The DNA Database and Civil Liberties
Lord Justice Sedley call for everyone to be put on the national DNA database including foreign visitors, isn’t nearly as outrageous as it seems. He told the BBC,
“Where we are at the moment is indefensible. We have a situation where if you happen to have been in the hands of the police, then your DNA is on permanent record. If you haven’t, it isn’t.”
Which means that Britain has the largest DNA database in the world, 5.2% of the UK population is on it, including children under 10. About a third of the people on it haven’t been convicted of any crime. The police have the power to take samples from anyone arrested for a recordable offence but they don’t have to destroy it if the person isn’t convicted of the offence.
Lord Justice Sedley is right that is indefensible but the answer isn’t to put more people on the database – it’s to take people off it. The right not to have our DNA helf by the state, unless we have been convicted of a serious crime, ought to be a civil right but it isn’t. And we all know that it’s not going to be under this Government. So in a perverse way, what he is suggesting would be fairer.
He also suggests that it should only be used “for the absolutely rigorously restricted purpose of crime detection and prevention,” which is great in principle but once it is created, there can be no guarantees that it will be. When it was set up it wasn’t the intention that innocent people should have their samples kept, they were meant to be destroyed but a barely contested piece of legisaltion changed all that and now, the police have been given almost unrestricted power to take samples, and they have already abused that power – black people and Muslims are disproportionately recorded on it because of police bias. Could we trust a future government not to use this for racial profiling?
Another problem that he doesn’t take into account is that police and Government records are notoriously unreliable. Addiing another 55 million names or so isn’t going to make it any more reliable. The chances of errors of more input errors are extremely high. Also, DNA anaylisis isn’t a precise science, forensic scientists have to interpret DNA evidence, sometimes that is simple but sometimes it’s not. With more people on the database there is a far greater chance of false positives in complex cases.
steph
amie
rob
That’s exacty how I feel and I hate it.
My respect for politicians is at an all-time low, and every time I pick up the papers, it dives down another couple of notches.
Just today we’ve got Call Me Dave’s demented pursuit of Greeness kicking off again with the Tory Boys promising to whack up the price of tellys and add £2,000 to the cost of a family car.
Fine for millionaire Old Etonians like him and his mate Zac Goldsmith, who apparently came up with the idea.
But for hard-up voting-fodder like me, it ain’t gonna play well at the ballot box.
Redleader said:
I think there are enough free-thinkers to oppose them but how effective can we be? We don’t live in a democratic society, which is why most people fee disengaged. It’s why I don’t vote in general elections, what the point? You swap one lot of establishment lackeys for another lot. (sorry way off-topic)
Ian Blair is a piece of scum who feels no action on the killers of Jean Charles DeMenezes should be forthcoming. *spit*
Zadehamin, good point. Sir Ian Blair was accussed by his own watchdog of basically being an incompetent bumbling buffoon and asked to resign. Neither the police or gov can be trusted with this information.
The sorry fact is that this lot have no idea where the line should be drawn.
The government and its compliant judiciary think that 9/11 has given them carte blanche to advocate almost any sanction they wish.
They are wrong.
I only hope there are enough free-thinking individuals left in the UK to be bothered to try to stop them.
I say individuals as opposed to political parties, as it is clear that the major political groupings are devoid of significant differences in policy, and will hitch their flagging bandwagons to whatever cause celebre may be passing by at any given time.
Steph, the Met Police Anti-Corruption squad was found to have unlawfully tapped the telephone conversations of Chief superintendent Ali Dizaei, an ethnic-Iranian and the Met’s most senior Muslim officer, who is also legal adviser to the National Black Police Association, in the most expensive witch hunt in the history of the service. The operation – codenamed Helios – was directly overseen by Met Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair, back when he was deputy commissioner. Thus, there is good reason for Muslims or ethnic-minorities to distrust the police and to want to avoid be placed on a national DNA database, which is so open to abuse.
Welcome to the 21st century police state. As if they don’t have enough information on us as it is. So much for technology for making our lives better. I’m a city boy but now envy people who live the simple life in the country side.
You are welcome Steph, I’d love to brag that those editors at the torygraph loved what I wrote but alas, I can’t and have to fess up that it was published on one of their ‘free’ stumps, similar to bcuk, interesting debates though, kudos for getting it all going!
Hi amie.
I hope I didn’t give the impression that I’m in favour of ANY kind of database, cos I’m not. Even though I appreciated rob’s(12) post.
If DNA can be useful to rape cases, then the once the conviction has been made OR rejected, then all databased information should be thrown away.
I feel the price to pay for any database it too costly compared to any benefits.
Does DNA guarantee to solve rape or any other crimes? I think some figures are necessary to see its usefulness.
