DNA Database

[Tefal]

Donating money, attending talks yes. Just because I havent actually gone to parliament and protested on the issue doesnt make my contribution to them worth any less.

does when your fighting for your right to protest really.

And I believe the word you are looking for is were, not where.

Oh no, not my spelling, my Achilles heel.

 

[Le_Petit_Lapin]

Why does someone have to? If you agree with the database, fine, argue the position of the for side. If you don't agree with it say so. Dont just sit on the fence spitting out hyperbole.

I don't particularly care one way or the other. It has its good points and its bad points. Furthermore can you imagine the mess the country would be in if it was filled with people (all with the same views) who slapped each other on the back exclaiming "Jolly good show" when a law was passed or rejected they they personally agree with?

 

[Marf]

does when your fighting for your right to protest really.

Depends really how far you want to take it, given I am against a DNA database do you not see how it would be stupid for me to break the cordon around parliament and then have my DNA placed on the database? You can say that’s a copout if you like, and perhaps it is, but I see it differently.

Overall getting arrested for breaking the cordon as a singular event would do far less to help fight the legislation than my supporting a larger group who have the necessary infrastructure and organisation to make a concerted effort to fight it.

It’s called picking your battles.

 

[Nitefly]

Hence why I want to see a written constitution guaranteeing us freedom from unnecessary and unjust government interference, of which DNA collection and retention of innocent people would certainly qualify

We really do not need a written constitution in my book. It serves no real advantage and it would only act so that the judiciary are forced to very loosely interpret a document which may have little in common with the case before them...

Much better is our flexible system which allows holes in the law to be filled in by the judiciary as they go.

Parliamental supremacy is not Governmental supremacy either.

(I can't believe the House of Lords is going to be abolished soon...)

 

[semi-pro waster]

Does if you're arguing the apathy route.

I'd disagree. Not everyone can protest, even about matters which they feel strongly about, should their ability to exercise these rights in future be curtailed "just because"?

So how ar do these new powers go in terms of hassling exactly what can they do?

Take the film, the camera, stand in front of the lens?

or can they just ask you what you're doing?

All of the above but it depends on how well the bobby knows the legislation whether it is applied correctly. If you'd like a little light reading then S44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 is a good place to start. Previously they'd have needed reasonable suspicion to do anything more than simply ask you what you were doing.

 

[Tefal]

Depends really how far you want to take it, given I am against a DNA database do you not see how it would be stupid for me to break the cordon around parliament and then have my DNA placed on the database? You can say that’s a copout if you like, and perhaps it is, but I see it differently.

Overall getting arrested for breaking the cordon as a singular event would do far less to help fight the legislation than my supporting a larger group who have the necessary infrastructure and organisation to make a concerted effort to fight it.

It’s called picking your battles.

You could, you know protest outside the cordon...

I'd disagree. Not everyone can protest, even about matters which they feel strongly about, should their ability to exercise these rights be curtailed "just because"?

When you're arguing that people need to be less apathetic, and you didn;t try to stp it cause you couldn't be arsed your self is a pretty poor.

 

[HEADRAT]

Good decision, if your are arrested your DNA is taken, if you are not prosecuted or prosecuted then found to be innocent then your DNA should be removed from the DNA database.

I don't see how anybody can think that the police should be allowed to keep DNA of innocent people.

 

[Marf]

You could, you know protest outside the cordon...

Yes, I could, and perhaps one day I will, but for now I am happy donating my hard earned to an organisation who is actively campaigning against a number of issues that I feel strongly against, the DNA Database and the right to protest included.

 

[Meridian]

And it can be a lot lower, especially when you look at some of the more obscure DNA techniques, or when there are family involvements.

A full profile will give a match rate of about one in three billion, not million. Strictly, what it means is: "The chances that a person picked at random from the general public would have a DNA profile that matched the one in question is one in three billion". The wording is important. Yes, those odds shift in certain areas where there has been a higher-than-average level of inbreeding (and yes, Norfolk is highest there...). The odds are also reduced for partial matches, but this is explained to the court. It's hardly the fault of the NDNADB if the courts/juries don't understand.


M

 

[Le_Petit_Lapin]

I don't see how anybody can think that the police should be allowed to keep DNA of innocent people.

I simply don't understand what harm that does to anyone?

 

[jas72]

No not really, you're still free to do everything that you were able to do 50 years ago.


