What is all the hoohaa abuot a DNA database - bring it on!

Weebull · 5 Dec 2008 at 15:23

Tefal said:
err ok so they have your Bio ID card, when mister bank manger tells them to lean forward for the iris scan, what exactly are they going to do? Hold up your freshly gouged eyes and hope he doesn't notice?

The other half of bio id cards is of course Bio id scans, like you use a pin code for your card now in futre you may just get your eyes scanned.

Yes, and every time you get a withdrawl from the bank now, you have to do it in front of the bank manager, don't you.

a1ex2001 · 5 Dec 2008 at 15:28

Zip said:
How do they do that out side of a lab?

again stop being stupid and assuming todays technology, If I'd told my dad when he was in school that I would have more computing power in my laptop then existed in the wold at that time he would have laughed at me.

In 20-30 years time it maybe possible to do this on your PDA for all you know, you probably won't need an actual fleshy eye to fool the scanner.

Tefal · 5 Dec 2008 at 15:29

Weebull said:
Yes, and every time you get a withdrawl from the bank now, you have to do it in front of the bank manager, don't you.

No but I have to either do it in front of a human being, or a machine in *** street with a camera watching me.

passers by + the people who check the footage after a illegitimate use may notice me sticking a buch of crap to an atm.

For a start, this DNA DB will have your Bio-data on it as well. So they won't even need to recreate it.

since when?

And they still will need to recreate a fake iris.

Second, you're assuming all bank managers or whatever are legit. How do you think a lot of identity theft *already* occurs? Someone brings in 3 forms of ID, the person requiring these ID's knows they are fake/cloned/stolen but doesn't care - he or she is only required to ask for them, not verify their origins.

Well you can't stop that really can you :/ (well actually we can but for the sake of your argument we'll have to assume the bank manager is perfectly willing to open an account etc, that once it;s discovered to be fake will be 100% obvious that the bank manager knew, because he must have seen you blatantly faking the test when the account was opened)

if you're going to use that as a defence then you should just ban bank managers.

Start looking outside your tunnel vision Tefal, there's a whole lot more to see.

Strat trying to to think of the most ludicris examples. You still havent said what the replicated it's succes rate, and how asy it would be to do unnoticed.

NeilF · 5 Dec 2008 at 15:29

a1ex2001 said:
No but they may well be able to use your DNA to recreate your iris in a way that the cash machine finds acceptable, or the internet gateway for your bank.

I suspect if criminals were trying to grow my eye in a dish to get into my cash machine, they might find it easier to:-
1) Stand by aforementioned cash machine and cosh me over the head after I've logged in.
2) Cut out my eye.

Meanwhile.... in the realworld... people are suffering from crimes that could be prevented...

a1ex2001 · 5 Dec 2008 at 15:29

Zip said:
Or Own a Car, a house or something else.

Its not hard to find someone when you have access to Registration details, Or Licences or Council rates

the car bit yes the police do have access, the rest they would have to request from the council or TV licensing agencies. All these databases are not linked together. :rolleyes:

Tefal · 5 Dec 2008 at 15:30

a1ex2001 said:
again stop being stupid and assuming todays technology, If I'd told my dad when he was in school that I would have more computing power in my laptop then existed in the wold at that time he would have laughed at me.

In 20-30 years time it maybe possible to do this on your PDA for all you know, you probably won't need an actual fleshy eye to fool the scanner.

you're falling into your own trap there. Why would the scanners remain unchanged?

RDM · 5 Dec 2008 at 15:32

NeilFawcett said:
Meanwhile.... in the realworld... people are suffering from crimes that could be prevented...

This arguement could be used for all sorts of intrusive measure though. Again, can you come up with a reason for holding my DNA data that doesn't presume guilt on my part?

mmj_uk · 5 Dec 2008 at 15:33

My signature says all that needs to be said on the subject.

a1ex2001 · 5 Dec 2008 at 15:33

NeilFawcett said:
I suspect if criminals were trying to grow my eye in a dish to get into my cash machine, they might find it easier to:-
1) Stand by aforementioned cash machine and cosh me over the head after I've logged in.
2) Cut out my eye.

Meanwhile.... in the realworld... people are suffering from crimes that could be prevented...

