DNA Database - what's the problem?

[HecatesTwopenceworth]

After being unable to understand why ID cards/database are a problem/dangerous and currently waiting for someone to explain it to me I thought I'd ask about a story I saw on the news today.

DNA database - previously the dna taken from people arrested has been kept, now there will be time limits set on how long it can be kept.

I don't see the problem with a dna database. In fact, I don't see why we don't take a sample at birth - when the midwife does the heel prick etc and record it then.

I can hear you gasping in horror because I understand most people are outraged at the thought of such info being held. What I don't get, is why. The reasons do not seem logical to me at all.

It's only to be a record, not an actual sample, isn't it? Unless people think that the police will recreate the dna and plant it at crime scenes or something, I just don't see why it is frightening.

All I can see is the benefit of being able to match dna from crime scenes, of no more paternity disputes... I don't understand why it's a threat to anyone.

I agree.

Arch have some info on people's concerns here

I have nothing to hide from either ID cards or DNA database but I just have this gut feeling they undermine our freedom, we are not property of the country we are all individual people. Not "logical" but still a reason.

Also with UKs record on gov't fuck-ups I wouldn't be that happy in them trying to keep the information secure.

Well as a database administrator/developer I'm horrified at this on the basis that a databse is only as good as the people developing it/entering data into it. The development of such databases is a huge undertaking and is generally farmed out to the cheapest bidder who will not have provided enough thought/manpower/resources to ensure that it runs properly. One only has to look at CSA/DVLA etc etc to realise this (and thats only public databases, there are vast numbers of other examples in the private sector).

And thats before we even get into any of the moral issues.

The id cards debate thing for me is a problem because I don't want to face the possibility of arrest because I can't prove who I am when walking down the street. I think that's the biggest fear. There's no point in investing so much money in ID cards, and frankly they're useless unless you enforce the need to carry them. The next step is a policeman can stop you and ask you to prove who you are. I don't have to prove who I am to anyone unless I'm charged with a crime (even then I don't think I HAVE to but the lawyers here may correct me).

I think the same concerns surround the dna debate. It's really a case of association, why are the police keeping a dna profile on you? Have you been convincted of something? I've just done a piece for Breakfast about this and the comedian Mark Thomas made a good point, by keeping DNA they create an aura of guilt, without actually charging you with anything. You are innocent-ish. I think it would be different if every single person in the UK had their DNA profile held somewhere but I don't think that's possible. You can't force people to give their sample, so it becomes incredibly unfair.

I'm sure Shami Chakribati has a much more cogent argument, but those are my fears.

As part of my job I had to sign the official secret's act to be able to access information.
This information includes personal business and banking details of nearly every business in the country, personal details including bank details, addresses, former names, dates of birth for every parent in teh country.
If the wrong person got access to this information a great deal of damamge could be done.
Everyone I work with has access to this information, some in more detail than others, but still access.

My main concern is who would be in chage of this database? Would it only be a few people with access or woudl it be a couple of hundred, what if it crashed? What if things got filed in the wrong place (happens all the time with us even if there is a clear name on it)
If a mistake is made then it would be very difficult to argue as a database would be a trusted source.

The problem I have with ID cards is that they just seem unnecesary waste of money. I have a driving licence and a passport, these are phot id with personal info and address etc. If they want to add a fingerprint to the passport that would be fine, but why need a 3rd set of id? That we would have to pay for? I have just paid over £200 to change my name on my passport and get 2 for the DD's, I think that i too much anyway.

The DNA database would have to be enormous; in fact my DH is in the software business, and most of the techies think that it would actually be impossible to build - so that's one bit of good news!

The other thing they say is that it is totally impossible to make a 100% secure system - even without the numptys who lose CD ROMS and leave dongles on buses.

You have to remember that you are giving all this data not just to the current government, but to every government in the future. And you may have even more reason to distrust them than you do this lot.

I feel incredibly strongly about this and could go on at length. I cannot believe that people are so blase about handing the government so much extra power without a whimper. I would leave the country rather than go on a DNA database.

