Mandatory National DNA Database

[Pilk Man]

Recent plans for a nation-wide DNA database have been rejected (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7260164.stm) on the basis that it would be impractical to implement the system.

The plans, for a national database including a mandatory DNA sample from every citizen regardless of race, religion or criminal history, had sparked fierce debate over issues such as the violation of civil liberties and human rights.

On the other hand, the system would lead to increased numbers of convictions and without doubt take a lot more crime off our streets.


What are your opinions on the subject? Unecessary privacy-invasion or valuable tool in the fight against crime?

[Disgruntledgoat]

I saw this story, and its a bit of a balance really.

People obviously want less crime, and criminals to be caught more quickly, but if you ask most people if they can have a sample of their DNA for a national database, the answer would be an overwhelming no.

I think the story said that Britain (well, England and Wales) already has the largest single database of DNA profiles. Already hundreds of thousands, or possibly even millions of personal confidential information has gone missing, and so it becomes even more difficult to trust that a database of this size would be secure.

[Lawrence]

I don't think the government should be allowed to require that. Though I do think that it should be pursued, even if only voluntarily. Even if this did not prevent crime, the scientific research made available by this database would be most certainly interesting.

[Pilk Man]

Already hundreds of thousands, or possibly even millions of personal confidential information has gone missing, and so it becomes even more difficult to trust that a database of this size would be secure.
I felt the same, but it's important to remember that all of those details were lost during transit on poorly secured, unencrypted media.

On the flip side of this argument you have the Police National Computer. It holds information such as vehicle registration details as well as storing the criminal records of hundreds of thousands of convicted criminals.

How many records do you think have been stolen since it went online in 1974? 0*




*AFAIK

[Boyinabox]

We recently did a practical in biology where we did some DNA fingerprinting and whilst I'm not an expert on the subject I think that when you do a proper forensics DNA profile (we only did mitochondial DNA profiling as it was exactly the same for everyone) you only use a tiny fragment of the total genetic code to create the fingerprint and hence it can only be used for forensics purposes and nothing else.
Whilst I'm sure there are moral issues with a national DNA database I personally don't mind the government having our DNA or any other biometric information as theres little it can really be used for other than forensics (I doubt the NHS has the time to do a full medical analysis for everybodies DNA) and so is really no different from any of the other things they have stored about us and probably a lot less dangerous to have stolen than credit card and social security details.

[gembird]

I feel that, as Boyinabox said, there's not a lot they can do with little bits of our DNA so there's no real issue about us being secretly cloned or having bits of human DNA in experimental organisms etc. The thing is that the authorities will have access to your DNA for forensic purposes, in which case you should have no problem with it if you haven't done anything wrong.

[swampmonkey]

I've never seen the problem with it, they can have a sample of mine if they want, I don't plan to break the law in any way. I sometimes wonder if it wouldn't work as a bit of a deterant as well. Knowing the government has your DNA might make people think twice about breaking the law as there is a stronger chance of getting caught.

[terrorbite]

I will never allow anyone to sample my DNA (at least not without me knowing), just like I don't ever plan to have a national ID card with my fingerprints and eye scans and other information.

I can't believe you're all willing to roll over and accept this. It's not about whether it solves crimes or not. That's just what they tell you so you'll go along with it. You know damn well that all that data would eventually get into the wrong hands, and even if it didn't, I guarantee it would end up being used by third-parties and other organizations who have no business knowing such sensitive details.

We're all individual human beings. Nobody has the right to monitor me 24/7 and to have access to all my personal information and statistics... yet we have the largest DNA database in the world, are the most surveilled country in Europe, and the government is allowed to spy on all your phone calls, texts and emails... and you're ok with this? Because it's only going to get worse.

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Edit: It really pisses me off when people say "I've got nothing to hide, so what's the problem?" It's not about whether you've got anything to hide. It's about having the RIGHT to privacy.

[gembird]

To be honest, most of your DNA is either exactly the same as most other mammals (let alone humans) on the planet or is a load of non-coding spam. Do you know how long it'd take someone to find something in there that is unique to one person, if they find anything at all? Nobody would bother.

