There's been a major crime near where I live.
As a local resident who frequently passes the scene, I've been interviewed.
I gave the police some information on a couple of unusual things I've seen recently and, as a result, gave a written statement.
Afterwards, they asked permission to take my fingerprints and DNA sample, so I agreed.
I can remember when the taking of fingerprints and DNA from witnesses, not just suspects, was introduced, there was a lot of opposition.
So what's the problem ?
I do get that instinctive objection to an intrusion of my privacy feeling, but in reality, does it matter ?
it only matters if you've done somethign wrong and/or your dna may be at the crime scene.
they can't keep it 'on record' any more so it'll be destroyed once the current investigation is concluded.
I personally wouldn;t worry - it's not that different from having your photo taken and shown to witnesses really, is it?
Not really sure what the problem is in reality apart from the agrument that it somehow infringes your right to anonimity/privacy. If you've done noting you'll be fine. Noit sure whether they can keep them on record now, once they've eliminated you from their enquiries.
Yes. you are a possible witness not a possible suspect. Now that They have you DNA and dabs They can use them for whatever purpose They choose to...
Only if you did it! 😉
Have you asked what they will do with the fingerprints and DNA sample once you have been eliminated from their enquiries?
Only if you did it!
...or have done sommit else in the past which they can now link to you. 😆
The risk is you will be misidentified at a future crime and accused because they have your data on file. I personally wouldn't. read up on the Shirley McKie case
Now they have your dna they can pin anything they want on you, and you have no chance of getting out of it!
I think if I was a suspect, my interview would have been a bit more dramatic than two guys with clip boards who had to phone me to ask for direction to my house.
They can use them for whatever purpose They choose to...
This is what I mean, the vague warnings and sinister capitalisation of "They".
What might these purposes be ?
Now they have your dna they can make an army of clones
[i]misidentified at a future crime and accused because they have your data on file[/i]
TJ they can't store data 'on file' any more.
The uses that a database can be used for are limited only by the imagination and moral scruples (or lack of them) of the controllers of the database.
The use to which personal and biometric data could be used for was at the core of the opposition to the scrapped ID card scheme. Mistakes not only can be made with databases, they are inevitable.
They want to frame you after your Police-created clone murders a politician of the Police's choosing.
You DNA will be planted on someone else ...
Now they have your dna they can pin anything they want on you, and you have no chance of getting out of it!
Yes, the police sit around all day thinking, "that bloke that helped us out the other day looked quite happy, let's take the smile off his face and pin a murder on him, that'll pass the time."
it'll be destroyed once the current investigation is concluded
Yes, that's certainly the theory.
are you sure wwaswas - I thought they had done a load of weaselling around that
I didn't really follow the controversy at the time, but wasn't one of the objections that the data was, or could be, stored indefinitely, not just until the relevant crime was solved ?
How long can they keep it for if you've been arrested?
The 'only matters if you've got something to hide' argument is rubbish. Where do you draw the line?
To not be worried about this, you'd have to be convinced that the police (and administrators of the database) are benign and competent.
[i]Where do you draw the line[/i]
where do [i]you[/i] think it shoudl be drawn?
Years ago I was at a friends house watching TV when two officers knocked, came in whilst making a murder enquiry. 3 miles away someone had been murdered.
They asked for fingerprint/DNA and I didn't go along. I had absolutely no intention of doing this as at the time I remember a Police van slowly circling (with talk at the time of this happening regularly) and someone was snatched and into the back of the van and given a right kicking (football matchday)...and in the youth in our town we viewed the Police as not very nice types etc.
A couple of months later they caught the murderer. A neighbour to the deceased.
Would I do the same now to help the Police rule a section of population out of an enquiry?
I honestly don't know. The reason being is there are a section of the Police that I still don't trust to use their brains. There are some great officers doing a great job but I do think there are still some grunts, thicko's and corrupt officers.
I've seen the 6th day they'll clone you like mentioned above, oh and yes you'll be a suspect in many a crime too Wiki says so.
TJ they can't store data 'on file' any more.
Hang on a minute. When the EU Human Rights lot ordered that innocent peoples DNA couldn't be kept on record, didn't the police just turn around and say "**** off, we're keeping them anyway! So there!"?
Not exactly renowned as the most accurate record keepers in the world either, are they?
I'm liking this idea of a cloned army of vegan trailquesters on 29er. 😀
wwaswas - MemberWhere do you draw the line
where do you think it shoudl be drawn?
Start with everyone who objects, they should be put on the national database 😉
I may be mistaken, Wikipedia has a lot to say...
[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_National_DNA_Database ]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_National_DNA_Database[/url]
wwaswas - thats why I wouldn't do it. A fragment of your dna is found at a murder scene years later that has got there innocently - you will be a suspect.
So they can check the two anonymous letters they have received for dna and find the letter writer if they don't voluntarily come forward? Probably no need to be concerned,I'd still resent giving mine as well.
wwaswas - Member
"Where do you draw the line"where do you think it shoudl be drawn?
The Police shouldn't require any of your details unless you're a suspect in a case - excepting contact info for witnesses.
I can understand the arguments. If I was the investigating team, anyone refusing to give a sample may be refusing as they know they could be matched to the scene.
it only matters if you've done somethign wrong and/or your dna may be at the crime scene.
Unfortunately DNA evidence is not as unique as commonly believed. The '99.9% unique' figure often used is not applicable to the markers used to identify people.
The chances of a random DNA sample being similar enough to your's to be counted as coming from you are worryingly high when considering the amount of faith put in DNA evidence for convictions.
This study is quite well documented...
State crime lab analyst Kathryn Troyer was running tests on Arizona's DNA database when she stumbled across two felons with remarkably similar genetic profiles.The men matched at nine of the 13 locations on chromosomes, or loci, commonly used to distinguish people.
The FBI estimated the odds of unrelated people sharing those genetic markers to be as remote as 1 in 113 billion. But the mug shots of the two felons suggested that they were not related: One was black, the other white.
In the years after her 2001 discovery, Troyer found dozens of similar matches — each seeming to defy impossible odds.
hora - Member
I can understand the arguments. If I was the investigating team, anyone refusing to give a sample may be refusing as they know they could be matched to the scene.
So unless you submit entirely to investigation based on...? you're a suspect?
As said above, perhaps refusal to co-operate will make police investigate you more closely and, even if you have nothing that needed hiding, divert resources from other, more fruitful, areas?
TJ +1
it's not that different from having your photo taken and shown to witnesses really, is it?
Yes it is. As TJ says, they find your DNA at a murder scene - which got there totally inoccently, but you can't produce a good explanation for it - then you're in big trouble. The old innocent until proven guilty bit tends to get a bit put aside in such cases, DNA evidence is such a powerful thing and it appears to come down to you proving why your DNA was there rather than them proving it didn't get there a different way. I'm largely a supporter of the police, but I wouldn't put it past certain officers conveniently finding extra evidence if they were convinced enough of your guilt by (innocent) DNA evidence when they didn't have enough other.
It all really comes down to what they do with your sample after this case is closed - or even what uses it can be put to whilst the case is still open (it's all very well getting destroyed after the case is closed - what if they never catch who did it?) Do we have a definitive answer on that?
A fragment of your dna is found at a murder scene years later
Really? These futuristic robo-coppers will have to have bloody good laser-enhanced eyesight then!!
As said above, perhaps refusal to co-operate will make police investigate you more closely and, even if you have nothing that needed hiding, divert resources from other, more fruitful, areas?
That's their problem, not mine. They have no power to charge you unless they find something linking you - which if you didn't do it, and have no connection to the people involved they presumably won't. Why exactly do they need to "eliminate" you if you're not a suspect?
Do you think it would bring down crime rates if everyone was on the database?
why would you not try and do what you could to find someone that beat and stabbed a 77 year old woman to death?
Just to put one over on 'the man'?
Why exactly do they need to "eliminate" you if you're not a suspect?
Because I'm a bit of a loner who keeps himself to himself.
As a local resident who frequently passes the scene, I've been interviewed.
Presumably your prints and DNA are all over the gate/door/fence/whatever and they'd like to at least get rid of that from their evidence? Otherwise there going to be a lot of unidntified fingerprints and DNA all over the place? In the same way the guys in white onesies and lab technicians aren't prosecuted for every single murder they breath on.
They are not having my fingerprints or DNA without good cause
Here they not only dont have good cause they have no cause
Or, to be a bit more serious, because she was murdered on Monday evening and I ran past the house and opened a nearby gate with bare hands earlier that morning, probably leaving fingerprints and DNA on it.