The lib dems want to limit peoples records on the DNA database. I don't understand why anybody who does no commit a crime should object to having their on the DNA database, surely it can only be a good thing..? What harm cam it do?

Firstly – its not what harm can it do but show it would do good. If you want a universal DNA database then you have to show that it has utility.

Its also a "cat out of bag" situation – once your DNA is there then who knows what it will be ued for in future and who knows who is going to have access tot eh data. Would you like to be refused a mortgage because you have a genetic predisposition to early death?

I like my privacy and I want to control the data that is about me out there.

I agree with TJ. I remember being Very worried about the country and government records and monitoring when a politician stated "the good thing about the British public is that they are happy to give up their little civil liberties in the name of security"

No I'm not **** off.

Its an invasion of privacy to no real benefit. It will be abused

Who decides what a "crime" is these days?

A law is introduced that is complete knee jerk Daily Mail nonsence, poorly drafted amd made retrspectively, (say like Dangerous Dogs act) or even something as trivial as "The Property Misdescriptions act" and suddenly, you might not believe it, but suddently, your a criminal.

Or alternatively,
. Why should the law have a copy of your DNA to use, as it sees fit. There have been enought people "fitted up" by the police, without them having the "Gold card" of dna. Essentially, say, you inadvertently put a comma in the wrong place when selling a house, or drank too much on a night out and awoke in the cells, and having been forced to give over "evidence", essentially the police now have a big scrapbook of "evidence", all they need is to fit it to a crime.

I have too much experience in my job that police can be dishonest, why do we want to sleepwalk into a position where we given them everything up front.

Lets say as a further example, that you want to start a political party. Might not be a nice one, say BNP esque, or even simply one that becomes a threat to those in power, who's to say that the people in charge of dispensing justice coulnd't use this database to their own devices.

And if you think that Govt is above these things, remember, even today, theres a demand for a fresh inquest into Dr Steven Kelly's "suicide".

Why should there be an automatic presumtion that unless you tell the state what your doing, all the time, and have alibi's and full accountability, that you have "something to hide". What happened to my right to privicy, to live how I want, without 24/7 surveillance, and records being kept to a biological level on how I live. Why can't the state leave me alone, and why can't I have a presumption of "innocence" im my activities.

The problem with "nothing to hide" is its not you who choses what "nothing" is. The answer might surprise you.

"if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear", eh? Good thing that DNA evidence is 100% reliable, the police are always trustworthy and the state would never ever abuse its powers to screw anyone over, oh no.

I'm on the DNA database. I have never been convicted of any crime and have a Clean CRB. I have however been arrested.

What good does this do me, you, society, national security? Its being paid for, and how many other people are on the list for no reason? Who has access to the list? I declared my arrest to my employer as i wasn't sure if it would show up, but what if I wanted to hide it. i'm not guilty and am not a criminal, but I'm on a list with criminals, which implies I am by association? I wonder if the list just has name, and DNA details, or whether it lists your record as well? If there is a leak and the info gets out, how will that affect me and my future? if you are convicted, then fine, you surrender certain civil liberties when you choose to break the law. unconvicted means innocent, and therefore I wish to be treated as such.

Would you like to
be refused a mortgage because you have a
genetic predisposition to early death?

This is the most frequently cited fear and it is complete bollocks.

A DNA MATCHING database does not store your entire DNA sequence.

It stores a DNA profile, which is statistical information about the number of repeating pairs at 10 different loci in the sequence.

This results in a string of 20 numbers, not all 3 billion base pairs!

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_National_DNA_Database

TJ, Tazzy, Meehaja, Sweepy and JuJuuk68

+1

I don't think any more needs to be said. Hooray for the coalition.

In the future who knows what may happen. The state could start cloning you and your clone used as international hitman to take down other governments or even corporations. Everyone should be careful and nig leave skin flakes or hair lying around.

Here's a prime example. I got arrested due to being stripped naked by my mates on my stag do!!! (Lets say the polizei that arrested me at 02:30 and 5 mins from my hotel, were a bit "special"!) I am on the dna database and will probably never be able to work with children, thus ruining any chance of volunteering with groups when my little lad gets older. To say the law is an arse is an understatement. I want my data off it as it I do not think my "crime" puts me in the same league as sexual predators.
Going to America was a costly and time consuming affair as I had to get a visa!!

When DNA sampling started, you needed to provide a reasonably large amount of fluid. That has now changed and smaller and smallar amounts are needed. Who knows how much you'll need in a few years time, but it's possible that you just shake hands with someone who then kills someone with their bare hands. Now where's your DNA? I know this is unlikely but it's just another reason why the DNA database is wrong.

This is all well and good but if say, your daughter was murdered, and the killer was caught from DNA which was collectedas part of an extremely minor offence or even not in connection with an offence would you still take the same view? I think not…

Well the logical extension of that argument is that everyone is sampled at birth, hence reducing most crimes to zero. Is that ok?

I agree with TJ on this one.

>Going to America was a costly and time consuming affair as I had to get a visa!!

That's got nothing to do with being on the DNA database though is it, nor the working with children bit.

This is all well and good but if say, your daughter was murdered…

…then the murderer was probably be you or her boyfriend/husband.

I am on the dna database and will probably never be able to work with children, thus ruining any chance of volunteering with groups

Have you tried or are you just talking out of your arse?

I don't understand why anybody who does no commit a crime should object to having their on the DNA database

I've not commited a crime so why should the police or goverment need my DNA?

So a murder/ rape/ whatever gets committed on a bit of waste ground that you happen to walk past whilst pissed finishing off the bottle of beer/ fag you took from the pub. You discard the bottle/ fag and get home to sleep off your hangover. What happens when the police find the bottle of beer/ fag if there is no other evidence they can find. Would you trust the police not to fit you up in those circumstances

GrahamS – Member
A DNA MATCHING database does not store your entire DNA sequence.