[Pie hunter D]

The implications are great, the theory of it sucks.

What more can I add to that.

Also I find it hilarious, people who couldn't give a shit about the smoking bans etc get all riled when human rights affect them. Slightly off topic.

[TJPlatinum]

I, personally, really don't like the idea of having a Mandatory National DNA Database.

First off, it violates our right to privacy (I know giving away a piece of genetic code might not seem much, but it's about as invasive an information type as you can get, even if it's not on a personally embarassing information to give away), and on top of that, assumes everyone in the country is a criminal. As far as I'm aware, at the moment, only people who have been arrested have their data stored, some of which were never charged or proven guilty of anything. It's not about whether we have anything to hide, we shouldn't need to prove we don't have anything to hide. Because, we're innocent. If innocent people need to prove they are not guilty, then the whole thing of innocent until proven guilty goes down the pan a bit.

I'd like to see some figures comparing crime here to countries without the size DNA database and without such a large amount of CCTV coverage that we have. There are bound to be places that have a much lower crime rate than us despite having fewer invasive prevention measures.

I've got to say I agree with terrorbite that it really doesn't matter if it decreases the amount of crime, or at least ups the number of people who commit crimes. Once this data is collected, the fact the government have the right to our DNA has been established, what next? Once it's there, it could be used for lots of things. ID Cards are a given, and having to prove that you are genetically who you say you are at any place any time is just wrong. You shouldn't have to prove your innocence because a higher power demands it of you, when you've done nothing wrong.

@Pie Hunter D: The smoking bans are tiny bit less invasive than this. Any liberal worth their salt would get riled up about both, but keeping smoke with a proven health risk out of closed spaces is on a different scale to having the possibility of a government demand that legally we all must hand over DNA to be kept on a database 'just in case'.

[Disgruntledgoat]

To be honest, most of your DNA is either exactly the same as most other mammals (let alone humans) on the planet or is a load of non-coding spam. Do you know how long it'd take someone to find something in there that is unique to one person, if they find anything at all? Nobody would bother.
I seem to vaguely remember Stephen Fry on QI saying that we even share 40% of our DNA with Daffodils.

Or something.

[gembird]

Technically, a lot of our genetic information is already available to anyone who knows where to find it on the internet. Yeah, it isn't DNA itself but there are protein and nucleotide databases which store the sequence of amino acids in many human genes. Are people hitting the roof over this? No. That's because those sequences are the same, or one of two or three possibilities, for every single one of us. So actually, somebody somewhere already has some of the information they need to figure out somebody's genetics. I'm not saying that the government should be allowed to have DNA samples from us all even if it was feasible- it can be seen as the ultimate invasion of privacy and it does make a lot of people uncomfortable. I just feel I should point out that a lot of the information people are worried about is already known anyway. Hell, I've done practicals on it at uni- we had to search certain websites to find the DNA sequence of a particular gene.

TL; DR: It's already being used for science (to some extent). But the government is something different, and I do accept that.

[asmodai]

If you're studying something biological at university, then you should know just how easy it is to locate the genes that we don't share with each other, and that are used as markers in criminal cases. It really doesn't take all that much effort to identify whether DNA belongs to a person, if you don't mind the scientific processes that go along with it. And seeing as most court cases aren't complete without a handy DNA profile linking the suspect to the scene, I'm willing to bet that the government doesn't find it too much trouble.

I seem to vaguely remember Stephen Fry on QI saying that we even share 40% of our DNA with Daffodils.

Or something.

You share 50% of your DNA with a banana.

[gembird]

Yes, but I doubt they're going to do it for every single one of us. It takes a lot of work and time to get one DNA profile.

[asmodai]

Well, it's quicker and more reliable than fingerprinting, and the government has spent ridiculous amounts of time and man-power on stupider things.

I'm very against it, partly because I know just how unreliable the methods the police have are when it comes to growing the small fragments of DNA into larger fragments that can be used in court. The DNA evidence found recently in one case was discounted because it was so unreliable, but it's still used. If they had everyones DNA on profile, it would be so very easy to manipulate the crime-scene evidence to match someone already on profile who's a suspect. Would save them some time anyway.

Plus, as others have already said, why should they have my fingerprints and DNA when I'm not a criminal and never will be?

[Pie hunter D]

Where possibilities of manipulating this system are concerned I have to raise my hands and plead ignorance. I'm no biologist, I just know the basics. If theres more sinister implications involved in the whole affair I would imagine it would be hugely less well accepted ... Then again I imagine a lot of people like me , the average schmuck, wouldn't have a clue about any of that.

[gembird]

I can see where everyone is coming from with the privacy issue, as I've already said- it is an invasion of everyone's privacy, and one that has implications which make many people feel uneasy (including myself if I'm honest, in theory there isn't necessarily a problem but in practice people are corrupt). However, regular debaters will know that I do like to argue a point- perhaps I'm playing devil's advocate in this thread, but I think that it's an interesting topic and it needs a point of view other than "ZOMG privacy invasion!" to keep it going.

Also:
- If everyone was on the records, why would they need to manipulate the DNA to match somebody other than the person whose DNA it was? They could easily find a match with that person. Not saying that we all should be on record, just that it doesn't make sense to change the results to suit what you have if you already have everything.
- What methods are unreliable? I know there was that case in the news where the new method was unreliable, but I would think that the usual method was PCR- I thought that was reasonably good. Obviously it isn't if it's not done right, but from what I can make out it's better than other things they've tried. Maybe I'm wrong, by all means say so if you've got something to back it up.

:edit: I'm sorry for getting a bit scientific in this thread, it's something relevant to my course and I turn into a nerd over things like this.

[Pilk Man]

If they had everyones DNA on profile, it would be so very easy to manipulate the crime-scene evidence to match someone already on profile who's a suspect.
It's easy enough now, isn't it? Scene-fixing almost never happens (probably around once in 10-15 years if you're lucky) and you could easily DNA-rig a crime scene now without the need for a database of any kind.

Sounds to me like a government conspiracy theory! The clones are a comin'!

Plus, as others have already said, why should they have my fingerprints and DNA when I'm not a criminal and never will be?Why shouldn't they? They already have access to all your past and present addresses, bank details, social security, insurance numbers, health/medical records, vehicle registration details AND the same on every member of your family. Anything they don't have could be found out so easily it's ridiculous. The government could easily erase you if they wanted to.

I think the real problem with this argument is that everyone assumes that giving your fingerprints etc. to the government automatically makes you a criminal (which it obviously doesn't). Don't forget that giving "them" your fingerprints and DNA could instantly rule you out of a case you were drawn into somehow, avoiding court and ongoing investigations/surveillance etc.

Thinking of it from another perspective, if a member of your family was raped and killed, leaving only a battered, violated corpse and the DNA of their killer, wouldn't you be a bit hacked off if they had to let the case go cold because there was insufficient evidence and no suspect to DNA-profile?

What if the NDNAD lead them to a street address where they could ask somebody for a single hair from their head, check it against the DNA of the killer and either clear them or put them in jail for life? Even if the DNA database didn't lead directly to the killer, it would give them a much more direct line of enquiry and a route to a potential suspect rather than having to appeal for witness statements etc.

[TJPlatinum]

I think the real problem with this argument is that everyone assumes that giving your fingerprints etc. to the government automatically makes you a criminal (which it obviously doesn't).

It doesn't make anyone a criminal, but it assumes you could be one. Why should you be treated as a possible rapist\thief\murderer when you have no intention of ever doing anything that'll get you into trouble with the law? We're innocent until proven guilty in this country, and all of this information will be collected to stop crimes that a select few will commit, on the assumption you could be one of those people. That isn't innocent until proven guilty.

This database isn't the only way to make criminals easier to catch. And the money that's going to go into making this database could be just as easily spent in other places to help combat crime. For instance, better prisons and rehabilitation programs, more policemen, etc.

Even if we were to see an improvement in the percentage of criminals caught, we wouldn't hear about it. Due to an overly paranoid media, we'd only ever hear that 'crime has gone up' as there were more criminals to punish, and that 'prisons are fuller than ever'. If we are going to have a database, we shouldn't bring it in because some official decided to take advantage of paranoia due to the news featuring a few high profile "OHMYGOD SOMEONE GOT KILLED" murder cases lately, as they'll always find to something negative to complain report about.

This database won't cut the amount of people commiting crimes, and it won't make the punishments and rehabilitations any more efficient. The money used in setting up this database could be put to a lot more use elsewhere. Increasing the chances of getting caught really doesn't have that much effect on lowering crime levels, and it doesn't mean that the people who are caught are going to learn anything or not commit again.

[maxxy_p]

As the government, your job is to protect the people and do good where possible. You therefore have to justify why you are making a database with our most fundamental personal information. It is not our position to have to explain why you shouldn't take our DNA: it is your position as the government to put forward arguments in its favour, explain why it's necessary and if it is deemed to be a good move, how it will be done.

The government are taking a fucking liberty once again. From us.

[Giant_Crab]

Yeah I'm not really sure what the modern government obsession with knowing absolutely everything about people is, it's all getting a bit like everyone living in glass houses in Yevgeny Zamyetin's 'We' or Big Brother in '1984'. The only possible use I could see for a DNA database would be for large scale research projects, but even then, a voluntary representative sample of society would do.

There's really no logic behind it making places more secure or making us safer in general. I mean, what are we all being told to be afraid of so much these days? Suicide bombers? Yeah, good luck getting a DNA sample after that! (I'm not going to bother going into what a minute, minute threat suicide bombers actually pose in this country ((statistically speaking))

So to sum it up: what's the point? Completism?

[terrorbite]

So to sum it up: what's the point? Completism?
Total enslavement of the human population? To control you, they first need to know everything about you and monitor your every move.

[Giant_Crab]

Aaaaand the police state begins.

[terrorbite]

It's already begun.

[tom93]

My first thought was "well that makes sense" and then my second thought was "what if i do something even slightly illegal in the future" and my third thought was "well that's a bad idea."

I guess that that's probably not the most noble reason to oppose this, but it's my reason all the same.

[Giant_Crab]

I don't necessarily think it's a shit reason to oppose it though. That's the main problem with this databasing of absolutely everything, it gives very little room for movement and expression without accidentally, or inconsequentially tipping over an arbitrary line into illegal action. Privacy is an integral part of freedom, and as long as what you do in privacy doesn't infringe on other people's rights, it should be upheld. Being able to keep track of you on a genetic level is just too far. CCTV: Proven to help against crime. DNA databasing? Come on. That's just overkill.

[Pilk Man]

I'm not exactly sure how you guys think the government having a DNA profile for you equates to "total enslavement of the human population", "monitoring your every move" or, in fact, anything even remotely as serious.

It's not as if they're developing a super weapon which can take over your mind just from having a DNA sample inserted into it, nor is it a secret biometric satellite which tracks your every move from the DNA-laced scent you leave in the air.

This database would be used to quickly and efficiently hunt down murderers and rapists, nothing more. It couldn't realistically be used to hunt you down for doing something "even remotely illegal" because if we're honest, how often do you see DNA profiling used to hunt down people who dont pay their parking tickets or such? Unless you've committed a crime serious enough to warrant DNA profiling, you have nothing to fear.

It's a system to quickly remove dangerous, potentialy murderous individuals from society, leaving you (ironically) free and happy to live your life in safety. If you'd rather it took 15 years to find a child-murdering rapist psychopath who was only found because he happened to be caught drink driving 15 years later (perhaps after raping/murdering 5 or 6 more people), go right ahead. Personally, I'd rather these people were caught as quickly and efficiently as possible.

[TJPlatinum]

Nobody is saying that we're all going to be tracked constantly or all turned into slaves overnight.

It's not very common-sensical, but people don't like law enforcement. Why? I'd guess it has something to do with law constantly changing, and that not all laws are right. People don't want to give too much power and influence to the police, because they're scared of the concept of a police state. It takes power away from the citizen, and gives it to the government. As citizens, we want the police to be good enough to do it's job, but we don't want it to be too efficient.