You raise the point of a dead guy doing something, and I’ve heard about 6 years ago or something that two men were found with EXACTLY the same DNA.
Rob well done for getting that published and thanks for the plug
Hey Lwtc. Wouldn’t it make more sense to take all the people not convicted of anything off than put loads of people on there?
Didn’t dna prove that some dead guy killed some dead girl? Whoopee shit!
yep
“Why is everyone getting so hot and bothered???” – That point should have been made clear already. The ‘disconnected’ statement that ‘we almost daily have to make decisions based on limited info’ doesn’t give any reassurance in any way to the objections of having us databased.
As a society, we shold be working to greater anonynimity, especially one that claims it is ‘progressive’
Steph… Is there any text decorations possible on wordpress comments?
Hyphenated not sure what you mean?
Why is everyone getting so hot and bothered??? We all live in a universe that requires us to make decisions on something everyday. Most of our decisions are based facts that aren’t correct / are incomplete and that’s life.
@ lwtc247 (14) Thanks
@Steph 15 – thx Steph, it was the quality of the touchpaper and the subsequent flaminoids
*nods head vigourously*
lwtc247, well this is the thing, technically we’re at war, that gives the government an awful lot of leeway, give them the a national database with every one’s name on it, and you can bet that they will misuse it.
Phillip, I couldn’t agree more. I really don’t see any need for the state to have my DNA profile on record or anyone else’s who hasn’t committed a serious crime but I see a lot of potential for misuse.
@ rob 12. That was a lot better than my original post, you should post that as blog.
DNA certainly helps catch sex offenders and murderers but given the number of people on the database – not all that much.
Another point, a 15 year old girl’s parents ring up the police and say that she’s been having sex with the boy down the road. If the girl doesn’t want to prosecute now, the police will leave it in most circumstances. But if they have the boys DNA already on the system, what’s to stop them taking the bed sheets?
Nice post rob(12)
oops, missed this point
Zackly! Money is a great motivator. People will do things for an easier life. It only takes one leak and thats that. Stick it on the net for all and sundry to see and use, then thats the end of it all, its in the public domain replicated and distributed
Break was good thx, went kayaking down the river Berounka, no thong just shorts mind, although I did sing a thong or two
The problem with this stuff is that its put up against arguments around catching rapists and child killers and murderers. Who can really argue effectively against measures that would ( if we are to believe in the science) make the identification of such things so much easier?
To be honest if I truly trusted those who governed me, if I hadn’t bore witness to a long list of civil abuses of power in my short time on this planet, if I hadn’t read books like 1984 and subsequently seen parallels in my own everyday life, if there truly was some means of ensuring that my very personal essence and blueprint, god given, biological, non political, non partisan, naturally created material exclusive to me could only ever be used to detect murderous or sexually abusive or violent crime then, perhaps, just perhaps I could well live with it. How can I seriously argue that a technology that actually identified a possible perpetrator of a crime that could well be commited on others within our community endangering the lives of our sisters and brothers, daughers and sons not be used?
I can’t, not without being mocked and derided as an irresponsible idiot; yet like so many others have identified this isn’t what people have issue with. People have a serious issue with trust, they simply dont (rightly so too) trust those who’d be entrusted to ensure it was used in the right way). Data would be leaked and sold and companies would use this data in sneaky underhand ways. Forget the data protectionact, that’s circumvented and ignored daily, its an old clunky mechanism that just cant keep up and is poorly policed.
People would be be right not to trust that cold hearted rationale that would for examples sake, take the chance and probability out from say, medical or life insurance. Companies like these would jump on arguments that say that open disclosure of ones DNA profile should be a requirement of being accepted into a policy. It would be used to develop multiple policies tailored specifically towards certain types of ailements. People would be frightened to the ends of the earth with probabilities that said, your gene profile shows you have a predisposition to cancer or (insert any other number of possible nasty later life diseases) and would be expected to pay the appropriate amount. Society would become eugenicised by a system that made living with a later possibility an economic burden. People would be expected to submit a ‘clean’ DNA profile to prospective employers or life partners, who’d want to knowingly pass on a death sentence or disability to their yet to be had offspring? What company would want to invest thousands of pounds in a person who might be dieing of leukaemia some 4 years down the line?
No, DNA profiling needs to be used for research into gene therapies and stuff that contributes to the greater good without damaging or spoiling the lives of those who live today and tommorrow and thats that nothing else, ever.As much as it pains me to say I really must be satisfied with what we have today (crime detection wise) and live with the consequences of its shortcomings. I think the law as it stands today is simply ill equipped to deal with the pandoras box of issues that would stem from such a policy. I relly dont want to live a life in a society that legislates reactively. Put some very solid, cast iron , irreversible protective measures in place 1st, then I might, just might have a second look. Not today though, no way.
