[Closed] The DNA database

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 [i]will[/i] 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 [u]MATCHING[/u] 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...

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.

[img] [/img]

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.

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.

[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8620997.stm ]It's just as well that no one is ever convicted on basis of dodgy statistics![/url]

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?

One important point, thankfully you cannot be convicted by DNA alone.

I know folk that have been elimintated from police enquiries on two occasions on the strength of it.. good result

but you don't need a database for that. All you have to do is compare a DNA sample from a suspect to that from the crime scene and if it doesn't match that person is eliminated and the DNA sample destroyed.

hilldodger - Member

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

Many have been cleared as a result of DNA evidence - none have been cleared on the basis of data held in the DNA database

Basic concept confusion fail *points and laughs*

If you want to rip the piss out of people you need to get the basics right in your own answer

Find a single case where an innocent has been exonerated on the basis of the info held on the DNA database

No one is saying convicted criminals should not have the data retained nor that DNA evidence is of no use - merely that the storing of data [i]and samples[/i] from innocent people is an unjustified invasion of privacy

yunki - Member

........... I know folk that have been elimintated from police enquiries on two occasions on the strength of it.. good result

And the samples from those two people and their DNA profile are now stored.

Find a single case where an innocent has been exonerated on the basis of the info held on the DNA database

Well you won't will you as they won't have even been interviewed if they were eliminated from the crime due the database.

Drac - as gonfishin points out you do not need the database to eliminate people. Infact the database is fairly useless in this regard

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

Then your argument isn't against the DNA profiling database, but the long term retention of samples, which is a separate issue.

But importantly those are physical samples - and not something on a searchable database. It's bad enough suggesting that your mortgage provider might gain illegal access to the DNA database and employ renegade geneticists to examine what it finds there, but I don't think even the HSBC would go to the lengths of employing cat burglars to obtain the physical samples from storage!

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

Bollocks. The DNA database isn't a record of guilt and being on it has no effect on your employment prospects or CRB checks. More likely you are on the "Sex Offenders Register" which has nothing to do with this discussion.

No one is saying convicted criminals should not have the data retained nor that DNA evidence is of no use

A number of people are arguing that DNA evidence can be faulty or that police will use it to stitch people up.

How can anyone that takes that position justify a database for convicted criminals, but not everyone else?

Surely criminals, former or otherwise, are far more likely to be "fitted up by the police" or convicted based on circumstantial DNA evidence?
Should they not be entitled to the same legal safeguards as the rest of us? Or is it okay because they are "bad"?

If your position is that the database is legally flawed then the only moral stance is to argue for it to be deleted completely.

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

To be honest Roper, there's no place for expertise and knowledge in this shitehole of rhetoric, bluster and linguistic trickery - those that know know, those that don't just dissect your posts word by word until you 'give up' and they can celebrate their hollow victory.

TJ, this is my last post ever here so I don't need to 'fear the Mods' so I can say that your internet persona is the most annoying I have ever encountered, you have never added anything constructive to any discussion, and are a negtaive and disruptive influence to any attempts at serious discussion with your huff'n'puff attitude.

I sincerely hope that one day you talk IRL to someone in this manner and they inflict heavy, disfiguring and permanent damage upon your smug, middle class pseudo intellectual McAss............

...over and definitely out ❗

Find a single case where an innocent has been exonerated on the basis of the info held on the DNA database

No database involved, but I've had my DNA taken twice during door-to-door enquiries as part of two separate murder investigations. Everyone in the block of flats and surrounding area had likewise.

Why is that any different to using the database?
(Other than being far less effective and requiring a lot more time and legwork from the investigating officers)

TJ you don't understand the fingerprinting tech. DNA samples aren't stored. DNA fingerprint data is stored. You can't currently re-use the DNA sample once it's been amplified. Plus as Graham says you can't use it for trait analysis (eg risk for cancer predisposition affecting insurance premiums).

richmars - You can run the analysis from a single cell (not done for fingerprinting but done by my company for other applications). This is the minimum sample size.

I have no worries about the ethics for fingerprinting. If you are worried about governments misusing stored DNA then you probably need to be more concerned with the use of Guthrie spots (heal blood pin prick cards taken from most babies after birth) since these are enormously more genetically informative than DNA fingerprints.

Bye Hilldodger. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. May I say its mutual? Your character assassination of me on the basis of your petty prejudices is wearing to say the least.

You will not be missed

Drac - as gonfishin points out you do not need the database to eliminate people. Infact the database is fairly useless in this regard

He pointed out a case that didn't use DNA.