What if the government were to suddenly take a turn for the oppressive, and the police were on their side? If the people rebelling against an oppressive government were all caught by the end of the week, they wouldn't have much of a chance. I'm sure this seems like a bit of a crazy example, but I'm trying to highlight the advantages of not having a police state. The police work for the government, and the government doesn't always work for us. It should, but if it ends up acting against our wishes, then if we've got an efficient law enforcement agency to enforce the laws that work against the people they should be protecting.

Nobody thinks that having a database is going to transform the UK into an Orwellian hell overnight, but it is a step in a very uncomfortable direction, mainly because it takes the details of innocent people, who shouldn't need to be under the influence of the police. Sure, it'll help the police, but do we really want the police to have that amount of power over even innocent people?

Innocent people need a certain degree of power (in the form of liberties), because a lack of them leaves us powerless against a malicious government.

[maxxy_p]

I'm not exactly sure how you guys think the government having a DNA profile for you equates to "total enslavement of the human population", "monitoring your every move" or, in fact, anything even remotely as serious.It's not. You are missing the point. It's one step towards that, which is one step further than I am prepared to go. We are not saying the DNA database equates to anything terrible by itself- it's the potential it has for misuse. I wouldn't give a shit who had my bank details or phone number either if I was absolutely sure that they were safe in those hands.

This database would be used to quickly and efficiently hunt down murderers and rapists, nothing more.Prove it. I know what I'm going to mention here is always brought up, but that's because it's a fucking good point: what if the BNP or some other similar shitheads get into power at some point in the future? You think they'd only ever use it to hunt down pyschopaths? What if some details get lost, like say in the fucking post (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7103566.stm)?

[richardn111]

I think the science nerds have mastered the Chimera and have been commissioned to create an army of human/wolf soldiers + human/shark marine fighters..

Seriously though, I'm not saying I agree with the whole databasing idea, but you all* have your credit card details on much less secure system than this would be but even if some details did get lost in the post what is someone going to do with your DNA? "Hey my names Jean Claude Van Dam. I must be because I have his... MY DNA on file"

I don't know really, I don't think it's necessary, but if it does happen I don't see it as a huge violation of my basic rights.

*most of you

[Purple Wabbit]

I'm afraid I'm very strongly in the 'no' camp on this one, although for a reason no one seems to have mentioned. (Maybe this is because I've got my facts completely wrong and make no sense, but oh well)

I would assume, if this came into force, DNA evidence in court would be pretty much taken as read, yes? As in, we have DNA evidence, therefore conviction.

This worries me. Because I'm certain there would be circumstances where it would be possible for someone's DNA to be at a crime scene even if they hadn't had anything to do with the crime. And I'm scared that if the criminal had happened to manage to avoid leaving DNA samples but someone unconnected with the crime had, well, that just leads to innocent people being convicted and having litle chance to prove their innocence as 'there was DNA evidence, so you must have done it.'

Maybe I'm giving criminals too much credit, juries too little, whatever. Maybe it's a very unlikely circumstance and I'm blowing it way out of proportion. But the thought that I might be a suspect in a crime because they can biologically prove I was in the area terrifies me much more than the simple idea that the government has my DNA on file. And I just get the feeling that if this were to come into force, DNA evidence would come to be viewed as infallible. Maybe I'm wrong there.

If none of this makes any sense, please let me know; I'd be quite relieved to know I'm talking utter rubbish, lol. But from what I know and think, there's my $0.02

[gembird]

I guess the only thing I can say is that other evidence comes into it- alibis, CCTV footage of the surrounding area, things like that. So in theory, just because your DNA is at a crime scene, it doesn't mean you'll be convicted of something you didn't do. For example, if you'd been at the scene of a murder before it happened, your DNA wouldn't be on the body so they probably wouldn't consider you to be a suspect.

[Giant_Crab]

@Purple Wabbit, they can only convict you if you're a suspect and DNA alone doesn't make you suspicious. At worst they'd get in contact saying 'why were you getting your DNA all over this glass the night before it was used to kill Geoff?' and you'd be all like 'yeah I was drinking white spirit from it' and they'd be like, 'ok then, on yer bike, you maniac and stop attempting suicide, that was illegal too until recently.'

