[Closed] The DNA 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.

I'd struggle to sleep at night thinking that rapists and murderers were running free because the public (me included) refused to hand over a little info because it might at some point in the future be mis-used by an extremist government that might at some point get in and might at some point be ignored by the rest of the world.

decided to "purify" the population. I'm sure a few here would turn a blind eye to the removal of gypsies, for example.

again you're not understanding how DNA profiling works. They don't have a map of your genes and know everything about your race, illnesses etc. They could, of course, without your knowledge, map the genome of everyone present, but it would be a bit time consuming.
Assuming it's done in current times by a reasonable government it would not contain more gene data than required and the samples would not be retained to later re-testing, so thre's no thread of purification 😉

And how would a DNA database facilitate this sudden change to a genocidal goverment exactly?

(given that we have established it DOES NOT store entire DNA sequences abd would be no use in identifying a "gypsy gene" or any such nonsense)

They could, of course, without
your knowledge, map the genome of everyone
present, but it would be a bit time consuming.

Not to mention that it would take a database orders of magnitude larger than the very largest in the world today.

3 billion base pair sequences for each and every person in a UK population of 61 million means they couldn't exactly store it in Microsoft Access on some secret minister's laptop.

coffeeking - Member
...Assuming it's done in current times by a reasonable government it would not contain more gene data than required and the samples would not be retained to later re-testing, so thre's no thread of purification

True, I'm aware of that, but an "unreasonable" government would not necessarily take the same line. Hence the reason for not retaining any more data than necessary. A bad government will misuse data.

The Germans were and are a civilised and decent people, yet they briefly managed to get a government which exterminated millions of them, and they are not the worst example in living memory. Their pogroms were greatly enhanced by their efficient collection of citizen data.

From my memory (of dodgy history lessons) the Nazis used census data, which was automated and tabulated by some of the earliest computers.

But "now" isn't "then".

Tesco know way more about you than even the most efficient Nazi could fit on a punched card. That privacy ship has long sailed.

True, I'm aware of that, but an "unreasonable" government would not necessarily take the same line. Hence the reason for not retaining any more data than necessary. A bad government will misuse data.

Yes, but if it is implemented now then no more info can be acquired than allowed under current rules, so your point is moot?

Their pogroms were greatly enhanced by their efficient collection of citizen data.

What such as passports. driving licence, National Insurance, Credit Info, Dental Records and Medical records. Or was it just down to some index cards and word of mouth.

Teh basic debate still remains - is the good that the database will do overall greater than the loss of privacy? I believe not. There is no right or wrong answer - its about what you believe - both in terms of what the dna database means and how highly you value your privacy.

I have no issue with the collection of the data on convicted individuals. I have great issue with the collection of data and retention of data on innocent individuals

Whoever it was that was dna tested to eliminate him from inquiries - you realize you are now on the database?

Whoever it was that was dna tested to
eliminate him from inquiries - you realize you
are now on the database?

In my case my DNA was taken in Scotland, so it would not be stored (as Scotland adopts the "closed stable door" approach and only stores details of convicted criminals).

However I would have absolutely no issue if it were stored and I'd happily offer up a DNA sample again if asked.

and I'd happily offer up a DNA sample again if asked.

I think this is probably the biggest point for me. If you were walking down the road and the police said "excuse me, we need to eliminate you from our equiries, can we take a voluntary test of your dna against the murderers" would you say yes? If you'd say yes then you've little to be worried about. If you'd say no then I don't see why, what are you giving them that could be used against you and how does someone knowing your dna sequence infringe your privacy?