How it Works1 min ago
DNA Database - HELP!!!
I need help!
I'm usually pretty much black and white in my views, but for the life of me I'm struggling with this one.
On the one hand I feel if you haven't got anything to hide, then what's the problem.
On the other, this is an invasion of my freedom and smacks of Big Brother (1984, not that C4 crud).
Opinions?
I'm usually pretty much black and white in my views, but for the life of me I'm struggling with this one.
On the one hand I feel if you haven't got anything to hide, then what's the problem.
On the other, this is an invasion of my freedom and smacks of Big Brother (1984, not that C4 crud).
Opinions?
Answers
1 to 12 of 12
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by flip_flop. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The "nothing to hide" position is largely irrelevant in this discussion. Essentially we have to get away from the notion that DNA is somehow the holy grial of criminal guilt. If all our DNA where stored from birth it would no doubt assist police but would itself introduce a whole tranche of new problems. the presence of DNA would become useless as an indicator because it proves only that the DNA is ....er well present! There are countless legitimate reasons why an innocent persons DNA could be present at a crime scene. Not to mention malicious usage by the true purpetrators, or even the investigators.
Then there's the innevitbable sale of the data to insurance companies etc, suddenly you can't get insurance bacause you are carrying the "whatever" gene.
Then there's the innevitbable sale of the data to insurance companies etc, suddenly you can't get insurance bacause you are carrying the "whatever" gene.
The trouble is with this type of thing, is not how it should be used but how it is used.
Take the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act - this was used to try and turf out Brian Haw (a peace protester).
Think about Walter Wolfgang - arrested under Terrorism charges for heckling at the labour party conference.
Brian Haw is not part of an organised crime ring, and Walter Wolfgang is not a terrorist. But the acts of parliament allowed police to use the legislation for reasons that was not foreseen at the time.
Now take security - look at the mess that this (and previous) governments have got up to with regards the security of databases.
Still happy for all your details to be kept?
Take the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act - this was used to try and turf out Brian Haw (a peace protester).
Think about Walter Wolfgang - arrested under Terrorism charges for heckling at the labour party conference.
Brian Haw is not part of an organised crime ring, and Walter Wolfgang is not a terrorist. But the acts of parliament allowed police to use the legislation for reasons that was not foreseen at the time.
Now take security - look at the mess that this (and previous) governments have got up to with regards the security of databases.
Still happy for all your details to be kept?
I already do. I had to have my fingerprints taken to use a computer network at work. When they tried to do it 5 years ago the British government said it was unlawful to fingerprint anyone not arrested as part of a criminal investigation. They tried again a few years later and won. I now have my fingerprints on record. Bear in mind there is no biometric log-in system on the computer, taking my fingerprints wasn't a neccessary requirement.
if the database can be guaranteed to be secure, ie a closed system with no links to the outside internet, then I would have no problems with my DNA and in fact everyone's DNA being on there.
There'll be a lot less crime if people realise they can't get away with it so easily, it'll cut down on police costs and if you have nothing to hide, then why worry about it.
I get worked up by people claiming it infringes their human rights - these are the same people that allow a thief to sue you if they injure themselves in your house. What about the people who are the victims of a crime that will never get solved, what about their human rights?
There'll be a lot less crime if people realise they can't get away with it so easily, it'll cut down on police costs and if you have nothing to hide, then why worry about it.
I get worked up by people claiming it infringes their human rights - these are the same people that allow a thief to sue you if they injure themselves in your house. What about the people who are the victims of a crime that will never get solved, what about their human rights?
The murderer who killed those 5 prostitutes was caught relatively quickly because his DNA was on the police database. Why was it there? He put his hand in the till some years previously and was arrested. As only a small percentage of people who commit low level crimes are ever caught they would not be on the DNA database. Taking this as a yardstick well over half the population should be on this database.
The murderer who killed those 5 prostitutes was caught relatively quickly because his DNA was on the police database and this is where all the lies and misinformation start.
Steve Wright was not arrested because his DNA was on computer - he was arrested as CCTV captured him and his car in the red light area amongst the town's prostitutes.
At this point they could easily have taken his DNA as he had been arrested. The fact that his DNA was already on computer is completely irrelevant to his arrest and subsequent charge.
Still, why let facts get in the way of opinion.
Cakeboy - I get worked up by people claiming it infringes their human rights - these are the same people that allow a thief to sue you if they injure themselves in your house. - not at all - I believe that there should not be a DNA database, but don't for one second think that a thief should be able to sue a home owner if they injure themselves whilst breaking in.
It has nothing to do with having anything to hide - it has everything to do with what I said above about misusing the information / legislation
Steve Wright was not arrested because his DNA was on computer - he was arrested as CCTV captured him and his car in the red light area amongst the town's prostitutes.
At this point they could easily have taken his DNA as he had been arrested. The fact that his DNA was already on computer is completely irrelevant to his arrest and subsequent charge.
Still, why let facts get in the way of opinion.
Cakeboy - I get worked up by people claiming it infringes their human rights - these are the same people that allow a thief to sue you if they injure themselves in your house. - not at all - I believe that there should not be a DNA database, but don't for one second think that a thief should be able to sue a home owner if they injure themselves whilst breaking in.
It has nothing to do with having anything to hide - it has everything to do with what I said above about misusing the information / legislation
To be useful in any way, shape or form, the information has to be used and widely available. There is no point in one person being able to access the info in a very secure unit in London.
Therefore, it has to be used by police all over the country. Policemen are human beings and mistakes happen - that is an unfortunate fact of life.
Therefore, it has to be used by police all over the country. Policemen are human beings and mistakes happen - that is an unfortunate fact of life.
1 to 12 of 12
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.