[Closed] Closing the FSS - What will happen to the national DNA database?

Could end up in private hands?

So a database with little control applied to how it is used, full of information of people who have never been convicted of a crime, will no longer be used to effectively randomly search people? Good ridence.

Ah yes, that useless DNA database.... 🙄

Between April 09 and 28th January 2010 the National DNA Database produced 174 matches to murder, 468 to rapes and 27,168 to other crime scenes.

Yeah, useless...

There was a lot of control when I was there. I cant see a problem with taking DNA if your arrested and suspected of a crime. If your proven innocent you could always ask to have your record removed.

What's the phrase, 'the innocent have nothing to fear from the Law...'

There was a lot of control when I was there. I cant see a problem with taking DNA if your arrested and suspected of a crime. If your proven innocent you could always ask to have your record removed.

No you couldn't. That was the problem. Once you were on it you were on it. Citing rape stats and talking about pedophiles is just falling back on the 'won't someone think of the children' argument.

If i'm not a criminal (as in convicted by a jury of my peers) why should the government hold my personal details, and basically treat me as a suspect in every crime that is committed from this point on.

Pointless arguement, as it's been destroyed has it not?

There was a lot of control when I was there. I cant see a problem with taking DNA if your arrested and suspected of a crime. If your proven innocent you could always ask to have your record removed.

But they retain it anyway

almost all the matches are when they already have caught the perp. Its just used for confirmation. Virtually no crime has been solved as s result of retaining dna info

What's the phrase, 'the innocent have nothing to fear from the Law...'

There is another saying. 'The law is an ass'.

If your proven innocent you could always ask to have your record removed.

I shouldn't have to either:
a) be "proven" innocent for a record to be deleted - as the burden of proof goes the other way.
b) ask for it to be removed. It should be removed unless I ask for it to stay.

What's the phrase, 'the innocent have nothing to fear from the Law...'

Yep - cos there are never miscarriages of justice in this country... And it misses again the point of burden of proof - You shouldn't even have to use that defence that I don't need to fear the law if I'm innocent - because I should never be put in the position in the first place.

I reckon we should look after it here. We should also take over the entire judicial system and we will judge cases on the forum. Where there is a disagreement (or when everyone agrees except for the Elfen one & TJ 😉 ) we will then refer to the database.

To keep things simple, we only have two punishments. Weeing in shoes & Bombers.

Simple

No they dont, part of my job was physically removing the DNA samples from storage for destruction when requested or required by law.

There are many many cases where DNA has been found on site and has produced a match on the DNA database, I quite like to see what statistics you've seen that conclusively prove otherwise.

Btw, im not a goody goody that loves the govt. and the police. I just happen to have worked for the police and have seen the work the FSS NDNAD does.

One happy hippy - you are wrong about the removal. All dana data was retained for all suspects. Following a ECHR ruling this was supposed to be limited to 6 years. Still no statute. even the 6 years is probably illegal but needs to be tested in ECHR

However, an appeal was made to the European Court of Human Rights and the case was heard on 27 February 2008. On 4 December 2008, 17 judges unanimously ruled that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which refers to a person's right to a private life, and awarded €42,000 each to the appellants.[9] The judges said keeping the information "could not be regarded as necessary in a democratic society".[10]

In response to this the Home Office announced in May 2009 a consultation on how to comply with the ruling. The Home Office proposed to continue retaining indefinitely the DNA profiles of anyone convicted of any recordable offence, but to remove other profiles from the database after a period of time - generally 6 or 12 years, depending on the seriousness of the offence.[11] The practice of taking DNA profiles upon arrest is not affected by the decision, but it is not yet clear whether the new retention policies will be applied to fingerprint data.

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

Yes there have been many matches but none that have solved the crime - they already had the suspect in every case. No crime has been solved by the retention of DNA from not guilty people.

The genetic profiles of hundreds of ­thousands of innocent people are to be kept on the national DNA database for up to 12 years in a decision critics claim is designed to sidestep a European human rights ruling that the "blanket" retention of suspects' data is unlawful.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/may/07/dna-database-government-retention

The innocent should have nothing to hide, sure.

But they have nothing to prove either.
__

The problem with widespread holding of DNA data is that it is such seductive "proof" - because it is [i]assumed[/i] to be infallible.

If you've commited a crime and had DNA taken then screw your Human Rights. If someone murders someone else what about the victims human rights?

My mum was burgled last month and the guy was caught because of the DNA database. So as far as I'm concerned it's a good thing. If it helps solve crimes and prevent future crimes then its all gravy!