Phillip. Yes that phrase REALLY annoys me. I blogged about it here: http://tinyurl.com/2cl4qd
Let’s be honest. We DO have thngs to hide dont we. Illegal or personal whatever. Many of us would rather forget embarassing things / large or serious mistakes, foolishness or moments of stupidity or even a radical change in personal philosophy what have you.
But the choice is a false one. Either allow (or have take from you against your will) total exposure of many aspects of your life (travelling, financial, likes and dislkes, medical history) or you are covering up something. Honestly I’ve heard a lot of ridiculous false constructs in my time and this one really wins a medal.
And the worst thing is, you get some idiots who heare such soundbytes and think its clever and then just repeat it without the slightest bit of thought whatsoever. Parroting someone elses falsehood is really a sign of mental reduncancy.
I want parts of my life private whether I something to hide or not. So to you people what wnat my data or stuff – Push off! You’ll only get what I choose to give and if I choose to recall that info you have no right to refuse.
This was debated on my local radio and if I hear one more old duffer say ‘if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear’ – they will definately want my dna as I do away with several old idiots in the Bristol area. Of course it is dangerous to give any Govt. this kind of power over us. And no doubt they will later sell it to the insurance companies, like the DVLA sell our car details to the car manufacturers.
Yes Steph(6). It is worrying. Very worrying! I guess he gets his arrant views care of the Beeb.
The DNA database will encourage crime. STATE crime. Now ANY act of state sponsored terrorism like what Tony Bliar was a part of in London 7th July 2007 will be ‘proven’ when DNA samples are found at the scene, cae closed!, instead of having to concoct difficult stories, prone to errors such as catching cancelled trains, having to a (single) photoshop picture, destroy/censure video footage, accidently leaving return tickets, accidently fingering the ‘difficult’ explosives, making strange vague out-of-lip-sinc videos, and have would be Peter Power’s come on and end up almost signle handedly accidently blowing down the house of cards.
In case you havent noticed it… There is a bloody war going on. The part you may not have realised (if you’ve been living in a hole – e.g. Britain) is that for your mind and your freedom is just one aspect of it. The other is to grab fuel to power the Caucasuion war machine.
RESIST !!!
Dont let these bastards entrench the loss of freedom we have already suffered.
Rob, never thought about it that way. It’s interesting that the government never did this with finger prints, if it was about crime prevention and detection that would make more sense.
Hi Rob, hope you had a great holiday. Did you wear a thong or shorts on the beach?
Excellent points. “Trust me I’m a demoralised and under-paid civil servant” – Nah!
lwtc247, this judge is one of the most senior in the country, he’s also one of the most liberal and antiestablishment – worrying isn’t it?!! I see where he is comming from but he is being incredibly naive, if he thinks the police and the government can be trusted not to abuse the powers or just use it for crime detection and prevention. I trust the Italian judiciary a lot more than I do the British.
alvarezgalloso. NO! The police state is already in fruition! This is consolidation.
This is the beginning of a police state. Even Bush is considering DNA Sample.
What a fookin tosser that “Judge” is.
Oh, only half my family has hepatitis so all of them should have it. This short sighted establishment hack, who far from scrapping the most powerful tool the new British regeime could possibly hope for in its outragrous false flag dawn, the scumbag wants to see it become a realtity. Yeah, becasue it’s not his bloody familiy members that are going to be falsely accused.
I would refer him to the unadulterated poem by PAstor Martin Niemöller
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Too right mate. They can take it by force. It would mean that the state would know more about our parentage too. I sure it would have never occurred to the intelligence services that they could dip into the database to blackmail someone. We never put everyone on a national finger database, more people are convicted through finger print evidence than DNA, I would have thought.
There’s no difference between us all being on the database and ID cards. Ten to one if we had it, you’d need to give an DNA sample to go on the dole, get a passport or drivers licence, register with the NHS and go to school. Then you’d only be allowed to take out loans buy ticket for the footie if you showed your passport.
I’d be interested to learn how this DNA is acquired. What if i refuse to give it to them? Can they, do they even just take it, as in cut a lump of hair off, or stick a cotton bud in your mouth?
I think its the thin edge of a totalatarian wedge that should be resisted by all means. The state doesn’t own me, it should have no right or authority to take a piece of me, however miniscule and stick it away on some database somewhere. I don’t trust government, or some the people employed to do its bidding. private agencies are often used to run contracts of one form or other. What safeguards are there to protect my civil liberties? What is to prevent an individual downloading a data dump to a cd and then selling it on to say a life insurance company, or something similar?
All this old tosh about it safegurading society and making it easier to track the ‘bad’ people may well have merit in an ideal world, yet an ideal world is very far from the one we happen to inhabit.