Why is it useless, let's say there's a rape in a small town and the victim says it was a young male in his 20s. The DNA sample they have of a few in the village will allow them to be eliminated straight away or caught quickly if it was one of them. Least that's how I understand it.

[i](hilldodger: that seems a little ungrounded. While I may not always agree with TJ, I do think he makes some interesting points and usually contributes to the debate. He quite rightly challenged your points and it is up to you to respond or flounce off)[/i]

tony - my understanding was that the physical samples were retained - the skin cells and / or swabs and these were available for re analysis.

Is my understanding wrong? Why do they retain the swabs if they cannot be re analysed?

Drac - yes it could work that way - but the database only speeds the process slightly. those same people could be eliminated on the basis of a sample taken after the event.

Least that's how I understand it.

and that is exactly how it has worked in cases in our constabulary.. door to door.. take your dna sample.. process it.. jobs a gooden.. it wasn't your blood/spunk/spit that we found all over the dead body.. or your skin/hair under the fingernails.. move along... nothing to see here.. or I will bash you wiv me truncheon you orrible lickle scumbaaaaaaag..

Why is it useless, let's say there's a rape in a small town and the victim says it was a young male in his 20s

Well in that case the victim probably knows who it was what with it being a small town and all. Otherwise why not take a DNA sample of those who can't be eliminated any other way and compare the DNA. Again no database required. Again this is an appeal to emotion very similar to that proposed by loddrik and does little to support the case for a database.

Drac - yes it could work that way - but the database only speeds the process slightly. those same people could be eliminated on the basis of a sample taken after the event.

SO they would have to gather samples, they would have to available and willing, then they would have analyse these samples. When they could have used the one sample and come up with a name.

Come on Hilldodger man up. If TJ pee's you off so much do something about it, prove the fecher wrong.

Well in that case the victim probably knows who it was what with it being a small town and all

What why would they? I said all they knew was they were in their 20s, I live in a small town and I know many people but couldn't recognise them just because I knew their rough age.

(hilldodger, That's a shame and I hope my "stupid little school girl" comment, which probably described my own reaction to your post, didn't have any input to you going. Personally, I've learnt quite a lot on STW over the years.)

What why would they? I said all they knew was they were in their 20s, I live in a small town and I know many people but couldn't recognise them just because I knew their rough age.

Well given that most rapists are know to the victim and that rape convictions generally boil down to a question of consent rather than intercourse it is a fair assumption that the rapist would be known. Also your point about analysing many samples this could be done in parallel with the analysis of a sample from your hypothetical victim so no that much time would be lost. Also why is speed so important? As has been said you need other evidence than DNA for a conviction so all that police work would still have to done before an arrest could be made. The presence of a DNA database wouldn't necessarily result in a quicker arrest, and it wouldn't necessarily result in a quick conviction.

The presence of a DNA
database wouldn't necessarily result in a
quicker arrest, and it wouldn't necessarily
result in a quick conviction.

I don't find that credible.

If there was a complete DNA database then incriminating samples (i.e. samples directly related to the offence itself) would lead police directly to a person involved in the crime.

Surely that hugely cuts down on the initial investigation, even if subsequently building a case takes the same amount of time.

Also why is speed so important?

In cases involving serial offenders that may make the difference between getting him/her before they offend again.

Emotive perhaps, but no less true.

Gonefishin you really are clutching at straws. Ok there was a rape here just a couple of years ago on a 15 year old girl, bloke was in his twenties and he's never been caught as there was no DNA database for him. She also didn't know him and certainly no consent as he attacked her on old school field as she walked home.

graham - serial offenders would be on the database

Its only the innocent we want off the edatabase

If there was a complete DNA database then incriminating samples (i.e. samples directly related to the offence itself) would lead police directly to a person involved in the crime.

Surely that hugely cuts down on the initial investigation, even if subsequently building a case takes the same amount of time.

What about false positives? They do happen as no test is 100% accurate. You'd end up with the police focussing on the wrong person. All the while this mysterious

The argument so far seems to be that in a few rare and specific cases (i.e. some serial offenders) that it might, possibly (but not necessarily) speed things up a bit. That's not a very convincing argument in my book.

IT has its pros and cons. I'm generally for things like this as I'm not a criminal and I have nothing to fear from correct legal proceedings but what if my DNA is found at a scene and taken to be the dna of the crim, when it just happens to be there. Plus there are something like 3 people in the UK with the same DNA profile as me AFAIK?

those stranger rapes are a tiny minority though, and even when the identity of the attacker is known a conviction is unlikely because of the attitudes of society, DNA profiling wont help that.