Lets face it, the mistrust issue is more about the people running any database than the database itself.

How many details have been lost in the post, left on the train, etc. now?

For me personally, I think that storing everyones DNA at birth is too much of an infringement on human rights.

It's also a step too far (in my book) away from the current 'innocent until proven guilty' as it's existence is suggesting that everyone is a suspect iyswim.

Headfairy - it seems to be norm now to expect everyone to carry passports and driving licence around with them. I wanted to withdraw some money from my account a few days ago, I had the bank card for my account and yet the bank wouldn't let me becasue i didn't have photographic ID!

I have absolutely no problem with them storing my DNA per se. What I'm concerned about it the IT that will handle it. Too much has gone wrong to date that I wouldn't trust them to get it right.

When/if they can build a system which is 100% safe and reliable then I will be the first in line to offer my DNA.

I'd be interested to know how you prove who you are in order to get the ID card. (especially as I don't have a passport or drivers licence) If they trust whatever that piece of paper then maybe that will do as ID on its own.

I gather they are going to let people get them in Boots etc. Do you just turn up with an electricity bill and say "this is me"?

Actually I'm being silly. The essential item you bring with you is the fee isn't it.

There was an interesting take on this from a Chief Police Officer writing in the Guardian a little while ago when he described the database as 'containing details of those who had been convicted of crimes and those who hadn't yet been convicted' -Disclaimer: Not absolutely exact words.

Basically, the police seem to view everyone on the database as potentially guilty and there are cases (Colin Stagg etc) when they have gone to considerable lengths to find anyone who might fit a profile of a particular criminal.

Also, I don't think the proposed sequencing for DNA covers the whole of someone's DNA at the moment - they look at 20% and come up with likely % matches from that. Not completely accurate by any means and extremely difficult and expensive for a defendant to disprove.

Also, what about discovering through DNA sequencing that you have a gene which makes it much more likely to get Alzheimers - I wouldn't want to know and certainly wouldn't want an insurance co/ Govt to know if I didn't.

Hang on a minute.

Those of you that are saying they don't think such a database could be built are completely wrong. The DNA database being talked about here already exists. What the latest (European) law/ruling says is that a fair proportion of the data contained within that pre-existing database has to be deleted (i.e. those samples from people not actually convicted will be deletedd after 6 or 12 years depending on teh offence for which the original arrest was made).

FWIW - the only thing that can be done with that database entry which is of any use to anyone is compare it to another sample (for example collected at a crime scene) and give a probability as to how likely the 2 samples are to belong to teh same indivdual. Nobody can tell whether you have or are predisposed to certain hereditary diseases. Nobody can tell if you have blue eyes, a tatto are wearing a red jumper, which football team you support, how many children you have, your address. Basically the electronic database entry is gobbledegoop and has no meaningfull genetic information contained within it....it is just a comparitor.

The only argument which I can see for not having it is the risk of sabotage - i.e. someone taking Joe Bloggs profile and chanign the name to Justin Bloggs. Although DNA evidence is fairly compelling evidence - it is only 1 part of a criminal cases (and I suspect a second fresh sample would be taken on re-arrest to avoid tampering - although I am speculating here).

At the end of the day - teh DNA database is a tool to help the police solve crime. I would, however, be interested in teh statistics on how often one of the entries which will be deleted have helped to solve crime (and not just the stats the BBC report). If the samples over 6/12years old have not been valuable then no problems in deleting it. If as little of 5% of the data has genuinely helped solve a crime then it has value IMO.

My main issue with a DNA database would be that the information stored on each individual would be significantly more extensive than anything else.

Let's be clear, we are not just offering, for example, our fingerprints, which would only be useful for in very specific circumstances. The DNA would contain a potentially vast body of information on each person, not least detailed health and paternity. As technology advances, no doubt our DNA will be able to tell people even more about us.