Who says they can't just bring up and image of it on there pda hold it up to the sensor and hey presto, you have no idea what future technology would be capable of. The cashmachine is just an example think of the true possibilities, maybe I fancy killing a few people so I clone your DNA and spread that all over my vicitims and the murder weapon the police will ignore the tiny traces of someone elses DNA and string you up. (Again this is just an example the possibilites as they say are endless and the nievety on dsiplay in this thread is scary.)

Zip · 5 Dec 2008 at 15:34

a1ex2001 said:
the car bit yes the police do have access, the rest they would have to request from the council or TV licensing agencies. All these databases are not linked together.

I mean Drivers licences.

Any either way, if the police asked imsure plenty of placeswould happily hand over the details.

Tefal · 5 Dec 2008 at 15:34

a1ex2001 said:
No but they may well be able to use your DNA to recreate your iris in a way that the cash machine finds acceptable, or the internet gateway for your bank. Everytime we have upped security the criminals have found away aound it so it is foolish to assume that in future they won't be able too.

yeah so people will be able to grow organs in a back street lab :/

That would be a pretty epic leap in medical technology right there, by that point we'd probbably be using brain waves as an id check.

Are not known YET! don't assume they won't be in 20 years time, your giving this information away based on todays understanding of DNA which is like asking a 5 year old to do second order integration.

Right, and to scam little old me out of a few K would be worth more effort than the entire human genome project?

And based on what they take, what you are saying is like asking einstien to solve.

.... = 2

And if you're now going to make the argument "but they may change it and record it all" then that's a **** argument.
As tomorrow they may change it so that you have to be called Joan of ark to buy a loaf of bread, you going to go change your name?

I's a completely pointless projection. (and would spark a much larger question when they tried to get it through as it would be totally unnessacery, and how would they justify it)

a1ex2001 · 5 Dec 2008 at 15:34

Tefal said:
you're falling into your own trap there. Why would the scanners remain unchanged?

I haven't fallen into any trap I've merely assumed that criminal technology will develop at a comparable pace to security technology, which it always has.

NeilF · 5 Dec 2008 at 15:35

Weebull said:
Why is every hypothetical argument against you a straw man, yet your hypothetical crime perfectly valid? Answer my point. Just like this database, CCTV doesn't assume guilt, it just makes it easier for people to see who was where, when a crime happens. I offered you those scenarios because they're actually pretty similar to this one.

You're extrepolating unfairly beyond any reason. I'm talking about a DNA database, so you are suggesting I'm endorsing CCTV every foot, or chips implanted into people?

You're extending my suggestions into areas I've not even talked about simply to prop up your own points...?

They're similar? Of course they're not...

Weebull said:
It's called civil bloody liberties. As far as I'm concerned, I want to live in a society with a largely uninterfering state. Bar proving that I'm a real person for polling purposes, I don't particularly want the government, or whoever, to have personal information about me, unless I choose to let them. That's the crux here. Some people don't want their DNA on file, yet you want to force them? Why? In case they might commit a crime in future? And yet you claim this isn't guilt-implying? I'm sorry, but I find the idea of the government forcefully taking my DNA without asking a bit, well, wrong. Don't you?

Absolutely! In an ideal world we'd not be talking about this. But unfortunately we're not in an ideal world. I do NOT want my DNA in a database. BUT, I see those concerns as minor compared to the benefit of it being in one. In short, I suspect my DNA being in a database would not change a single aspect of my life, but such a database could have radical effects on crimes.

The benefits are too great to ignore, and the reasons against non-existant/too small IMHO.

RDM · 5 Dec 2008 at 15:35

Zip said:
Any either way, if the police asked imsure plenty of placeswould happily hand over the details.

I would hope that they wouldn't unless there was legislation in place to allow it or a court warrant. I would prefer most places to be slightly more protective of my data than parliament is with it's offices...

Marf · 5 Dec 2008 at 15:39

Discussion of Iris scans is moot.

