For or against the police keeping DNA records

[Mise]

There are 100 million people on the planet (and I was just adding a bunch of 9's there).

Doh, thought it was billion

But yeah I think it's accurate enough, if we assume only 100 million records are (a) on the DB, and (b) alive at any point in time.

(PS. I realise you just added a bunch of nines in there, but the crux is that if it's accurate to 100 billion people, but only 2 people are on it, then it's a safe bet that it's correct.)

 

[Masquerouge]

And we get back to the trust issue - once government has data, access to that data spreads like ripples in a pond.

What exactly do you mean by that? Spreads to where? Other government agencies? And what will they do with it? Spam your email address? Send you pre-approved credit cards? Sell your phone number to telemarketers?

Honestly I'm a lot more worried by what private corporations can do with my DNA than what governments can do.

 

[IglooDame]

What exactly do you mean by that? Spreads to where? Other government agencies? And what will they do with it? Spam your email address? Send you pre-approved credit cards? Sell your phone number to telemarketers?

Honestly I'm a lot more worried by what private corporations can do with my DNA than what governments can do.

Other government agencies, other government employees, usually with less and less legitimate need-to-know. And then eventually it can get exposed either to the public outright, to hackers, and/or to private entities that lobby for access to it for the public good but really only want it for their own gain.

In the case of DNA, think insurance companies that would adjust health insurance/life insurance rates proactively.

 

[Masquerouge]

Other government agencies, other government employees, usually with less and less legitimate need-to-know. And then eventually it can get exposed either to the public outright, to hackers, and/or to private entities that lobby for access to it for the public good but really only want it for their own gain.

In the case of DNA, think insurance companies that would adjust health insurance/life insurance rates proactively.

Wait, is your concern with giving that info to the government that it will leak to the private sector?

 

[IglooDame]

Wait, is your concern with giving that info to the government that it will leak to the private sector?

In the specific case of DNA, that is one of my concerns, yes.

 

[Masquerouge]

In the specific case of DNA, that is one of my concerns, yes.

So your real worry is not with the government then, it's with the private sector, no?

 

[IglooDame]

In the specific case of DNA, that is one of my concerns, yes.

So your real worry is not with the government then, it's with the private sector, no?

That's one of my real worries. Another is the gov wanting to embed DNA into mandatory IDs. Another is potential of tracking travel via other than cameras. Another is that people are pretty creative in coming up with new concepts and once gov has the DNA, its use can be spread without me having much say in it.

 

[Mark1031]

I am not sure how criminal DNA identification is done but I assume it uses hypervariable regions that are not linked to any disease risk loci. If this is in fact the case your DNA file would contain no information about your biology and would be no different than a fingerprint.

I am unsure on this question. While I tend to think it a mistake to let the government accumulate information it really could help solve a lot of very heinous crimes. I assume things with DNA evidence are generally rape, murder type things not shoplifting.

One interesting question is what about a DNA frameup. I could pickup a strangers hair say from a public bathroom and leave it at my crime scene. I suppose most rapists and murders would not be so well prepared.

 

[Masquerouge]

One interesting question is what about a DNA frameup. I could pickup a strangers hair say from a public bathroom and leave it at my crime scene. I suppose most rapists and murders would not be so well prepared.

I think that in most cases DNA will be used to confirm if a suspect is or is not a criminal, but if you were so framed it shouldn't be too hard to have a decent alibi.
Plus it would be pretty amazing if that was the only piece of evidence found...

 

[El_Machinae]

I figure it's one of those things that will happen eventually.

That said, it should be fought at every stage of the slippery slope, just to ensure that as many feasible safe guards are there as possible. The citizens need the safeguards put in first, because it's going to be hard to get them in after-the-fact.

 

[JohnRM]

I don't need some fascist police state compiling biological data on me.

 

[Masquerouge]

I don't need some fascist police state compiling biological data on me.

Would you say private corporations compiling your data, biological or otherwise, are fascists too?

 

[GinandTonic]

It would be to much like 1984. The all knowing goverment is dangerous.

Fella you are a self avowed fascist.

How on earth do you square this statement with your belief in national socialism?

 

[Elrohir]

As opposed to getting a warrant, dragging you to the station and/or hospital and forcibly taking it from you? It also makes you look guilty if you say "shove it!" to a cop asking to compare your DNA to a suspects.

As opposed to comparing the suspects DNA to yours and eliminating you without ever even contacting you.

Sounds like it would save a huge hassle to me. Also, if you didn't do anything wrong, what do you have to fear?

Financially it could also save a ton of money in the long run. Not having to go through all the courtroom nonsense to get a simple DNA sample.

---------------------------------------------

By that logic, the police should be able to take samples of not only your DNA and fingerprints, but be able to search your home, car, office, computer, email accounts, financial records, full cavity search, etc - all without a warrant, simply because "if you won't let them, then you must be guilty" mentality.

Nonsense. If asked politely, I would probably cooperate with the police on an issue like this - but I won't stand for being forced. I have rights as an American citizen, and I don't want them violated.

I'm also interested as to why almost everybody thinks that police are corrupt and will do everything they can to screw you over. They're not the Gestapo or NKVD, people.

The majority don't have to actually be corrupt for this to be a problem. I think most police are honest, good people just trying to do their jobs - but that doesn't mean we should violate all of our civil rights just to help them.

 

[nivi]

My main gripe is that if they do it, don't do it half assed like the US does it, one of the more stupid things i've heard is that if they have a partial match (meaning that the criminal is related to the person who'se dna was found), they can't go after the family of the person with the partial match.

 

[JohnRM]

Would you say private corporations compiling your data, biological or otherwise, are fascists too?

What is your point?

 

[-0blivion-]

To see whether trust differentiates between state government and private corporations obviously.

Anyway, this is total rubbish, I have done nothing wrong and if you ask me this doesn't have any real point or purpose apart from the government to continue to push its National ID plans, so I am firmly against it.

Similar to when I got fingerprinted on entry to the USA recently, absolutely incredible and distinctly Kafka-esque, makes travel even more of a nightmare.

 

[Irish Caesar]

I'd be against the government doing this. I like to think I'm innocent until proven guilty; I'll be happy to allow my DNA to be tested to clear my name of a crime that might have pointed to me, but that's it.

*I think that the government collecting any sort of data on its citizens or any other people without a darn good reason is a waste of taxpayer money.
*I don't trust private information to stay private in anyone's hands, although the government hasn't exactly proven itself wonderful at this anyway.
*I consider anyone having access to information they don't need and might find other uses for to be violating my privacy, whether this be government, private corporation, or individual.

 

[GenMarshall]

Not from the UK and I am against the idea if it ever comes to the United States. Personaly, it should only be reserved for people who comitted serious crimes.

 

[JZ_UK]

I'm against it, the reason of its discriminatory that the police are racist so everyone should be sampled doesn't fly for me, I'm quite taken a back by the learned Lord Justice's view that it is better to damage everyone's civil liberties than it is to try and correct institutional racism =/

I'm also for a time limit on how long arrest DNA samples can be kept where no charge is made and I believe if a conviction is not secured that sample should be destroyed. I'm flexible where certain particularly odious offences are alleged... a longer run on expiration is perhaps acceptable on a sexual or violent offence... but an arrest for say a public order offence shouldn't put your DNA in the system ad infinitum...

I think there is a case to be made for and against a person with a spent conviction having their samples destroyed, again, some offenders could justifiably never have their samples destroyed.

Of course... should I ever secure that dream job in the Crown Prosecution Service I'll no doubt think differently... *sigh*