Significant victory for civil liberties

Caporegime
Joined
22 Jun 2004
Posts
26,684
Location
Deep England
In what sense? DNA evidence isn't entirely foolproof you know...

No-one was proposing that DNA evidence alone should be enough to secure a conviction.

ID cards are useful too, and should be not be feared. Take a look at the Estonian ID card system for some of the benefits that it will offer to Britain and her citizens in the information age. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonian_ID_card
 
Soldato
Joined
31 Dec 2005
Posts
11,179
Location
Glasgow
probably a stupid question but...

can dna be planted at a crimescene?

basically massive dna database millions of persons dna on it + muppets who lose secure files on trains etc

= ?
 
Soldato
Joined
7 Mar 2005
Posts
17,481
ID cards are useful too, and should be not be feared. Take a look at the Estonian ID card system for some of the benefits that it will offer to Britain and her citizens in the information age. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonian_ID_card

Oyster is practically becoming the same thing here (especially with regards to public transport and as a payment system). As for the electronic voting scheme, a system of that nature is open to fraud far more than a typical paper ballot.

probably a stupid question but...

can dna be planted at a crimescene?

basically massive dna database millions of persons dna on it + muppets who lose secure files on trains etc

= ?

Sometimes it doesn't even need to be planted. That said, criminals could use it to frame innocents that are on the database.
 
Last edited:
Man of Honour
Joined
1 Aug 2004
Posts
12,678
Location
Tyneside
You're saying the samples aren't kept?

It doesn't make a difference if they are or they are not.

If anyone can tell me how a DNA sample from two cotton buds or DNA extracted from a hair root in a police custody area is then used to frame someone then I am all ears.

Out of curiosity I asked one of the senior CSI's who thought the same as me and his knowledge of forensic science far exceeds mine.
 
Soldato
Joined
31 Dec 2005
Posts
11,179
Location
Glasgow
ahh ok. Theoretically though...is it possible? Might it be possible in future - with enhanced extraction methods, better technology etc.

What im saying ok atm you're saying no it cant be done. (ie your dna cant be misused so you get accused of a crime based on dna evidence)

But is the reason why based on our own limitations or is it just theoretically not possible? Because in future the DNA data will still be there yet our ways of using it will have multiplied with our increased scientific knowledge and suchlike.
 
Soldato
Joined
7 Mar 2005
Posts
17,481
It doesn't make a difference if they are or they are not.

If anyone can tell me how a DNA sample from two cotton buds or DNA extracted from a hair root in a police custody area is then used to frame someone then I am all ears.

I simply do not hold the same confidence in the system and its employees as you do. I see its potential for misuse. It also blurs the line between innocent and guilty because innocents on the database are more likely to be suspected of a crime.

You want the word of a forensic scientist on the DNA issue? Here's one then:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/feb/28/ukcrime.forensicscience
 
Caporegime
Joined
22 Jun 2004
Posts
26,684
Location
Deep England
Oyster is practically becoming the same thing here (especially with regards to public transport and as a payment system). As for the electronic voting scheme, a system of that nature is open to fraud far more than a typical paper ballot.

Oyster is very far from being the same thing - it does not prove your identity, it can only be used in London, and even then not on the trains.

Estonia's e-voting system has been tested successfully in two different elections now. I can't see how it's any more insecure than paper postal ballots.

Sometimes it doesn't even need to be planted. That said, criminals could use it to frame innocents that are on the database.

And they could frame someone by obtaining a sample of DNA through other means. Is your problem with using DNA as evidence, or the National DNA database?
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
7 Mar 2005
Posts
17,481
Oyster is very far from being the same thing - it does not prove your identity, it can only be used in London, and even then not on the trains.

It is linked to your details depending on how you applied for one.

Estonia's e-voting system has been tested successfully in two different elections now. I can't see how it's any more insecure than paper postal ballots.

Electronically changing some figures is easier than stuffing boxes. Postal fraud is somewhere in the middle.

And they could frame someone by obtaining a sample of DNA through other means. Surely then we shouldn't use DNA evidence at all?

The DNA database contains 4+ million samples. The difference with "other" means is they'd have to force the person to give a sample...which only the police can do. Or at the very least, be around them physically.

Read the forensics professor's article I linked to above, that explains the problem with DNA as evidence and the database.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
1 Aug 2004
Posts
12,678
Location
Tyneside
I simply do not hold the same confidence in the system and its employees as you do. I see its potential for misuse. It also blurs the line between innocent and guilty because innocents on the database are more likely to be suspected of a crime.

You want the word of a forensic scientist on the DNA issue? Here's one then:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/feb/28/ukcrime.forensicscience

For the record I am not a fan of big brother politics that this government seem hell bent on and I am not comfortable with people who are not charged with an offence having their DNA taken.

For example, 2 children have a fight outside of school and are arrested. Even if there is insufficient evidence to proceed or it isn't deemed being in the public interest then you have DNA samples of them on a national database. Is this neccessary ?

As you say, there is potential for misuse but that applies to almost everything but again I don't see how a police DNA swab can be misused.?

It has to be said though that DNA is an invaluable tool in the fight against crime although it isn't the be all and end all.

My confidence in the system is such because I work within the criminal justice system and I know the pros and cons of DNA evidence.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom