms of currently existing or, yet to be perceived, technology, pretty much mean that it is almost impossible to do wrong without being caught.

Now ask the following, (as somebody else has already asked) who defines what is wrong?

Now ask yourself the following and answer HONESTLY, what have you done that could be perceived as wrong recently.

If you've answered the last question honestly, you might just pause for thought about where all of this technology is going and not be quite so dismissive of the anti arguments...

dilemna

The DNA Database contains profiles of those convicted or suspected of a recordable offence ie suspects have to have been convicted or arrested for a recordable offence. It also contains profiles from crime scenes. Many of the profiles are the same but have duplicate names as crims think they are cunning using aliases. Also old unsolved cases can be solved where items on first investigation were subsequently stored on the expectation that years down the line these items could be re-examined with more discriminating forensic techniques. There have been cases where there have been parital hits on the database from family members matching crime scene DNA profiles thus putting a possible name to these unidentified profiles and meaning some one receives a knock on their door at 5:30am for something they have done in the past and have tried to keep a secret. All to the good really if people can be brought to book.

Where it falls down is coppers getting carried away and swabbing a person for DNA where they have no previous convictions or any recidivist tendencies for merely a parking ticket. People subsequently cleared should have their DNA removed from the DNA database which the European Court of Justice has ruled but the British Government is still dragging it's feet. Basically Nu Labour wants everyone's DNA profile by means fair or foul.

DNA is not an indication of guilt. The jury determines guilt. DNA is just another piece of evidence. In some cases such as rape where the case turns on the issue of consent DNA is irrelevant.

Where the technique becomes ever so sensitive are you picking up background or spurious fragments of DNA? DNA can even be transferred in aerosol form.

What's to stop crims planting DNA - a bit of blood here and there?

As for the integrity of the process, no process is 100% without error especially if people are involved. Every process has an error rate. What error rate is acceptable given the implications can be very serious for an individual if they are implicated in an offence by DNA?

DNA profiling is no substitute for good old fashioned detective work. DNA can also eliminate as well as incriminate suspects.

The way it is reported is " The probability is 1 in 5 billion that the DNA came from some one other than the suspect/defendant".

The major difference between the UK and US jurisdictions (CSI) is that in the US I believe DNA can be used for categorically identifying an individual whereas in the UK it cannot.

The DNA sample obtained for the NDNADB can indicate inherited conditions or medical conditions such as Klinefelter's Syndrome, Downs Syndrome or can give an indication of the ethnic background from which that profile originates. DNA profiles can also reveal parentage or whether offspring are whole blood or half blood or royal blood .

Maybe a blood sample should be taken from everyone at birth and then that person's profile are held on a central database. Frank Field proposed this back in 1994/5 IIRC.

The National DNA Database is the custody of the Association of Chief Police Officers. So a lot of sensitive information to entrust them with.

disgruntledgoat

fast as fupp wrote:

STEFANOS4784 wrote:

So? What is anyone going to do with DNA profiles?

eugenics?

genocide?

its been tried before- even easier with dna profiling

Exactly right, those who make Stefanos' argument assume that government will always be benevolent and just or that the system will never be abused.

I for one will not willingly submit to a DNArecord or an ID card because my DNA and my identity belong to me, not the state. I will decide who gets them and for what purpose. Such schemes completely reverse the relationship between citizen and state, they reduce individuals to chattels of the government of the day. Governments should be scared of their people and not vice versa.

dilemna

disgruntledgoat wrote:

fast as fupp wrote:

STEFANOS4784 wrote:

So? What is anyone going to do with DNA profiles?

eugenics?

genocide?

its been tried before- even easier with dna profiling

Exactly right, those who make Stefanos' argument assume that government will always be benevolent and just or that the system will never be abused.

I for one will not willingly submit to a DNArecord or an ID card because my DNA and my identity belong to me, not the state. I will decide who gets them and for what purpose. Such schemes completely reverse the relationship between citizen and state, they reduce individuals to chattels of the government of the day. Governments should be scared of their people and not vice versa.

Then goat be scared as if the police have reason to exercise a right to take a body sample from you then they WILL whether you consent or not. Buccal scrape, hair or blood they are not fussy or alternatively they could offer you a drink or cigarette then swab the can or cup, or send the fag end for DNA processing.

Equating the NDNADB with eugenics or genocide is absurd.

If you don't want the State to store your DNA profile then best not walk on the cracks in the pavemnent .

rick_chasey

Westerberg wrote:

STEFANOS4784 wrote:

Very relevant, well done :roll:

err..this happened 70 years ago (persecution of the jews), fairly relevant still I'd say given humans have been on earth about 2.5 million years. :roll:

It's still happening now... (just not necessarily to the jews)

rick_chasey

disgruntledgoat wrote:

fast as fupp wrote:

STEFANOS4784 wrote:

So? What is anyone going to do with DNA profiles?

eugenics?

genocide?

its been tried before- even easier with dna profiling

Exactly right, those who make Stefanos' argument assume that government will always be benevolent and just or that the system will never be abused.

