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.

Quis custōdiet ipsōs custōdēs

DNA thanks for taking the time it has been interesting reading your posts but I think my original point on why I don't want an DNA database still stands for me, we are not property of this country. If anything the govt is our property, I think all politicians should wear electrodes so we can zap them when they do something stupid or lie.

I think that what I was trying to do is say why the most common arguments are not justified (around mis-use/mis-placement of the data). I think (hope) that I have acheived that.

I think there are still some justifiable arguments for opposing it - such as the "lazy policing" arguments...the "treating everyone like criminals" arguments on teh Guardian board - are all opinions which are held by some and for which they are entirely entitled to hold.

I did have an interesting thought though this morning regarding teh uniqueness points that have been raised.

If there was a compulsary UK database - and everyone's profile was reliably logged then we would know that everyone in teh UK has a unique DNA profile (or not) - and we would know that if a given profile found at a scene had a specified pattern it would either belong to Joe Bloggs on the database or a visitor to the country....the chances of having a visitor to teh country with an identical (but unlogged) profile at the same time as a crime was comitted must be miniscule.

here is the Guardian artical again.

I support 100% of that arguments on a technical level - with the exception of the stuff about the fact that there has never been a case overturned because of mis-leading DNA data. That I do not know enough about to support or otherwise.

DNA - I don't understand your point re: visitors? Do you mean that if all the profiles were logged, and if a crime was committed where a sample was taken for forensic purposes that didn't match, then this could effectively exclude local people?

This could get really scary. For instance, what type of information could get revealed about Suspect X? Their race could be narrowed down, or at least to, 'non Anglo Saxon...' along with sex and other characteristics.

But am not sure I follow your point.

I'm with Edam in that the objection is about the right to do as you choose with privacy if you have not commited a crime. What if, for example, laws are enacted to make things illegal that are currently legal? It's particularly pertinent given the arrest of protestors/ potential protestors. We are already quite far down the road making dissent difficult, and it would be much easier to silence people if their DNA was on record.

The argument that you are safe if you haven't done anything wrong just doesn't hold sway any more for me.

I'm sure there are a number of cases that have been solved which wouldn't have been without DNA databases. It's a hard one, but for me, I still overall believe that it is better for the guilty to go free than the right of iniocents to be eroded.

BTW I am not suggesting that we should do it.

Some of the arguments on the Guardian board are based on the fact that DNA profiles are not unique and that 5 other people in the world may share your DNA profile (I think these numbers are wrong BTW adn are a mis-interpretation of hte probabilities that scientists use.

So lets go with the argument that DNA profiles are NOT absolutely unique. If we were to profile absolutely every individual in the world we could prove that DNA profiles were unique (or not). What we would essentially create is more confidence in the fact that DNA profiles are unique (or at least know which profiles are not unique). However we are never going to be able to profile the entire wprldwide population - so lets just start with this country.

If you held all UK residents DNA profile on file and there was a match you could be almost certain that it was the correct match. There wouldn't be the "well there is a 1 in a billion chance that it is someone else" arguments - because you know who matches. I guess what I am saying is that with everyone on record and no gaps you wouldn't be left wondering about the gaps and whether there would be another matching profile in the portion of the population you don't have on file.

I wasn't trying to suggest that lack of profile indicates a vistior is guilty. I was more saying that the odds of having a UK match found but teh actual perpetrator (with identical profile) being a visitor would be minute.

The only physical characteristic which you can determine from a DNA profile (in the UK) is sex. You can't determine ethnicity.