The Dna on the Database from not guilty people if they've not done anything wrong then they've nothing to worry about!

Yes there have been many matches but none that have solved the crime - they already had the suspect in every case. No crime has been solved by the retention of DNA from not guilty people.

I agree with others that DNA shouldn't be taken unless convicted but I think you're wrong on that claim TJ

http://www.bbc.co.uk/crimewatch/solved/howtheycaught/colette_aram.shtml

Yes there have been many matches but none that have solved the crime - they already had the suspect in every case. No crime has been solved by the retention of DNA from not guilty people.

Please could you provide me evidence of this? Im pretty sure there have been numerous cases where DNA evidence left at a SOC has been matched on the NDNAD and identified a possible suspect.

Infact numerous cold case reviews where DNA has been taken from previously closed cases years after the event have found matches on the NDNAD -

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/Mother39s-Day-rapist-trapped-after.6372206.jp

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23838810-double-rapist-who-evaded-justice-for-23-years-is-caught-by-his-dna.do

And many many more.

Anyway my point of the OP was not to debate the NDNAD validy or effectiveness - more to enquire what will happen to this resource (be it good or bad) and what the likelihood of what 3million DNA samples / tissue samples falling in to the hands of a private corporation...

If i'm not a criminal (as in convicted by a jury of my peers) why should the government hold my personal details, and basically treat me as a suspect in every crime that is committed from this point on.

"The government" already has access to more details about you than you know yourself. All of which could [I]potentially[/I] be used to link you with a crime (e.g. bank/credit details, tax, mortgage, insurance, DVLA, passport, NI etc etc)

A DNA profile may be emotive, but "they" hold far more personal details about you than that.
So why is it so objectionable?

that case was not solved by the retention of DNA material from a [b]non guilty person[/b]

One happy hippy - neither are your two examples. Both were [b]guilty [/b]of another offense and the DNA matched.

However I cannot find the data on this so cannot show it.

Admirable - you miss the point.

Its no issue retaining the DNA data of people convicted of crimes - its retaining it for innocent people that is the issue

So Admirable - I take it you have sent a sample of blood/sputum/hair/whatever to put on the DNA database previously as it is such a good thing?

One happy hippy - you are wrong about the removal

TJ this isn't quite true some people have had their DNA removed. And all innocents in [s]whee ghillie jockoland[/s] scotland have their dna removed don't they?

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6990617/Just-one-innocent-DNA-profile-removed-by-police-from-national-database-every-day.html ]torygraph so it might not be true[/url]
[url= http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/07/delete_your_dna_profile/ ]the register, it's got colours so it must be true[/url]
[url= http://www.genewatch.org/sub-539488 ]more accurate info here[/url]

Aye - scottish law has a bit more respect for the ECHR

Personally Im not all that adverse to every child born in the UK being profiled at birth and anyone entering the UK for the first time being profiled.

Sry TJ I must have mis-read that or it has been edited to clarify - I dont have anything to support that [b]Innocent[/b] people whose DNA has been retained have been implicated subsequently for crimes due to matches on the DNA database. Strange how people who are innocent are unlikely to show up as matches what with them not being criminals on the whole (hence why they were innocent in the first place)...

Its no issue retaining the DNA data of people convicted of crimes - its retaining it for innocent people that is the issue

We've been over this before TJ so I'll just make my point.

If you accept that DNA Profiling is effective at reducing crime then why shouldn't everyone be on it?

If you think that DNA Profiling is flawed and leads to wrongful convictions then how can you justify foisting that injustice on people that have already served their time?

Its about the balancing of the rights. Convicted people rightly lose some of their rights. Innocent people don't.

The odds on a successful conviction because of the retention of DNA data from innocent people are so low that IMO and in that of the [i]European court of human rights[/i] it does not outweigh the right to privacy of these people.

Why do you lose your human rights for being arrested but not convicted?

toys19 - Member
...And all innocents in [s]whee ghillie jockoland[/s] scotland have their dna removed don't they?

One happy hippy - fair enough.

Personally Im not all that adverse to every child born in the UK being profiled at birth and anyone entering the UK for the first time being profiled.

+1

I've discussed this on here before (but I can't find the thread). Makes sense to me, but DNA is an emotive issue even once you get past the fallacious "They'll sell my DNA to Insurance Companies" arguments.

It makes more sense to have everyone that to retain arrested but not convicted people.

However I still want my privacy and I am glad that the ECHR protects my privacy

that case was not solved by the retention of DNA material from a non guilty person

It was - Hutchinson's son was not convicted

The breakthough came in early 2009, when a relative of the killer was [i]arrested [/i]on a minor driving charge.