[Purple Wabbit]

Hmmm, fair enough. I realise that it would be unlikely that such a thing would happen. Let's just say that my faith in the criminal justice system to not convict innocent people is not overly high - and I think having the capability of identifying everyone by DNA is not a power I want in the hands of such a faulty system :/

[Giant_Crab]

I'm just thankful that the state isn't allowed to murder people here!! :D

[Purple Wabbit]

/witholds comment that will make her sound like a crazed conspiracy theorist

[Giant_Crab]

/withholds agreement

[terrorbite]

/witholds comment that will make her sound like a crazed conspiracy theorist
Go on, say it :)

[Purple Wabbit]

Oh they are, they just don't publicize it

Whuh? Who said that? No conspiracy theorists round here, no sir! >.> <.<

Getting a little off-topic methinks.

Anyway, I agree with the whole 'invasion of privacy' argument as well - it just seems to add to the whole ID cards, we need to have records of everything about you and every aspect of your life and activities mentality that's becoming prevalent recently. The fact that the gvt is taking away our rights and persuading us it's for our own good also terrifies me.

[terrorbite]

Oh they are, they just don't publicize it
Aww, I thought it was gonna be something less obvious :)

[Purple Wabbit]

Heh, sorry to disappoint you. I could go on about how Dodi Fayed murdered Diana and tried to pin the blame on the Royals* but that's slightly more off-topic than I wish to go.

*For anyone who didn't get it, yes, I am being horribly sarcastic.

[Pie hunter D]

But he did... @_o

[Pilk Man]

Yeah, or we could get back on topic?

Thanks :)

[happy-go-lucky]

I am very against this, just like I am against ID cards. It's not just that it's an invasion of privacy, I might not mind so much if I felt the government could be trusted with it, but if a corrupt government got in they could abuse the system so much. And I don't trust them not to loose it :p

Another reason is that this is the first step on a very slippery slope, and although having your DNA on file might not seem like much, what are they going to do next in the name of crime fighting? They might decide they need yet more CCTV cameras, (nothing to hide, no problem, right?) then maybe CCTV in houses, (nothing to hide, no problem, and it'll get all those nasty terrorists) and oh, maybe we should put little tracking tags on everyone, so we can tell where everyone is all the time(if you're not doing anything wrong, then it doesn't matter, right?)

Okay, I'll stop now, but you get my drift.

I'd like to point out I wont be getting an ID card when they come in.

[terrorbite]

Nice one happy-go-lucky. I'm with you :)

[Splush]

I'm not sure where I stand on this DNA thing because I don't really know enough about it, but I'll almost certainly join you crazy conspiracy nuts in rejecting the ID cards. I'm still hoping the more liberal people in parliament will manage to stop the process, but if it does come down to it I hope I'll be brave enough to resist.

[happy-go-lucky]

Well as I understand it, if labour stay in at the next election, there's no chance they'll back down on the ID cards, and I don't really see the Tories scrapping them, so LibDem all the way? (Wont be 18 at the next election, but I think you should be able to vote at 16, seeing as you can pay taxes and all that)

[Splush]

The ID card bill always seemed like Charles Clarke's baby, but he was finally pushed out the home secretary job when Gordon Brown took over, and there seemed to be a sense that Brown's new cabinet generally opposed the idea. There were always elements within labour opposed to it and trying to bog down proceedings until the whole idea just got abandoned, and although it's technically still going ahead maybe there's still a chance that something could change.

The Tories officially oppose I.D. cards if you check their website (http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=campaigns.display.page&obj_id=134894), although who knows what they're really thinking.

[MamboCat]

Hmm.... surely they can only obtain DNA evidence from a person with written consent, seeing as theyd probably need a blood sample. (or a hair if theyre really good! :D) That would ultimately give them a database full of innocent people, would it not? Anyways I think its a cloudy area. The UK has the biggest DNA database in Europe AFAIK and that kinda scares me. Forensics is a brilliant science but its not without flaws. We shouldnt be in a position where we have to prove innocence as oppose to guilt.