I have nothing to fear from correct legal proceedings

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

Gonefishin you really are clutching at straws.

I'm not the one presenting fallacious arguments.

Ok there was a rape here just a couple of years ago on a 15 year old girl, bloke was in his twenties and he's never been caught as there was no DNA database for him.

A tragic example yes however I still don't see that requiring a DNA sample from everyone in the country is a proportionate response to such an incident. If there was no other evidence how would the perpetrator have been convicted?

I'm sure there was other evidence the problem was identifying him not lack of evidence. Still clutching I see I gave an example how the benefit of one would work, I didn't claim there should be one because that case.

For the record I'm indifferent of the idea, if it was to happen I'd have no problem with it but at the same time don't see the need to push fir one.

graham - serial offenders would be on the
database Its only the innocent we want off the edatabase

So as I said earlier, if you object to the database because you believe it leads to miscarriages of justice then how can you morally argue that it is okay for such a database to exist for people with previous convictions?

What about false positives? They do happen as no test is 100% accurate

They are vanishingly rare, even with the limited loci used by the UK system, but even so a complete database would actually help in this regard, as they would see that other matches were possible in the rare cases where they were.

The argument so far seems to be that in a few rare and specific cases (i.e. some serial offenders) that it might, possibly (but not necessarily) speed things up a bit.

Not at all. It would have ability to speed up investigation of any case that involves unknown DNA.

That speed helps police get to a suspect quickly while the evidence is fresh, not six months later when they've left the area.

It also increases the chances of catching a serial offender before they re-offend, and that could be house burglary, mugging, assault, or any other crime where serial behaviour is likely,
(i.e. it is not limited to just rape or murder, it is just they are typically seen as the most important).

(i.e. it is not limited to just rape or murder, it is just they are typically seen as the most important)

Rape is also overwhelmingly perpetrated by acquaintances so matching DNA to unknown persons is often not quite as prominent as with other crimes but DNA can prove that intercourse has taken place - hence the emphasis now is on consent.

Graham - my objection is based around privacy.
I believe the right to privacy for unconvicted is stronger than the good that the DNA database retaining the information of thes unconvicted people does.

Howeever if the others on this thread are right and the chances of data being abused are lower than I thought then it weakens the argument

Its a question of balance - is the chances of securing convictions based on the DNA database high enough to justify the invasion of privacy? I believe it is not

Believe it or not I'm usually all for civil liberties, and consider myself fairly liberak, but in this case what "privacy" and "liberty" are you actually giving up though?

I understand the gut reaction to "big brother" databases, but it's not used to track your movements, like say the DVLA database, credit cards records, cctv, mobile phone records etc.
It doesn't limit your movements in any way either.

Its a question of balance - is the chances of
securing convictions based on the DNA
database high enough to justify the invasion of
privacy? I believe it is not

I agree it is about balance. But I see little real invasion of privacy, especially compared to other far more active databases, so as a result I believe it is justified*.

* though in reality it is probably legally unworkable anyway due to the human rights act.

I believe the right to privacy for unconvicted is stronger than the good that the DNA database retaining the information of thes unconvicted people does.

Personally if sacrificing my privacy stops one rapist raping again I'll make that trade. YMMV.

So the innocent come off the database, then years later when they commit an horrendous crime and their data has been erased....

I prefer an insurance policy myself.

I still just cannot get further than don't commit any crime and then is should not cause alarm or suspicion.

I don't buy the privacy argument.. owning a mobile phone or using an internet service provider is a profoundly more invasive concept but we'll happily give up our privacy for convenience on that one..

And if you're that paranoid about privacy you'll wanna stop giving blood samples to a doc if you're ill.. they sell it on to Mi5 in exchange for personal info which they can then use to tailor a coctail of thought supressing drugs into each and every prescription thereby controlling your will and desire..

and all the people that you interact with on forums are just agency programmes designed to keep you locked into pointless circular arguments so that you're not out and about spreading dissent and causing chaos..

haven't you watched total recall!?

god help us all...

owning a mobile phone or using an internet service provider is a profoundly more invasive concept but we'll happily give up our privacy for convenience on that one.

This is our own choice though. We can all choose to give up whatever bits of privacy we want compared to the benefits we receive but its different when privacy is taken away without our choice

Basically, you should never trust a government with any more data than absolutely necessary.

British governments are usually benign but how about if some extreme right/left/religious wing party got in and decided to "purify" the population. I'm sure a few here would turn a blind eye to the removal of gypsies, for example.

There are plenty people in this country who have been victims of government pogroms or who are descendants of those.