It stores a DNA profile, which is statistical information about the number of repeating pairs at 10 different loci in the sequence.

Hurrah – someone else who understands DNA profiling 8)

I'm laughing my codons off at all the naysayers who don't even know what information the database stores and what potential information it offers !

Oooh 'they' might get my DNA sequence and do bad things with it, FFS 🙄

I guess I would, I'd certainly trust them to do their job and I'd have faith in the justice system. I find all this mistrust interesting. Particularly as I don't view things in this way and I have probably had more reason to mistrust the police than many on here over the years.

A DNA MATCHING database does not store your entire DNA sequence.

Graham that's interesting I didn't know this and up to now I have been very much against the idea of a DNA database because of the potential to create a genetic underclass.
However, I still think I come out with messrs TJ et al, at least for the time being, because the extended use of DNA profiling would end up being deeply intrusive and frankly if you’ve no other evidence to suggest that I have committed a crime, then why treat me as a suspect, which philosophically speaking is what the police are doing.
The counter claim is that the police merely want to ‘eliminate you from their enquiry’; well the unspoken part of that sentence is that by implication you’re a suspect.
It’s also not entirely accurate and I recall at least one instance where a man spent around 15 years in prison for a child murder he didn’t commit because of an error in DNA profiling (note that I don’t think you can be convicted of a crime purely on DNA evidence; there has to be other corroborating evidence.)

Would you trust the police not to fit you up in those circumstances

it's your DNA, be careful where you deposit it if you're that worried 😆

I'll bet that the proportion of people wrongly convicted on the basis of DNA evidence is a huge huge percentage lower than those wrongly convicted as a result of circumstantial evidence or witness testimony.

there you go guys, should be enough to go round…..

I'll bet that the proportion of people wrongly convicted on the basis of DNA evidence is a huge huge percentage lower than those wrongly convicted as a result of circumstantial evidence or witness testimony.

So…?

I'll bet that the proportion of people wrongly convicted on the basis of DNA evidence is a huge huge percentage lower than those wrongly convicted as a result of circumstantial evidence or witness testimony

So would I.

The Wiki-warriors may also like to 'research' into how many people have been exonerated as a result of DNA eveidence……

So…?

😆

I think most of people on this thread are confusing the 'Hollywood' movie 'Gattaca' with REAL LIFE!

hilldodger, rather than giggling like a stupid little school girl, why not add some of your impartial expertise and knowledge to the conversation?

I think most of people on this thread are confusing the 'Hollywood' movie 'Gattaca' with REAL LIFE!

It's moving the debate away from the original supposition, but you're certainly not living in the real world if you don't think that it would be a lot of organisation's own interests to use DNA information in the way that the film you refer to portrays.

The fear is that if it's possible, then at some point in the future it's likely.

Indeed, I believe it is almost innevitable that as a society we will eventually have to pass laws that protect an individual's right to DNA privacy; that makes it illegal to discriminate on the grounds of a genetic predisposition to certain behaviours or illnesses. I think we will have the balance right – I believe that society is a 'self correcting system' – but I think we will encounter some difficult situations before that equilibrium is reached.

They also store the original samples – so to say the full genetic sequence is stored on the database is wrong but they retain the original samples which will contain more information than is on the database and it is these samples that could be used in unenvisaged ways later

For those who think scientific evidence makes mistakes impossible look to the McKie fingerprint case as to how an innocent person can be convicted.

DNA evidence is open to interpretation and error in the same way as any evidence is. Remember the Omagh bomb trial? Dna evedence shown to be flawed

Anyway – its a basic philosophical point. Why should the state retain information on innocent people? You either believe in the right to privacy or you don't.

did you realise that if you have DNA taken to eliminate you ie a crime was committed in an area you were in so they take a sample from you to eliminate you that sample is retained? Not just the encoding but the original sample?

I have no doubt that you're correct, but the current technology does not allow that, yet.
Plus the DNA database is not set up in that way anyway and cannot be tweaked to do that. It does what it does and is very limited in it's capability

Hilldodger – the exoneration of the innocent does not rely on the data base. Thats one of the key points – conviction or exoneration by DNA profiling is not dependent on the databases

But TJ, they already hold tons of info about everyone, this is just another piece. There are millions of finger prints in the database, why are you not bothered about those? A DNA profile is just a super accurate finger print. Nothing more

I've been an activist.. and a protester (and I dabbled a bit in petty crime in my teens) and I've walked the thin blue line for a huge chunk of my life.. and all this paranoia about my liberties and 'the state' abusing their power is just grown men acting like little boys playing soldiers or x-files..

Where is the evidence of subterfuge and sabotage? Where are the mad scientists?

What a load of b*ll*x.. I am perfectly happy for my DNA to be on a database.. I know folk that have been elimintated from police enquiries on two occasions on the strength of it.. good result
The ruling classes will always have one over on us.. and if they want to make us suffer why would they hide behind smoke and mirrors? what worse injustices can they commit than they do already..?
The only people that should fear ID cards and DNA databases are criminals and espionage fantasists..

Because of the potential for abuse of the stored samples.

It stores a DNA profile, which is statistical information about the number of repeating pairs at 10 different loci in the sequence.

It's just as well that no one is ever convicted on basis of dodgy statistics!

It's not for those of us who oppose DNA databases to say why we consider them to be bad, it's for those who want them to demonstrate the good that they will do. If the best argument that given is an appeal to emotion like loddrik offered then I'd say that those in favour are not doing a very good job.

I don't trust the government with my recycling, why should i trust them with my DNA?