News1 min ago
Why are the police obsessed.....
with collecting data from innocents?
http://news.sky.com/s...Details%2C_It_Emerges
and why are people stupid enough to leave their personal details?
http://news.sky.com/s...Details%2C_It_Emerges
and why are people stupid enough to leave their personal details?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by R1Geezer. 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.
again, i ask why? what are 'the powers that be' going to do with your dna profile, how do you think they're going to use it against you?
we live in a world where just about everything is known about us anyway, our dna is just one more thing. how is it going to be used that so frightens or concerns those who are against it being held?? what EXACTLY do you think it's going to be used for in a bad way?
sleepwalking? i don't think so. realistic and informed i'd say.
we live in a world where just about everything is known about us anyway, our dna is just one more thing. how is it going to be used that so frightens or concerns those who are against it being held?? what EXACTLY do you think it's going to be used for in a bad way?
sleepwalking? i don't think so. realistic and informed i'd say.
[Two Part Answer]
The reason why many people do not want the authorities to have more of their personal information than is absolutely necessary, ethandron, is that they do not need to have it. Nobody in their right mind would give personal information to people or bodies that do not need it and the police and other State organisations should be treated no differently in this respect. (If anything they should be treated with greater caution because the facilities they have available make it far more likely that abuse, misuse or simple ineptitude will occur).
Your idea that you “have nothing to fear so nothing to hide” has not been though through properly. You have everything to fear. As some others have pointed out, government organisations cannot be trusted to treat your information properly, keep it secure and use it only for legitimate purposes. So although you may have nothing to fear at present you may well find that your naivety has been sorely misplaced at some time in the future.
The reason why many people do not want the authorities to have more of their personal information than is absolutely necessary, ethandron, is that they do not need to have it. Nobody in their right mind would give personal information to people or bodies that do not need it and the police and other State organisations should be treated no differently in this respect. (If anything they should be treated with greater caution because the facilities they have available make it far more likely that abuse, misuse or simple ineptitude will occur).
Your idea that you “have nothing to fear so nothing to hide” has not been though through properly. You have everything to fear. As some others have pointed out, government organisations cannot be trusted to treat your information properly, keep it secure and use it only for legitimate purposes. So although you may have nothing to fear at present you may well find that your naivety has been sorely misplaced at some time in the future.
[Part Two]
One very good reason why DNA of innocent people should not be retained (and there are many more than space permits here) is this: already some employers are asking, as part of their recruitment process, “Have you ever had your DNA taken and retained by the police?” An affirmative answer will obviously jeopardise the applicant’s chances and it is an unnecessary intrusion into the affairs of someone who may have been unfortunate enough to have been arrested because they were present when something untoward occurred, but subsequently released without charge.
I don’t know the details in Geezer’s article as I cannot open the link. However, from my experience there is no doubt that the police are gathering information that they simply do not need and information that that they are gathering legitimately is being kept for longer than necessary. Other organisations doing this would fall foul of the Data Protection Act but police use the get out clause included in the Act of “for criminal investigation purposes”. In fact, they often do not need it for such purposes and are simply compiling a database of information because they think it might help them at some time in the future.
The police have to strike a balance between gathering information for legitimate purposes and gathering it because they can. At the moment they are failing to do so and their intrusive enquiries into people’s lives is actually hindering their progress because people who might otherwise help them are put off by their attitude.
One very good reason why DNA of innocent people should not be retained (and there are many more than space permits here) is this: already some employers are asking, as part of their recruitment process, “Have you ever had your DNA taken and retained by the police?” An affirmative answer will obviously jeopardise the applicant’s chances and it is an unnecessary intrusion into the affairs of someone who may have been unfortunate enough to have been arrested because they were present when something untoward occurred, but subsequently released without charge.
I don’t know the details in Geezer’s article as I cannot open the link. However, from my experience there is no doubt that the police are gathering information that they simply do not need and information that that they are gathering legitimately is being kept for longer than necessary. Other organisations doing this would fall foul of the Data Protection Act but police use the get out clause included in the Act of “for criminal investigation purposes”. In fact, they often do not need it for such purposes and are simply compiling a database of information because they think it might help them at some time in the future.
The police have to strike a balance between gathering information for legitimate purposes and gathering it because they can. At the moment they are failing to do so and their intrusive enquiries into people’s lives is actually hindering their progress because people who might otherwise help them are put off by their attitude.
-- answer removed --
i am no more naive than you judge, i just have a different opinion and am exercising my right to express it. and my idea of nothing to hide and therefore nothing to fear has also been thought through. do not make assumptions about me.
if everyone had their dna taken at birth then there would be no case to answer in the scenario you put forward in the recruitment (or indeed any other) procedure. indeed, my other half has been involved in recruitment for many years and has never allowed the fact that a person has had their dna taken to influence his decision.
i am very pleased the police are gathering and retaining information. if it helps them at some point in the future then great, more power to them. and if it helps maintain the security of this country and saves one life then it's worth every penny of the cost of doing it. dna can rule a person out as well as convict them.
if everyone had their dna taken at birth then there would be no case to answer in the scenario you put forward in the recruitment (or indeed any other) procedure. indeed, my other half has been involved in recruitment for many years and has never allowed the fact that a person has had their dna taken to influence his decision.
i am very pleased the police are gathering and retaining information. if it helps them at some point in the future then great, more power to them. and if it helps maintain the security of this country and saves one life then it's worth every penny of the cost of doing it. dna can rule a person out as well as convict them.