To me it looks like the government wants to control the security of our lives, not what we actually do. This a isnt a bad thing.


Well, I'd imagine that it would be hard to keep my actual DNA on a disc, but rather they've have my DNA profile, and I really can't see how some third party getting their hands on my profile would affect me in the slightest. Its not as if you can engineer someones DNA (say to plant at the scene of a crime) from their profile is it?

Nope but you can engineer the computer to link someones profile to the DNA!

Ever had the "computer says no!" well in this case it would be "computer says yes!"

It's a bit Far out but we all know what police can do when under pressure for arrests.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Six

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guildford_Four_and_Maguire_Seven

 

[Brian Stuart]

I simply don't understand what harm that does to anyone?

It is a slippery slope argument. Would you agree to a monitoring device in your car to verify your whereabouts if required? After all if you have done nothing wrong, nothing to worry about is there?
What about all babies being micro-chipped at birth? After all that could prevent a child getting lost or find an abducted child couldn't it?
freedom cannot be given but it can be taken away.

 

[semi-pro waster]

When you're arguing that people need to be less apathetic, and you didn;t try to stp it cause you couldn't be arsed your self is a pretty poor.

I didn't think I was arguing that. I thought I was arguing that people should not have rights removed to no definable end or benefit. Arguments about apathy usually relate to voter apathy and that they should not complain when they get the politicians they 'deserve' through not voting - this is an entirely separate topic as I see it.

I simply don't understand what harm that does to anyone?

How about instead of me having to define the harm you (or whoever proposes new legislation) actually give the benefits since you/they are the ones wishing to curtail my existing freedoms?

 

[spp]

I think it's a more general case of, once gone, civil liberties are extremely difficult to get back. A DNA database is a further erosion of civil liberties. I understand why people say 'what harm will it do', as I use to feel the same, but I don't think the problem is the database itself, but what it means in the bigger picture. What next etc?

 

[gillywibble]

Excellent result, although our liberties are still being stangled.

 

[HEADRAT]

I simply don't understand what harm that does to anyone?

Because you are innocent until proven guitly, why should anybody allow the state to hold more information than is required.

Where do you drawn the line, do you allow for the erossion of you liberties to a point where you are powerless to do anything to get them back. When do we slide from being "free" to being "watched".

Look at the anti terrorist legislation that has been used to spy on people because they're trying to send their child to a different school!

HEADRAT

 

[Von Smallhausen]

Some people here have a very blinkered and Daily Mail type view of the police.

I must wear those blinkers every day at work because I do not see, advocate or do 90% of the bull**** written on these forums sometimes.

Sorry folks.

 

[Brian Stuart]

I don't think there are arguments about the police as such. They will use whatever powers they are given to do the job. It is more a discussion about fundamental civil liberties that affect everyone, including the police.

 

[Meridian]

Nope but you can engineer the computer to link someones profile to the DNA!

Er - no you can't. You (the police or a forensic provider) submit a sample and ask if it matches any profile on the database. You are either told yes, with details, or no. You can't ask for it to matched against a specific person, except in the sense of providing a sample from them as well and asking if they are the same.

And no, you can't hack in either for a rather obvious reason which I can't say, but should be pretty clear.

It would be a good deal simpler to just plant some actual dandruff or something at the crime scene if you really were that bored. The cases you cite were fixed in other ways - in one case at least by accident: the scientist concerned didn't actually understand the chemistry he was using, and did a test with a solution made to the wrong strength (and thus far too sensitive)



M

 

[NeilF]

Do you not agree that our civil liberties are being eroded bit by bit? It seems to me that this ruling is good in that it puts the brakes on this governments desire to control all aspects of our lives. There is also the data security issue. Would you be happy with your DNA being lost by government with all of the implications that follow?

Next you'll be complaining the government knowing all our names and addreses is wrong

I see this akin to the argument of gun ownership in the UK in some ways:-
- I'd love to own a gun, but I know the cost of me owning a gun is allowing every nutter, theif and rapist to also have one. I'm not willing for that to happen, so I'm happy to go without that right, and not have a gun.
- I'd love the government not to have my (& everyone elses) DNA on a national database. However, I know this means that a lot of serious crimes go unpunished. So, I'm willing to go without this right, and have my DNA on a database.

ps: As for your last point, I'd be more worried abuot my name and address being lost than my DNA profile