I for one will not willingly submit to a DNArecord or an ID card because my DNA and my identity belong to me, not the state. I will decide who gets them and for what purpose. Such schemes completely reverse the relationship between citizen and state, they reduce individuals to chattels of the government of the day. Governments should be scared of their people and not vice versa.

Just because the rhetoric of people committing acts of genocide is 'racial' doesn't mean there is any biological 'racial' criteria.

For example: Rwanda: The distinction between tutsis and hutus was an aribtrary creation made by the Belgian colonialists in the 19th Century to allow for easier ruling. The distinction during the genocide was not made on 'racial' grounds, but on what your offical papers said you were.

DNA profiling is certainly an issue, but I don't think genocide is the one that is particularly relevant. If someone wants to commit genoicde, they won't let things like a lack of DNA get in their way, let's be honest.

shouldbeinbed

I always enjoy the 'just like the Nazi's' argument

it shows a lack of understanding of the differences between the national humiliation and poverty enforced onto the German peoples after the first world war, the grinding drudgery and sense of resentment running forwards into the Weimar period and the rise of Nazism amongst a people used to political and trades union rallies ending in incredibly violent confrontations and in almost every instance deaths occurring. hyper inflation combined with massive shortages and other nations plundering the national wealth for war reparations,

also Germany had a far stronger tradition and sense of minor statehood and a more differentiated population under the banner of Germany than Britain had had since the 10th century and the invasion and eventual dismantling of the multiple kingdoms by the Vikings and then the Normans. The difference between e.g. Geordies, Cockneys and Cornish isn't nearly as powerfully felt from one another or from a united Britain for all the talk of devolution and regional government.

it wasn't just Jews, it was dissidents and other 'minor' ethnic factions, it was political opponents and union officials, every political wing operated snatch and murder squads some barely keeping it a secret. and the population was factionalised and more used to the idea of snooping and informing on one another and falling into very narrow minded political positions.

to equate the interwar years of Germany, life in the Weimar period and the rise of Nazism to anything we have in this country is facile.
Into a modern context we simply don't have the immense tribality that fosters e.g. Rwandan or ex Yugoslavian state levels of despotic control, and mindless genocidal hatred amongst the population.


as to the topic, It's a filing system used by Police Forces in the same way as fingerprints, dental or footwear impressions can be, that may be coded and searched to identify/eliminate people from crime scenes or to verify personal identity. it is not considered infallible and utterly unique in the way that fingerprints are: identical twins, and degraded or very limited samples can give the same or too close to call responses but it is a good method for the police to get a foothold into a case and give them the name of someone that may or may not have been involved and could help with their enquiries, even if it is an innocent passer by the 'two days' :roll: in police custody could well provide good information of other persons and the possible real offender's presence at or near the scene.

CSI TV is a fiction that bears no semblance of reality to forensic resources or procedures in this country. anyone thinking that a tiny fraction of sweat from 17 different lift buttons can be stitched together to provide name address phone number and colour of underpants the donor was wearing at the time, don't worry. its as realistic as if they called in Harry Potter to wave his magic wand and shout 'scrotio revealeo'

if 'they'want you then they'll just close your life down with your bank, council, DSS or employer and the utilities. For those that don't want an ID card - so no bank account, driving licence or library card, you don't sign the electoral register or participate in the census, you don't pay council tax or or receive any sort of money from state sources or from paid employment that requires Taxation or National Insurance contributions. You don't have an email account and you're not signed up to paypal or ebay or wiggle any other web site (including this one) that holds personal, financial, password or delivery address information on you.

like it or not an ID card is a smokescreen to hide the fact fom the gulible that if there really was a totalitarian regimen in place and you were on the naughty list they could know everything they need to about you and be on you in minutes with the information footprint that we all leave every single day.

zanes

I was actually using the WW2 comparison (or rather, a researched, specific part of it) to show the fallacy of a "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" argument, rather than trying to use it to show where this country is heading. For that I recommend 1984.

Porgy

Tail end Charlie wrote:

If the database means more people are caught when they do wrong, I'm all for it.

To answer the OP. My understanding is that DNA is almost unique to a person (I think identical twins have the same DNA) and comparing two different samples allows a probability to be given that they come from the same person.

I don't have a problem being on the system and like someone else said, I'd rather that than my credit card details and I buy lots online.

The likelihood a duplicted sample has not been properly tested - though I believe the courts claim there is there is a 1 in 200million chance of this happening - assuming that matches in different places (out of 20) are independent of one another, which isn't the case - as we derive our DNA from a small pool of ancestors and the same patterns are repeated throughout the human race.