So we don't actually know if he was found guilty or not unless you have other info not in that story.

Why the demeaning racist comment, toys19?

Because I'm demeaning racist scum.
Or is it that you have lost your sense of humour? Lets face it the scots generally don't rate the english, so I like to give a bit of ribbing back. I don't actually hate anyone but I do like a joke, this particular one I culled from Ade Edmonsons 80's book "How to be a complete and utter bastard"

edit: Actually it might have been from the Spitting Image book, I had them both and can't remember which it was now.. Very funny anyway.

So we don't actually know if he was found guilty or not.

It never went to court

Personally Im not all that adverse to every child born in the UK being profiled at birth and anyone entering the UK for the first time being profiled.

Why not just cut to the chase and tattoo a number onto everyones arm, or maybe implant them with a chip? More simply why not explain, without any appeals to emotion or other logical fallacies, what benefits would be obtained by such a massively expensive, and no doubt bureaucratic system? While you are at it can you also explain why these benefits are also worth giving up even more of my privacy?

Ah found the previous thread (from five months ago):
http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/the-dna-database

Not that this will stop anyone going over old ground you understand 🙂

It still does not cover the type of case I am talking about that is used as a excuse for the retention of data which is :-

crime committed, dna found, checked on database, database match with [i]retained DNA of unconvicted person [/i] leads to suspect

In that one a person is arrested, dna taken and found to have a familial match to a crime. Not the same thing

Still possible to do without [b]retention[/b] of the data, Its the retention of the data that breaches privacy

TJ, what is it that worries you about having peoples DNA on a database? Putting aside the privacy issue for a moment, which lets be honest is a bit of a red herring, as there's so much of our lives now in the public domain that's so very freely available especially to law enforcement agencies.

What is it about DNA in particular?

More simply why not explain, without any appeals to emotion or other logical fallacies, what benefits would be obtained by such a massively expensive, and no doubt bureaucratic system?

Any viable DNA sample at the scene of a crime could be used to identify a person of interest. This seems very likely to improve the conviction rate.

While you are at it can you also explain why these benefits are also worth giving up even more of my privacy?

What "privacy" do you think you are actually giving up?

(Tip: A DNA profile is just a string of 20 numbers - not your entire 3 billion pair DNA sequence)

A little metaphor:

In the interests of privacy, how about we change the law so that cars only need number plates if the owner has been found guilty of a motoring offence?

[i]What is it about DNA in particular? [/i]

having tussled with TJ on the issue of cloning before its my experience that he has some underlying phobia of the dastardly double helix

This seems very likely to improve the conviction rate.

So this is only for the [i]possibility[/i] of improving the conviction rate by an unspecified amount. There is also the matter of cost. Could the same benefit be gained be spending [i]less[/i] money say on crime prevention? After all is it not better that crime is prevented rather than a criminal convited?

What do you think you are actually giving up?

Well given that the law enforcement authorities currently have no record of me I see that is giving up quite a bit of privacy. Also as has been stated above, whilst the info on the database may be limited to 20 numbers, the original samples are still kept.

In the interests of privacy, how about we change the law so that cars only need number plates if the owner has been found guilty of a motoring offence?

How is that relevant? I can dispose of my car if I see fit. I can change the registration if I want. I can do neither with my DNA.

Nickc - its purely the privacy issue. All other data is far less intrusive and I have control over it. Its also fairness. If one group of unconvicted -people they why not all.

I think it's more about how easy it is to plant DNA and try to use it to frame someone else. Even more worrying is that some people have actually faked DNA.
[url= http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=lab-creates-fake-dna-evidence-2009-08-18 ]If you believe this article, it's American so I don't trust its veracity because I'm racist.[/url] Although its on wikipedia [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_profiling#Fake_DNA_evidence ]here[/url] and published in [url= http://www.fsigenetics.com/article/S1872-4973%2809%2900099-4/abstract ]this journal abstract[/url].

And do you trust the police not to plant it?
And there have been cases of lab contamination [url= http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/viewfromwilmington.html ]link from a biased website but I think it's ok..[/url]

DNA is thousands of times more easy to plant at a crime scene than a fingerprint, yet because it is a modern technology is held in general to be much more powerful evidence.

So, some abstract notion of privacy then? You just don't want 'them' to know. Fair enough.

Given that you live in the UK in the 21st century, and nothing is really 'private' any more...

Could the same benefit be gained be spending less money say on crime prevention? After all is it not better that crime is prevented rather than a criminal convited?

Yep, the economic argument is a good one and to my mind far stronger than the idealistic privacy/principles one.

