Would you refuse at all costs to have your DNA archived by government?

Question

Check this out, posted by the times:

A senior judge has called for the entire population and anyone visiting Britain to have their DNA placed on a national database.

Lord Justice Sedley says a nation-wide bank of DNA profiles would help to tackle crime and correct an imbal-ance in profiles stored by police.

Basically, DNA is something no one can argue with, your phone has GPRS cababilities as it is, your phone calls and texts are kept for 4 years for "anti terrorism" laws.

Perhaps i see the world in a different light, but if every man woman and child has a DNA record then that is the coffin on any society i am prepared to live in. I would rather be dead and this is no joke. I already feel like a clone as it is, i get CCTV'd. Your life could be mapped just from your physical environment...

If my privacy will be that erroded, ill murder whoever made that final choice and be a patriot for freedom.

Would anyone be by my side or do you read this and not see a issue?

Answer 1

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6980188.stm luckily, it looks like a dead end story (for now).

Answer 2

I would not give Dna sample voluntarily; it may be that police may use these samples in a legal way today, but what about tomorrow. As I understand it any person arrested have their DNA put into a database. In some cases mere witnesses have had the DNA put on to a database. In both cases you DNA sample stays on the database forever. In my view if the police want store this type of data it only apply to those convicted of crimes against a person, property, and treason. Conviction for speeding, smoking in a public houses and the like should be exempt.

I am a law abiding citizen without any convictions, I have helped the police in the past as a volunteer witness, Not any more, fear of having my DNA on some data bases means I will not enter a police station voluntarily or invite a policeman into my house.

I say to hell with the judge and the government for pressurising the public on this matter. Perhaps the judge could tell us if his DNA is held on a data base, even tells which MPs have there Dna place on a data base and how it came to be there.

Answer 3

DNA evidence is not enough to prosecute on its own, however, pretty much everyone agrees that it is a very powerful investigative tool, producing strong leads and suspect lists.

As far as I am aware - the DNA matching used by forensic scientist is (without going into too much detail) sort of statistical - they look for specific markers and same sizes fragments, so your DNA would not really be being 'mapped' for specific traits.... yet.

In the future, full DNA mapping will most likely be cheaper and faster and more informed, so DNA (evidence) will be able to provide an extrapolated profile of the subject. Perhaps, build, eye and hair colour skin tone etc.(Its not really that straight forward, but a gene-based photo-fit is not such an outrageous idea)

While I don't agree with the proposed implementation, this technology is going to have increasing importance as time goes on, best to get the public debate started now.

Finally, this bear marked similarities to the debate around biometric passports and ID cards - the same principles apply:

- the benefits of the system do not outweigh the potential threat to individual liberty and privacy by mismanagement of the system.
- the potential benefits, which will most likly be adapted to fit any give political scandal or crisis do not merit the expense.

Personally - I can see the benefits of a DNA based security system - but I have no confidence it would be run safely or securely in the current climate. Your response, however, is a bit extreme.

Answer 4

A very good and timely question.

Yes I would refuse.

The judge is talking nonsense but then they often do. To redress the balance, some people need to be taken off the database, children in particular and especially those who have been found innocent of an offence but who were arrested and therefore liable to give a sample.

If you're worried, I think it is worth taking a look at a current case. The Metropolitan Police are currently attempting to track down a criminal who has become known as the
Minstead Rapist. Despite the enormous number of crimes he has committed over a long period, there is very little physical evidence against him. However, the police have a DNA sample. Having exhaused all other possible avenues of progressing the case, they are currently trawling DVLA records for all Black Caribbean men between certain ages who reside in London and the South East and ride motorbikes to request a voluntary sample of DNA for analysis in order to exclude them from the investigation; you can imagine how many people that is. That he is a Black man of a certain age and rides a motorbike are all bits of information from victims and hence that profile.

Fitting that profile, I have been contacted and - never having broken more than a couple of speeding laws and trying to stay well away from a life of crime all my life - I was in more than a little doubt about giving a sample. After long consideration and because this guy needed to be caught, I gave my sample and it came back negative. See the text below the heading, "DNA controversy", in the link below for a description as to why I and others did not want to give a sample and the police reaction to those who remained resolute in refusing to provide one. In giving your sample, the police provide, signed and written confirmation, that once the case against the rapist is concluded, all samples collected will be destroyed and at no point - before or after the court case - will be added to the Police National Computer database.

DNA is a powerful tool, but in the wrong hands it can be a very dangerous one. Imagine a database of every person's DNA in the country. As an scientist, that thought frightens me. Every computer can be hacked and most of the most secure defence systems in the world have been. What then of a little police computer database? And what of the physical security for storage of all these samples?

DNA policing is for me a lazy way of policing. Sure it can solve 'cold' cases, but DNA can be planted too. Are we to rely exclusively on 'remote policing', with policing by GATSO, CCTV, CCTV with speakers (!) and now DNA, or might it just be useful to have a few more police on the streets preventing and deterring crime and boosting public confidence, rather than post hoc solving.

***EDIT*** Emma, we who are opposed have nothing to hide. I just don't want my DNA on any database. If I break the law, then that's fine. In case you did not read the link, the police in excluding young Black men from the Minstead enquiry have - where they have refused to give a sample - arrested a number of individuals. Nice! And sure, I'm really going to trust a police force where the highly trained shooters they use, when not leaving their weapons lying in the street are shooting themselves in the foot!

Answer 5

I agree with policsguy on the security of the DNA. As we all know this can easily be breached by unscrupulous people.
As regards bar coding people wouldn't it be easier just to micro-chip them like we do with our pets?

On a more serious note I'm quite sure the Nazis in ww2 used to tattoo identification marks on the people they sent to concentration camps.
Keeping a record of every-ones DNA is just the modern way of doing exactly the same as this.
Have we not learnt anything from history?

Answer 6

They have already got *MY* DNA, in the event that they could be certain a thank you to get it via now. They asked blood samples and prints from all college childrens 30 years in the past 'reason we've been having some undesirable childnapping returned then.

Answer 7

there are so many things wrong with DNA, and you know that they wouldnt just use it to solve crimes. They would pass a law to create the database for crimes, and then another one to use that database for something else when its too late to stop the database being created, like build a clone army etc.

and cheryl J is a fascist.

Answer 8

Dna evdidence can be planted so where would that leave the victim of DNA theft? Dodgy ground a national database of INNOCENT PEOPLE

Phat Baz the spokesman for the uneducated!

Answer 9

I would refuse but not because i feel its an invasion of privacy, but who the hell knows where that DNA will turn up,,,,

unsolved murders,

suspect less rape cases,

clones

and yea, I know all this sounds like far fetched science fictiony paranoia but hey people used to think that cameras on every street corner meant Big Brother was watching you. now they just call them "traffic cams"

Answer 10

I see an issue and I'm on your side. But murder shouldn't ever be an issue resolver. There must be better ways to
stop government DNA banking. Good luck.

Answer 11

Instinctively i am opposed to this level of intrusion - i am not just a subject of the State i am a human being first and foremost, i dont want to be treated like a slave of the State. I am not a criminal, i dont want to be treated like one!!

AND i dont necessarily trust that the motives behind it are purely to reduce crime. I worry that there maybe something more sinister behind this - if they have my DNA what can they do with it?? What if it falls into the wrong hands??