DNA database

Cressers

How do you sceptical people feel the government would use the data?

What are your rights to your own genomic intellectual property if you find yourself immune to a disease?

What happens if your organs or tissues are found to be compatible with a member of the elite who 'needs' them more than you do?

What rights do you have to not have your genetic information screened for a certain gene, be it the 'gay' gene or a supposed predispostion to obesity or alcholism that may be flagged by the nosey state as reason to select you for 'treatment'?

As with any database, the use to which it can be put are limited only by the moral scruples, or lack of them, of the people in charge of the database.

finchy

shouldbeinbed wrote:

Seriously do go and read it again and tell me honestly if you think in the next 20 years we're going to descend into a state of national chaos and international subjugation and asset stripping that will lead to otherwise normal rational people from all walks of life activiely participating in the sort of attocious national shame of the mid C20 germans.

I don't know what it will be like in 20 years, or 50 or 100. Which is exactly why I don't like the idea of giving the government ever more control over our lives.

I don't believe that this control will be a police state, but take into consideration the future economy of the world - easily extractable oil reserves are running out, it will be more and more expensive to transport things in the future, European countries are spending large amounts of money on buying up African farmland to feed our own populations - not exactly the best way to ensure food supplies, as what guarantee do we have that poor Africans, seeing their most fertile land being used to feed Westerners, won't just go and take it over? Although I'm generally optimistic about the future of our country, it's the uncertainty factor which makes me and others wary about how much information a government should hold on the individual.

I bet that if you went back to pre-junta Argentina and asked them if the government will be setting quotas for the number of people to be "disappeared" in the future, their reaction would be pretty much the same as yours.

shouldbeinbed wrote:

Jusat because I don't see Nick Griffin as Adolf Hitler Mk2 or the BNP obtaining a powerbase along the lines of the National Socialists or the rest of the world, having seen that repeatedly happen allow a major modern european trading democracy to go down that route please don't patronise me.

:? I didn't intend a single word to be patronising. I just thought that you've read too much into other people's comments, and you seemed to be suggesting that other people believe DNA database today = concentration camps tomorrow.

shouldbeinbed wrote:

and then think what teeth has Britain got in the 20 year descent into govenrmental anarchy to hav ethat facility to tell the rest to do one. we're a service industry island and that can be done anywhere with phone and internet.

Assuming the rest of the world doesn't have problems of their own to pre-occupy them.

Like I said above, I don't believe that we will see authoritarian government in the UK in my lifetime at least, for a number of factors which I can't be bothered to list here. People on this forum aren't arguing against the DNA of violent offenders, etc. being stored on a database, it's the people who haven't been convicted of crimes which bothers them. And if they, as innocent people, do not give consent to the government to store their DNA on a database, then what right does the government have to do it?

mask of sanity

Cressers wrote:

How do you sceptical people feel the government would use the data?

What are your rights to your own genomic intellectual property if you find yourself immune to a disease?

What happens if your organs or tissues are found to be compatible with a member of the elite who 'needs' them more than you do?

What rights do you have to not have your genetic information screened for a certain gene, be it the 'gay' gene or a supposed predispostion to obesity or alcholism that may be flagged by the nosey state as reason to select you for 'treatment'?

As with any database, the use to which it can be put are limited only by the moral scruples, or lack of them, of the people in charge of the database.

But a DNA profile gives no information on genes. It uses DNA that is part of the non-coding region to create the profile.

dilemna

mask of sanity wrote:

Cressers wrote:

How do you sceptical people feel the government would use the data?

What are your rights to your own genomic intellectual property if you find yourself immune to a disease?

What happens if your organs or tissues are found to be compatible with a member of the elite who 'needs' them more than you do?

What rights do you have to not have your genetic information screened for a certain gene, be it the 'gay' gene or a supposed predispostion to obesity or alcholism that may be flagged by the nosey state as reason to select you for 'treatment'?

As with any database, the use to which it can be put are limited only by the moral scruples, or lack of them, of the people in charge of the database.

But a DNA profile gives no information on genes. It uses DNA that is part of the non-coding region to create the profile.

Errr ...no. The loci used can indicate certain medical conditions such as Klinefelter's syndrome, Down's Syndrome, and likely ethnicity of the person from whom the DNA originates eg Caucasian, AfroCaribbean, etc. The database as a whole can give an indication of the frequency of genes with populations from different backgrounds.

mask of sanity

dilemna wrote:

mask of sanity wrote:

Cressers wrote:

How do you sceptical people feel the government would use the data?