The answer is, I don't know. I'm not a economist or a crime prevention specialist. Clearly there is some kind of cost-benefit analysis required.

Well given that the law enforcement authorities currently have no record of me I see that is giving up quite a bit of privacy.

You really think that law enforcement authorities have NO record of you?? Do you drive, use a credit card, have a TV, pay tax, travel,...

Also as has been stated above, whilst the info on the database may be limited to 20 numbers, the original samples are still kept.

But they are physical samples, NOT on the database and are only accessed as part of a criminal investigation. I agree though that the retention of samples should be looked at - but that is a separate matter from the database itself.

How is that relevant? I can dispose of my car if I see fit. I can change the registration if I want.

Only if you tell the DVLA so they can update their database.

The point is: car number plates are a far greater invasion of privacy than a DNA database. They are visible for everyone to see without consent or specialist equipment, they allow your movements to be tracked and are used to identify you in crimes.

So tell me why every car should have a numebr plate and not just those driven by people with prior convictions?

DNA is thousands of times more easy to plant at a crime scene than a fingerprint, yet because it is a modern technology is held in general to be much more powerful evidence.

Context is everything. A matched DNA sample is just that. It says "a DNA sample from this bloke was found at the crime". Nothing more.

Context is what gives it the weight (think DNA from bodily fluids, skin under fingernails versus DNA on a stray hair follicle).

Moreover if you are saying that DNA evidence is flawed then how can we justify using it at all?
Claiming that it is deeply flawed so it should only be used on people that have committed previous crimes because they are probably guilty anyway is just hypocritical. Either it is good enough for all of us, or it should be dropped completely.

nickc - the ECHR gives the privacy argument enough weight to find against our government.

I'm only saying that it tends to be given undue weight, given the simplicity of planting it.

I'm only saying that it tends to be given undue weight, given the simplicity of planting it.

But how simple is it really to plant a properly damning bit of DNA (i.e. one with a context relating directly to the crime)?
And do you think that would carry a conviction on its own?

If so then does that suggest that we shouldn't ever use DNA?

I think this is about choice. You can choose not to have a car can't you, you could walk, cycle, use trains, buses and only use cash or even barter to trade goods and services (OK this is extreme but you could). But you cannot choose to not have DNA.

I hardly ever drive and like to get around by bike /walk..

Only if you tell the DVLA so they can update their database.

Well yes but that is something that you would seek to deny to everyone on the DNA database.

You really think that law enforcement authorities have NO record of you?? Do you drive, use a credit card, have a TV, pay tax, travel,...

Correct me if I'm wrong but the law enforcement authorities (i.e. the police) do not have routine access to this information, well apart from the driving bit, and would need a court order to gain access to it. This would require some sort of evidence for me having committed a crime, something not required by the database. Actually the Police will have me on record as I have given witness statements in the past.

...they allow your movements to be tracked and are used to identify you in crimes.

No they do not, they allow my car to be tracked. I am not my car, nor is it my car part of me. I can move around without using my car, I cannot move around without my DNA. I am also free to choose whether or not I have a car, not so with DNA. Your car analogy is flawed.

And do you think that would carry a conviction on its own?

You cannot be done by DNA alone anyway, so that as a method to shoot down planting as an objection doesn't hold water and actually reveals the problem with DNA, even you as a pro DNA man think that there are times when DNA alone should convict you. WRONG, BAD, GO TO YOUR ROOM NAUGHTY BOY.

And do you think that would carry a conviction on its own?

Can't convict on DNA evidence alone, there has to be something else in addition.

EDIT - Too slow

Correct me if I'm wrong but the law enforcement authorities (i.e. the police) do not have routine access to this information, well apart from the driving bit, and would need a court order to gain access to it. This would require some sort of evidence for me having committed a crime

[url= http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/counter-terrorism/regulation-investigatory-powers/ ]If your limit of "law enforcement authorities" stops at the police[/url] then yes I suppose they probably do need some kind of permission for most of that stuff (not all though: banks are obliged to inform the police about suspicious financial transactions for example).

But don't rely on you needing to commit a crime. Don't forget under the PACE laws you could be stopped and searched (without arrest) for looking "suspicious".

even you as a pro DNA man think that there are times when DNA alone should convict you. WRONG

You are misreading my argument (or I am misstating it).

My implied answer to my own question [i]"And do you think that would carry a conviction on its own?"[/i] is No. DNA evidence alone should never carry a conviction. Obviously.

You are misreading my argument (or I am misstating it).

Either is possible, I prefer the latter... 😀