To be honest, I'd have concerns about this even if was effectively policed and 100% secure as a number of government agencies could very fairly claim to have access to this data (e.g. NHS, CPA, CSA) The CSA may, for example, very validly ask for this data to determine paternity proceedings. The NHS could very legitimately claim that this information is useful in either macro or micro studies. I'd have have basically no ability to prevent them accessing this and using it, subject to guidelines which I presume I'd also have no ability to influence.

Even this I could just about live with if I thought it would remain solely within government employ and be subject to strict and rigidly enforced guidelines (which of course it wouldn't) but once this data is effectively in the public domain, it really is a very short step to the private sector (e.g. private medical care providers, life insurers) putting similar claims over this data.

A DNA fingerprint cannot tell you ANYTHING WHATSOEVER about health (paternity yes)

A DNA sample would contain vastly more information - but DNA samples are not being kept. But honestly a DNA database record is useful in only 1 scenario....comparing to another DNA profile to see if those 2 samples were from the same or related individuals. IT CANNOT BE USED FOR ANYTHING ELSE.

This isn't an area I know much about so forgive my ignorance, but is it not the case that the DNA fingerprints held in the database are permanently linked to the original DNA samples from which they were derived (and which I presume contain all genetic information)?

"Also, I don't think the proposed sequencing for DNA covers the whole of someone's DNA at the moment - they look at 20% and come up with likely % matches from that. Not completely accurate by any means and extremely difficult and expensive for a defendant to disprove.

Also, what about discovering through DNA sequencing that you have a gene which makes it much more likely to get Alzheimers - I wouldn't want to know and certainly wouldn't want an insurance co/ Govt to know if I didn't. "

The DNA database (as being discussed here) contains NO DNA SEQUENCE information. The database is based on how many repeats a person has of a particular region(s) of junk DNA. It is meaningless. It is meaningless to to the health of the individual. It is meaningless to anyone having a random browse through the database.

The DNA samples and technologies that will contribute to Alzheimers research are very different and if your insurance company wanted to know if you were likely to get Alzheimers they would have to get a new DNA sample and carry out a totally different forensic test to that which is used on the DNA database.

The DNA database and determining disease markers are totally incompatable.

Cestlavie

xposts. Hopefully that last post will explain. If not shout and I will eloborate some more.

It's not 'just' the government that would hold your ID data or your DNA sample. It's anyone they contract out a service to. Govt. is very fond of contracting out - all sorts of private companies have access to our information already. That's bad enough, IMO, but would be much, much worse when you get to an ID database... I really don't want some spotty oik in Snappy Snaps having a record of me, thanks very much. Or even a terribly nice assistant in Snappy Snaps!

As for the DNA database, it's scandalous that the govt. is trying to get round the European Court ruling. Innocent people should NOT be on the database at all. Full stop. Or the government should seek a mandate in an election or by by referendum for overturning the whole of our constitution - which is based on freedom under the law, i.e. you are a free citizen
who can do what you like as long as it isn't against the law.

this is what teh data on teh DNA database looks like

this is what teh data would look like to determine disease susceptibility

You cannot get from A to B.

Okay IWTN, but say it is possible to carry out a fuller genetic sequencing thing shortly - a lot of the civil liberties arguments would be lost because we would already have a data sample available to the government - we would have fewer grounds to object to an extension than on principle.

we are a long way off being able to do a fuller genetic sequencing in a forensic setting. It has taken years to create the genome sequence of a single individual for research purposes.

I personally do not believe that there will ever but the need or justification for global genetic sequence data to be held about individuals. We do not have the processing power to ananlyse the data and make comparisons between such data on a routine basis like this. It woudl add no value TBH - because the thing that is used in forensics is the length of inert repeat regions (called Short Tandem Repeats - STRs). These STRs cannot (easily) be sequenced and the genes which we all carry will not give a unique fingerprint because (funnilly enough) we need them to be (within reason) the sequence they are to function properly. The STRs have no function which is why they have become divergent and why we all have a different number of repeats and why we can use them as a unique identifier. Functional genes will never provide a unique identifier as evolution keeps them (reasonably) static within a species.

Therefore Functional genes (which can be disease determinants) will never be useful forensic markers.