What are your rights to your own genomic intellectual property if you find yourself immune to a disease?

What happens if your organs or tissues are found to be compatible with a member of the elite who 'needs' them more than you do?

What rights do you have to not have your genetic information screened for a certain gene, be it the 'gay' gene or a supposed predispostion to obesity or alcholism that may be flagged by the nosey state as reason to select you for 'treatment'?

As with any database, the use to which it can be put are limited only by the moral scruples, or lack of them, of the people in charge of the database.

But a DNA profile gives no information on genes. It uses DNA that is part of the non-coding region to create the profile.

Errr ...no. The loci used can indicate certain medical conditions such as Klinefelter's syndrome, Down's Syndrome, and likely ethnicity of the person from whom the DNA originates eg Caucasian, AfroCaribbean, etc. The database as a whole can give an indication of the frequency of genes with populations from different backgrounds.

Not true I'm afraid. Currently there is no proof to indicate a relationship between STR alleles and genes.

With the exception of the amelogenin locus (sex marker) the other loci examined are not associated with any physical features of a person carrying them. There could clearly be some advantages in crime investigations if the DNA evidence could be read to give clues to the physical appearance of a suspect. The work is in its early stages.

Ethnicity can be predicted based on the frequency of the alleles in different ethnic groups but all forms of alleles can be found in all ethnic groups therefore if offers no conclusive information and is of no use.

dilemna

mask of sanity wrote:

dilemna wrote:

mask of sanity wrote:

Cressers wrote:

How do you sceptical people feel the government would use the data?

What are your rights to your own genomic intellectual property if you find yourself immune to a disease?

What happens if your organs or tissues are found to be compatible with a member of the elite who 'needs' them more than you do?

What rights do you have to not have your genetic information screened for a certain gene, be it the 'gay' gene or a supposed predispostion to obesity or alcholism that may be flagged by the nosey state as reason to select you for 'treatment'?

As with any database, the use to which it can be put are limited only by the moral scruples, or lack of them, of the people in charge of the database.

But a DNA profile gives no information on genes. It uses DNA that is part of the non-coding region to create the profile.

Errr ...no. The loci used can indicate certain medical conditions such as Klinefelter's syndrome, Down's Syndrome, and likely ethnicity of the person from whom the DNA originates eg Caucasian, AfroCaribbean, etc. The database as a whole can give an indication of the frequency of genes with populations from different backgrounds.

Not true I'm afraid. Currently there is no proof to indicate a relationship between STR alleles and genes.

With the exception of the amelogenin locus (sex marker) the other loci examined are not associated with any physical features of a person carrying them. There could clearly be some advantages in crime investigations if the DNA evidence could be read to give clues to the physical appearance of a suspect. The work is in its early stages.

Ethnicity can be predicted based on the frequency of the alleles in different ethnic groups but all forms of alleles can be found in all ethnic groups therefore if offers no conclusive information and is of no use.

Do you know what STR stands for?
Please define an allele and a gene.

The loci currently chosen are not directly linked to appearance to an individual but you still see profiles from individuals who have rare medical conditions some I have previously mentioned. You only need a relatively small sample of profiles from a population to determine the frequency of alleles within that population.

The fact that the profile can be identified as likely coming from a particular racial group means therefore that the individuals matching that profile will likely have an appearance matching that racial group which can be extremely useful in an investigation indentifying or excluding suspects. Certain racial groups have unique physical features that don't occur in other groups.

So yes you can broadly determine appearance from a profile. Of course the prepared crim wears a mask or a disguise.

mask of sanity

umm, yeah, of course I do! Short tandem repeat.

Simplistically, a gene is an area in the DNA that codes for the production of a protein. It's these that determine what you look like (environment also plays a role in this), the functioning of biological processes, whether you have a genetic disease etc. An allele is a form of a gene but I'm using it in reference to a type of STR not a gene.