So there's still a lot of questions to be asked about this technology - plus all the other questions about misuse etc.

There was concern a while ago that police were relying too heavily on DNA and securing convictions based on DNA alone - this is a very dangerous road to go down - for reasons stated by others - you will get unsafe convictions.

Me personally - I believe that the police taking DNA of arrested people and being allowed to hold them in certain cases and for a limited amount of time as decided by the courts if a conviction is secured is defintely as far as we should go. otherwise you create a society of suspects. That's not going to be a healthy society.

simonaspinall

I think a major issue is what causes crime in society: Society.

The Government's overriding goal is to lower total crime which means thinking about society as a whole - So examining trends, patterns of behaviour - the big stuff.

If you 'suspect' everyone in society and on a DNA database then it's assuming people have it in them to commit crime.

If you do not include those that are innocent you are giving peole the benefit of the doubt and saying 'we trust you and think you are a law-abiding citizen' - This can only be a good thing for society - It's part of a self-fulfilling prophecy theory.

What does it say to a person who is suspected of a crime, has their DNA taken, found innocent and then have it left of record despite them being innocent.

Part of a civilized society is respecting/reacting to people's actions. If the actions deserve respect (in this case: Innocence) then why say "well, we'll keep it on record....just in case you step out of line".

If you want an innocent society you have to treat people as such.

If authority respects you as an innocent person then you are more likely to productively cooperate with the authority and have good police-community relations.

fast as fupp

some of you naively assume that our government wants this information on us purely for our own good and to reduce crime

h.m. gov. ltd. already sell database iformation they hold to private companies-park your car on someones land and the dvla will eagerly hand over YOUR details to dodgy parking enforcement companies

imagine what they could get for dna info?

Porgy

fast as fupp wrote:

some of you naively assume that our government wants this information on us purely for our own good and to reduce crime

h.m. gov. ltd. already sell database iformation they hold to private companies-park your car on someones land and the dvla will eagerly hand over YOUR details to dodgy parking enforcement companies

imagine what they could get for dna info?

our governments' agenda is driven purely by their corporate owners. Try to imagine why some big corporations might want DNA information.

mask of sanity

fast as fupp wrote:

some of you naively assume that our government wants this information on us purely for our own good and to reduce crime

h.m. gov. ltd. already sell database iformation they hold to private companies-park your car on someones land and the dvla will eagerly hand over YOUR details to dodgy parking enforcement companies

imagine what they could get for dna info?

There's not a lot more that DNA profiles can offer as the profile only refers to a tiny percentage of the persons DNA. Granted, they do store samples of DNA but DNA analysis is far from cheap so is unlikely to be performed on any mass scale, at least with today's technology. Perhaps it would be better for the storage of a DNA profile only and not the storage of DNA?

Tail end Charlie

Has anyone ever been convicted solely on the basis of DNA evidence? Or has it been used as part of a case (sometimes with too much weight I accept)?

zedders

I don't see the problem with having a DNA database. If you don't commit crime you will never need to worry about it. I understand there have been one or two miscarridges of justice based around DNA evidence, but that's about it, over the 30 yrs or so its been going. Tradgic for the the innocent, but the needs of the many should not be out weighted by the few! As NapD says it's a tool to aid a case, and nowerdays would not convict a person on it's own.

Many sex offenders, rapist and murderers have been caught years later when stopped and arrested for minor offences, and they have had there DNA taken as part of the arrest process. Surely this reason alone makes having a DNA database a good thing? I don't get all the do gooders wanting it closed down or restricted in some way because it's against there human rights? What about the rights of victims of crime? Do they not have the right for the offenders to be brought to justice?

finchy

zedders wrote:

I don't see the problem with having a DNA database. If you don't commit crime you will never need to worry about it. I understand there have been one or two miscarridges of justice based around DNA evidence, but that's about it, over the 30 yrs or so its been going. Tradgic for the the innocent, but the needs of the many should not be out weighted by the few! As NapD says it's a tool to aid a case, and nowerdays would not convict a person on it's own.

Many sex offenders, rapist and murderers have been caught years later when stopped and arrested for minor offences, and they have had there DNA taken as part of the arrest process. Surely this reason alone makes having a DNA database a good thing? I don't get all the do gooders wanting it closed down or restricted in some way because it's against there human rights? What about the rights of victims of crime? Do they not have the right for the offenders to be brought to justice?

Nobody trusts the government to be benevolent and competent enough to be entrusted with a DNA database.

People have been arrested under anti-terrorism laws for peaceful protest. That is why people do not want to hand the government any more power.

fast as fupp

zedders wrote:

I don't see the problem with having a DNA database. If you don't commit crime you will never need to worry about it. I understand there have been one or two miscarridges of justice based around DNA evidence, but that's about it, over the 30 yrs or so its been going. Tradgic for the the innocent, but the needs of the many should not be out weighted by the few! As NapD says it's a tool to aid a case, and nowerdays would not convict a person on it's own.

