DNA on file - can you get it removed?

[solidgoldbrass]

My friend was arrested last night, and obliged to give a DNA sample. He was released without charge, and I think he can ask for his DNA sample to be taken off the database - does anyone know about this?

The facts are:
He was stopped by the police while walking home from work because he meets the description of an offender they were looking for (ie race, height, gender, style of dress), they searched him and found that he had a knife in his pocket (which he carries for legitimate reasons: he works for a courier company and uses the knife to slice open packages etc). After arresting him and interviewing him at the police station they released him, agreed that he hadn't done anything wrong and was free to go etc but they had taken a mouth swab for DNA and his fingerprints. I think I read somewhere that if people are released without charge their samples etc are destroyed or at least they can ask that their samples be destroyed.
Anyone know about this?

I thought the same as you.

But this seems to suggest that the law was changed in 2001 and that they now keep all DNA samples taken.

Holy
Fucking
Shit

That's horrendous.
I'm going to write to my MP.

Personally I don't see that it means anything. It is not like having your name, address, phone number and photo on a database.

The only reason to be worried is if you are intending to go out and commit a crime.

there has been quite alot about this in the papers, they keep your dna dont they ?(have not looked at the link), people have been stopped, found to be totally innocent minding their own business and the police keep their dna on file for ever, its disgusting, might as well tag us all at birth and be done with it.

personally i wish we ALL had to give dna samples to be kept on file...would make things easier

Wish they had everyones DNA - would make solving crimes much easier. Would be quite happy to give mine.
Like DoNot says - the only reason to be worried is if you are planning something criminal.

would not make things easier, they can test dna to see if you are ikely to get certain ilness' when you are older, insurance cos and mortage cos could make decisions based on predictions of your health in 20 years time ( i know it sounds made and im not usually into conspiracy stuff) and do you really trust the govt that lost the bank details of every person recieving child benefit not to loose this kind of info?

I can never understand peoples fear and alarm of this...as long as you also had to provide a sample when arested on suspicion of a crime which could be independently checked against the records why worry?

because i am not a criminal and as such have earned the right not to have my dna on a database

But teh national DNA database in it's current state is not about health.

It is about DNA fingerprints - markers that identify.

I don't think it is a physcial store of DNA - more a store of DATA about DNA. That data is not the sort of data which can predict health.

Oh yeah, right, of course. The Government knows best. This won't hurt. Mistakes are never made. How could you possibly want to hold on to your civil liberties and human rights when surrendering the whole lot might just prevent terrorism, war, famine and ickle kitties getting stuck up trees?

Didn't say it would make everything easier - just solving crimes!
I would quite like to know if I or a family member had a predisposition to illness so I could get tested and make life choices accordingly.
Never any guarantees about security - it comes down to human error and you will never eradicate that.
I just feel would do more good than harm though.

SGB....I honestly can't see what danger tehe data they hold could do.

It means absolutely nothing unless you have another sample to compare it to.

i serioulsy cannot understand why people get so 'oooh Big Brother' about this....imagine if a rape victim could have dna collected from her..it's put into a computer and BINGO the criminal is identified (or narrowed down to a few possibilities perhaps ) this could cut police investigations by so many wasted man hours...

Well, the reason why it's an outrage is that it fucks up one of the deepest and most fundamental principles of English law, which is that you are innocent until proven guilty. The last ten years of the appalling Blair regime have fucked this presumption: now you're supposed to believe that everyone is a potential criminal (immigrant, terrorist, benefit cheat, paedophile) until proven 'innocent for the moment'. Everyone is encouraged to hate, fear and mistrust everyone else (except the government and 'celebrities' oh and don't expect too much from the latter, they know everything and are Better Than You until they get Exposed... and as for the former, individuals might have their hand in the till but Government Knows Best) and to expect to be hated and feared and mistrusted themselves.
OK, stupid people have always beleived that anyone who gets arrested must be a criminal (that;s arrested not convicted of anything) - at least until either they or someone close to them just happens to look a bit like a known criminal or be in the wrong place at the wrong time. But living under constant surveillance, suspicion and fear tends to lead to more crime, not less.

But being proven guilty/innocent is much quicker if all DNA is available SB!
Technically everyone is a 'potential' criminal - it's just that most of us choose not to be. But as a nation we are not catching/convicting anywhere near enough, DNA/ID cards could help with this. Then again - we need a better punishment system first..!

You've put your finger on the problem, Jackstini. The DNA register assumes we are all criminals until proven innocent - completely reversing the fundamental tenet of UK law dating back to Magna Carta 800 years ago.

Our system is based on the idea that we are free to do whatever we wish as long as it isn't proscribed by law. The citizen, not the state, is in charge. The government and the police act with our consent.

Keeping DNA samples from innocent people creates an entirely different system where you are ONLY free to do those things that are not specifically proscribed. The government, and the police, are our masters.

If they want to bring in the second system, they should debate it in parliament and seek a democratic mandate.

And no, I don't trust the police - they couldn't be bothered to find the man who attacked my sister once they'd checked the fingerprint database and DNA register. No further effort at all. THAT'S what the DNA register does, makes coppers lazy and reluctant to follow up good, old-fashioned leads.

The news today that they arrested and held the shadow immigration minister for daring to hold the government to account suggests the police cannot be trusted to act with impartiality and are irresistably drawn to over-reaching their powers.

It is a shocking dent in my civil liberties. They do family searches too apparantly so they can find you if your brother/cousin/uncle has ever been arrested.

I don't fear the present government too much but who knows what the political makeup of this country will be like in 20 years? Would you want the BNP to have hold of your DNA? It tips the balance of power too far.

I guess I am just believe the pros outweight the cons (and very much doubt the BNP will ever be in power).
Edam - my sister got lucky - the bloke that burgled her house WAS caught by DNA on a coke can he had nicked out of her fridge and left on the side. It was his first serious crime - had been arrested before but never convicted but they had his DNA on file... Suppose this colours my view tbh!

The problem with putting everyone onto the DAN register - according to one of the guys who developed the echnique - is that it can be abused by people who don't understtand the stastistical nature of it.

And becasue of that is does create a "guilty until proven innocent" culture.

If there is a "one in a million" chance of your DNA matching a sample from a crime scene - but there are c.50 million DNA samples in the register (if say, we put everyone in the UK on to the regsiter) then there would be 50 potential matches. So you wold then have to prove why you weren't the person that matched the sample.

The more samples on the regsiter - the more scope for miscarriages of justice if that is all that is used to "assess" guilt or innocence.

VERY good point, Prettybird.

So is there already a campaign against this?

Looks like good news on this Britons win DNA landmark decision