I'm sorry but you just can't link a profile to a racial group from STR analysis. Yes, certain alleles are more frequent in certain races but they are present in all races. That means that a profile with alleles more common to one ethnic group is statistically more likely to have come from a person of that ethnicity, but does not mean that they have to be. Therefore it will not be used to narrow down the ethnic groups of suspects as it just would not be reliable. Much in the same way as DNA will not be used as proof of identity.

shouldbeinbed

johnfinch wrote:

I don't believe that this control will be a police state, but take into consideration the future economy of the world - easily extractable oil reserves are running out, it will be more and more expensive to transport things in the future, European countries are spending large amounts of money on buying up African farmland to feed our own populations - not exactly the best way to ensure food supplies, as what guarantee do we have that poor Africans, seeing their most fertile land being used to feed Westerners, won't just go and take it over? Although I'm generally optimistic about the future of our country, it's the uncertainty factor which makes me and others wary about how much information a government should hold on the individual.

me neither but I'm not sure how us handing / not personal info to the government relates to the potential for another Zimbabwe like expulsion of anyone not favoured by the local powerbase.

do you have a bank account, passport, driving licence, tesco clubcard, internet account, ever paid council tax or been on the electoral roll, been included on the government census, are you sure you can't be identified and traced via your posting and info footprint on here? Stop and think for just a minute how much info is harvested or handed over daily by all of us and how much more damaging to us most of it could be to us if there really was a need to close us down, track us to the n'th degree or make us disappear. You can close the stable door now but the horse isn't even in the same county anymore.

johnfinch wrote:

I bet that if you went back to pre-junta Argentina and asked them if the government will be setting quotas for the number of people to be "disappeared" in the future, their reaction would be pretty much the same as yours.

Dunno on that one, did the elected government set up a quota system for the disappeared? are you suggesting we're ripe for a millitary coup here and the soldiery becoming a militia of kidnappers and killers to make that a viable example?

If you went back to pre-nazi Germany and told them in a generation or 2 their own family members would be death camp guards engaging in slaughter and genocide do you think they'd have believed it?

your example is as off as this one unless we are in for violent regimen change and millitary dictatorship any time soon and I don't think either of us think that.

johnfinch wrote:

shouldbeinbed wrote:

Jusat because I don't see Nick Griffin as Adolf Hitler Mk2 or the BNP obtaining a powerbase along the lines of the National Socialists or the rest of the world, having seen that repeatedly happen allow a major modern european trading democracy to go down that route please don't patronise me.

:? I didn't intend a single word to be patronising. I just thought that you've read too much into other people's comments, and you seemed to be suggesting that other people believe DNA database today = concentration camps tomorrow.

so what should I have read into posts on page 1 and 2 likening it to the oppression of the Jews around WW2 in Germany and using words like Genocide and Eugenics?

johnfinch wrote:

shouldbeinbed wrote:

and then think what teeth has Britain got in the 20 year descent into govenrmental anarchy to hav ethat facility to tell the rest to do one. we're a service industry island and that can be done anywhere with phone and internet.

Assuming the rest of the world doesn't have problems of their own to pre-occupy them.

they have plenty of problems now but still have taken quite a bit of interest partcularly in Russia, China, North Korea, Iraq, Iran etc. Were a global interaction now, national boundaries but international problems needing international solutions.

johnfinch wrote:

Like I said above, I don't believe that we will see authoritarian government in the UK in my lifetime at least, for a number of factors which I can't be bothered to list here. People on this forum aren't arguing against the DNA of violent offenders, etc. being stored on a database, it's the people who haven't been convicted of crimes which bothers them. And if they, as innocent people, do not give consent to the government to store their DNA on a database, then what right does the government have to do it?

likewise and I'l say it one last time (cos I'm bored to death of repeating myself now) go and read whats actually being talked about from the Home Office on this issue.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/ ... -database/

what you are saying is right if you are looking backwards. Looking forwards is a different matter and at odds with what you're posting.

The European Court of Human Rights trumps British law on this one and they've come down solidly in favour of individual rights and the illegality of Governmental retention of samples that don't end in a conviction. The landmark ruling is S & Marper v UK

http://lawbore.net/humanrights/hotdocs/1242
(follow the link or google for thousands of references)

Recent PACE and CJA amendments refer specifically to retaining forensic/biometric samples only from convicted persons. no mention of innocent retention unless volunteered by the individual and it even says that such voluntary consent is rescindable (if there is such a word).

you're several years too late into the argument and your opinions are not keeping pace with the facts or the opinion of the government (even if it is an opinion they've been compelled to hold by ECHR)

apologies for the frustration, but its all out there for minimal effort to find and I've repeatedly said go and look at what is actually coming from the Euro Courts and the response the government is putting in place in relation to it. That the same 'they've no right' argument clearly shows that the research pre posting isn't there.