Many sex offenders, rapist and murderers have been caught years later when stopped and arrested for minor offences, and they have had there DNA taken as part of the arrest process. Surely this reason alone makes having a DNA database a good thing? I don't get all the do gooders wanting it closed down or restricted in some way because it's against there human rights? What about the rights of victims of crime? Do they not have the right for the offenders to be brought to justice?

another one!

define 'a crime'

thanks

a do-gooder (does that make you a do-badder?)

shouldbeinbed

fast as fupp wrote:

define 'a crime'

thanks

a rough go: activity proscribed by the laws of the land as enacted by the democratically enacted parliament and ratified in the house of lords.

we may not agree with the currently under review retention policy (see S & Marper) for unconvicted cases or the content of the laws generally or the parliamentary process right now but they're what we've got and we're not talking about Kangaroo Cops making up crimes on the spot to steal your DNA. Spen and co on both sides of the bar tend to have a bit of a dim view of cops doing that.

shouldbeinbed

fast as fupp wrote:

some of you naively assume that our government wants this information on us purely for our own good and to reduce crime

h.m. gov. ltd. already sell database iformation they hold to private companies-park your car on someones land and the dvla will eagerly hand over YOUR details to dodgy parking enforcement companies

imagine what they could get for dna info?

parking is an entirely different level of (non recordable) offence to anything that will cost you a buccal swab or a few hairs and goverend by different rules and regulations but hey don't let the facts stop a Daily Mail esque comparison.

if we're equating fly parking with selling off the DNA database.

imagine what they would get if the kidnapped you and harvested a kidney.

fast as fupp

shouldbeinbed wrote:

fast as fupp wrote:

some of you naively assume that our government wants this information on us purely for our own good and to reduce crime

h.m. gov. ltd. already sell database iformation they hold to private companies-park your car on someones land and the dvla will eagerly hand over YOUR details to dodgy parking enforcement companies

imagine what they could get for dna info?

parking is an entirely different level of (non recordable) offence to anything that will cost you a buccal swab or a few hairs and goverend by different rules and regulations but hey don't let the facts stop a Daily Mail esque comparison.

if we're equating fly parking with selling off the DNA database.

imagine what they would get if the kidnapped you and harvested a kidney.

i wasnt equting them i was giving an example about how private citizens information was available to third parties at a price

we live in a period when our civil liberties have been eroded faster than any other- there are cameras AOTS and god help you if youre of the muslim persuasion

if you think goverments police and 'security' services wouldnt use our data for whatever they wanted youre a naive fool

i take it youve been down to the bizzie station to surrender your dna?

zanes

For the THIRD time this thread, I'll ask this;

All the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear, it helps the police" types on here have, I assume, been down to the local cop shop and volunteered a sample for inclusion on the database.

And if you haven't, mind giving us the reasons why not?

zedders

fast as fupp wrote:

zedders wrote:

I don't see the problem with having a DNA database. If you don't commit crime you will never need to worry about it. I understand there have been one or two miscarridges of justice based around DNA evidence, but that's about it, over the 30 yrs or so its been going. Tradgic for the the innocent, but the needs of the many should not be out weighted by the few! As NapD says it's a tool to aid a case, and nowerdays would not convict a person on it's own.

Many sex offenders, rapist and murderers have been caught years later when stopped and arrested for minor offences, and they have had there DNA taken as part of the arrest process. Surely this reason alone makes having a DNA database a good thing? I don't get all the do gooders wanting it closed down or restricted in some way because it's against there human rights? What about the rights of victims of crime? Do they not have the right for the offenders to be brought to justice?

another one!

define 'a crime'

thanks

a do-gooder (does that make you a do-badder?)

Crime? = you break the law!

And if you break the law, the Police have the power to arrest you for 'any' offence as long as they can justify it at the time. And if the Police can justify an arrest then why should they not take the opportunity to take that persons DNA? They take their photo, and fingerprints as a matter of cause anyway, along with all their other personal & private details. What do these people have to hide?

Me a do-badder?

Please? Am trying to be level headed on this. What have I said that's so bad? DNA evidence can make or break a case, and there should not be a problem with (mostly) convicted criminal's having there DNA profile on file.
Some are making out that their DNA will be splattered all over a crime scene and they end up in prison? Come on? I have major concerns as with most about the competence of the government, and with some of their decisions, but that shouldn’t be reason for not having a DNA database? As I previously said the needs of many should not be outweighed by the few!

fast as fupp

its because the government defines what is criminal

not all governments are nice

what if the made a law that made YOU a criminal

would you be so keen on a DNA database then?