They have been dropped from the Governments biometric ID program as currently the systems cannot currently be proven 100% sucessful in identifying uniquely those who have brown eyes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4348942.stm
http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/identitycards/Critics-hit-out-at-ID.3337662.jp

Tefal · 5 Dec 2008 at 15:41

a1ex2001 said:
Who says they can't just bring up and image of it on there pda hold it up to the sensor and hey presto, you have no idea what future technology would be capable of.

Right, but again you;re ignoring the fact that the scanners would change.

I could probably design something to stop your solution based solely on the fact human eyes don;t emit light :/

but it wouldn't be difficult to make the camera check if it was a human eye, based on say several range finders (obviously smaller and more advance) scans iris recognises iris rea, checks several points if they are all equidistant away (ie a flat surface) it says no, they show a normal curve (or one more similar to your own eyes curve) then it says ok.

The cashmachine is just an example think of the true possibilities, maybe I fancy killing a few people so I clone your DNA and spread that all over my vicitims and the murder weapon the police will ignore the tiny traces of someone elses DNA and string you up. (Again this is just an example the possibilites as they say are endless and the nievety on dsiplay in this thread is scary.)

Then that person would need to grow samples of your hair (complete eith the exact current make up of your hair, so while they grow it they would have to know what drugs you;ve taken and when + lots of toher things)

Grow sample of your skin, and inflict similar damage on you to show it came from you not grown in a lab (hell based on the fact these people are growing human organs, we'd probably have the tech o tell if it was grown or from a person.)

And finnaly they;d need to be a forensics genius to "spread it around" and make it look belive able.

I'm amazed how naive you are in thinking that only ways to circumvent security would change but nothing else.

NeilF · 5 Dec 2008 at 15:41

OK! Let's put this into context! A question...

What would you rather make publicy known?

Your name, address and telephone number? Or your DNA profile?

Tefal gave a great example... Here's the profile he posted:-

What would you guys talking about the danger of losing information out of the dna database rather post here, your personal details, or that DNA profile?

I suspect 100% people would rather post their DNA profile, than their personal details...

Atrox Moris · 5 Dec 2008 at 15:44

NeilFawcett said:
OK! Let's put this into context! A question...

What would you rather make publicy known?

Your name, address and telephone number? Or your DNA profile

I suspect 100% people would rather post their DNA profile, than their personal details...

As has already been pointed out to you, your name, age, race, telephone, address is taken by the police when you are arrested under suspicion for an offence. So if you lose your DNA data, the rest of it will be going with it, whether it's in paper form or digital form.

Tefal · 5 Dec 2008 at 15:46

Atrox Moris said:
As has already been pointed out to you, your name, age, race, telephone, address is taken by the police when you are arrested under suspicion for an offence. So if you lose your DNA data, the rest of it will be going with it, whether it's in paper form or digital form.

Hang on . for this database how exactly will they know if you've moved etc?

Won;t they just wind up with a name + picture rather than anything usefull (well i suppose thats useful but not greatly)

if it;s done at birth then only a name not a face.

Weebull · 5 Dec 2008 at 15:47

NeilFawcett said:
You're extrepolating unfairly beyond any reason. I'm talking about a DNA database, so you are suggesting I'm endorsing CCTV every foot, or chips implanted into people?

I'm not suggesting you're endorsing those in the slightest. I was asking you whether you did support them as well, on the basis that they're fairly similar in execution. I wanted to find out where you draw your line.

They're similar? Of course they're not...

How are they not? Erosion of basic civil liberties at the supposed gain of extra security, using the same old "Well if you're not guilty..." argument. Explain to me the differences otherwise then.

Absolutely! In an ideal world we'd not be talking about this. But unfortunately we're not in an ideal world. I do NOT want my DNA in a database. BUT, I see those concerns as minor compared to the benefit of it being in one.

And what if someone flat out refuses to give their DNA over to a central database? Do you force innocent people to surrender something they've legitimately chosen not to?

In short, I suspect my DNA being in a database would not change a single aspect of my life, but such a database could have radical effects on crimes.

How would they? I'm not the most up-to-date on crime statistics, but I'm pretty sure that unsolved murders/rapes with no obvious suspect are very small in number. I really don't think there would be a dramatic rise in the solving of crimes just because we'd have an additional method of locating who may have been at a scene.

The point that a few crimes may be solved because of thie database is a realy weak argument.