I'm off this one now. If you don't read what's out there or choose not to believe it fair play to you, if you think I'm OTT deploring Nazi metaphors - go and read the first page of the thread, see that it wasn't me that brought nazism and atrocities like eugenics into this debate.
I make no apologies though for challenging such (IMO) idiotic comments as those nor defending my role as a specialist in this area from the implication that I'm some sort of mindless stooge or malign minion ready and willing to abuse peoples human rights at the behest of Gordon Brown, David Cameron or whichever Argnentina like millitary junta we end up with after the revolution when your quotas kick in.

finchy

shouldbeinbed wrote:

I make no apologies though for challenging such (IMO) idiotic comments as those nor defending my role as a specialist in this area from the implication that I'm some sort of mindless stooge or malign minion ready and willing to abuse peoples human rights at the behest of Gordon Brown, David Cameron or whichever Argnentina like millitary junta we end up with after the revolution when your quotas kick in.

Now you're just putting words in my mouth. As I have said, I DON'T believe that this country WILL end up with authoritarian government. All I ever said was that we haven't got a clue what's going to happen in the future and people don't trust the government, which is why they would not consent to having their DNA on the database.

I have read the comments on the first two pages. The point people were making is simply that the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" argument is invalid. I can't see a single pos saying that we will end up with Nazism in this country.

I am aware of the arguments about what is going on at present with regard to the DNA database, and as far as I can see from the opinions presented by people on this forum, they just don't agree with compulsory inclusion on it.

Cressers

" I don't believe that we will see authoritarian government in the UK in my lifetime at least"

I fear that we will. Of course it depends who you define authoritarian, but the signs don't look good...

finchy

Cressers wrote:

" I don't believe that we will see authoritarian government in the UK in my lifetime at least"

I fear that we will. Of course it depends who you define autoritarian, but the signs don't look good...

I'm an optimist.

I must admit that I'm very uneasy about some recent developments, but, taking as an example the Simon Singh case, there will often be sufficient outrage to prevent any further erosion of civil liberties.

What particularly concerns you?

Cressers

The totality of the way that the state is is granting itself greater and more intrusive powers as well as the infrastructure for using them. Once started the avalanche will gather more mass and speed, things will happen 'because we can' and there will be the constant push from the 'security-sureveillance-complex' to do more, if only partly for the reason that the subjects of the oppression can be charged money for the 'service'.

dilemna

mask of sanity wrote:

umm, yeah, of course I do! Short tandem repeat.

Simplistically, a gene is an area in the DNA that codes for the production of a protein. It's these that determine what you look like (environment also plays a role in this), the functioning of biological processes, whether you have a genetic disease etc. An allele is a form of a gene but I'm using it in reference to a type of STR not a gene.

I'm sorry but you just can't link a profile to a racial group from STR analysis. Yes, certain alleles are more frequent in certain races but they are present in all races. That means that a profile with alleles more common to one ethnic group is statistically more likely to have come from a person of that ethnicity, but does not mean that they have to be. Therefore it will not be used to narrow down the ethnic groups of suspects as it just would not be reliable. Much in the same way as DNA will not be used as proof of identity.

Are you merely studying forensic science at college and watching CSI and Silent Witness :roll: ?

mask of sanity

dilemna wrote:

mask of sanity wrote:

umm, yeah, of course I do! Short tandem repeat.

Simplistically, a gene is an area in the DNA that codes for the production of a protein. It's these that determine what you look like (environment also plays a role in this), the functioning of biological processes, whether you have a genetic disease etc. An allele is a form of a gene but I'm using it in reference to a type of STR not a gene.

I'm sorry but you just can't link a profile to a racial group from STR analysis. Yes, certain alleles are more frequent in certain races but they are present in all races. That means that a profile with alleles more common to one ethnic group is statistically more likely to have come from a person of that ethnicity, but does not mean that they have to be. Therefore it will not be used to narrow down the ethnic groups of suspects as it just would not be reliable. Much in the same way as DNA will not be used as proof of identity.

Are you merely studying forensic science at college and watching CSI and Silent Witness :roll: ?

What are you trying to say?