If everyone had their DNA taken at birth it would remove the discriminatory effect of the current system where police are able to take and retain DNA from innocent people. However, it would introduce many more, such as that highlighted by EDDIE. I’m glad to hear that your o/h does not allow such prejudices to interfere with his recruitment processes. Alas it is not universal.
I’m afraid the “If it saves one life...” argument is too tiresome to consider. There are many things that would save considerably more than one life. We could, for example, prevent anyone from driving a motor vehicle, saving around 3,000 lives per annum. This is neither practical, nor desirable and is disproportionate, even with a saving of 3,000 lives.
I (and I believe many others) find it extremely disturbing that many people are sufficiently trusting to allow the State to hold ever more personal information that they simply do not need. This is especially so in view of some of the major breaches of security that have taken place over the past couple of years that have adequately demonstrated that State organisations simply cannot be trusted to handle such information securely. For its own part the government goes to great lengths to educate people on the perils of identity theft, but actively encourages its own agencies to gather unnecessary information and retain it.
I’m sorry you’re offended by my description of such trust as naivety, but I really don’t know how else to describe it.
I’m afraid the “If it saves one life...” argument is too tiresome to consider. There are many things that would save considerably more than one life. We could, for example, prevent anyone from driving a motor vehicle, saving around 3,000 lives per annum. This is neither practical, nor desirable and is disproportionate, even with a saving of 3,000 lives.
I (and I believe many others) find it extremely disturbing that many people are sufficiently trusting to allow the State to hold ever more personal information that they simply do not need. This is especially so in view of some of the major breaches of security that have taken place over the past couple of years that have adequately demonstrated that State organisations simply cannot be trusted to handle such information securely. For its own part the government goes to great lengths to educate people on the perils of identity theft, but actively encourages its own agencies to gather unnecessary information and retain it.
I’m sorry you’re offended by my description of such trust as naivety, but I really don’t know how else to describe it.
Sorry ethandron, can I just clarify something. Your other half has been involved in recruitment for many years and has never allowed the fact that a person has had their dna taken to influence his decision. I can understand a police check being carried out by a potential employer, but why and how would your other half know that someone has had his dna taken? If I'm understanding you correctly, that in itself is worrying. Why should he have access to that information?
-- answer removed --
The more information the state holds on a person, the more power it has over them. Many people in Europe at the beginning of the 20th century felt had "Nothing to fear" because they had nothing to hide. Then some people with a warped ideology started to pry into their ethnicity, sexual orientation and health, and suddenly they had a great deal to fear.
judge - tiresome? oh dear, that's a shame :( we're all entitled to our opinions though, a view which some find a difficult concept to grasp. would you hold the same opinion if it was your life or a loved ones life that was saved? to equate taking and holding a dna sample with stopping everyone from driving belittles your argument and is not worthy of comment.
naomi, he has never had access to a persons dna profile, more than that i am unable to say.
there are those, like me, who couldn't care less what is held about them on a computer somewhere and would willingly give a dna sample. and then there are those who care hugely for reasons i still find unfathomable. we're never going to agree and discussions like this go round and round in circles, so at this point i thank you for an entertaining afternoon and am off to do some decorating :o)
naomi, he has never had access to a persons dna profile, more than that i am unable to say.
there are those, like me, who couldn't care less what is held about them on a computer somewhere and would willingly give a dna sample. and then there are those who care hugely for reasons i still find unfathomable. we're never going to agree and discussions like this go round and round in circles, so at this point i thank you for an entertaining afternoon and am off to do some decorating :o)
Indeed, Rooeska and Khandro.
Situations such as the ultimate scenarios you describe develop by stealth. Each small infringement provides a little “creep” in the direction of totalitarianism. Each of these is fairly insignificant in itself and it seems laughable when each small development is announced to suggest that the ultimate scenario will be reached.
But history tells a different story. The UK (and indeed much of Europe)is littered with examples of progressive legislation by stealth. We need to learn and not allow the State to hold on to any more information about individuals than they absolutely need to.
Situations such as the ultimate scenarios you describe develop by stealth. Each small infringement provides a little “creep” in the direction of totalitarianism. Each of these is fairly insignificant in itself and it seems laughable when each small development is announced to suggest that the ultimate scenario will be reached.
But history tells a different story. The UK (and indeed much of Europe)is littered with examples of progressive legislation by stealth. We need to learn and not allow the State to hold on to any more information about individuals than they absolutely need to.
I don't know if you've missed the point ethandron, or whether you are avoiding the issue. Your other half is a member of the public. Why should he be made aware that someone else has had his dna taken and recorded? It surely must be irrelevant to the job application That clearly is one of the dangers. How much of the information gathered by the police ends up in other hands?
Just to clarify, naomi, prospective employers do not routinely have access to the records that show who is on the DNA database and who is not. (In the same way, they do not routinely have access to criminal records). The issue is that they are asking the question about DNA of applicants. An affirmative answer obviously has an effect on the application (otherwise why ask it). If an applicant lies he faces being dismissed if the truth is ever established.
Whilst it is fine (within the constraints of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act) to ask about criminal convictions, it is not acceptable to ask about DNA records because many people on the database have not been convicted or even charged with any offence. It is an unintended consequence of the practice of unfettered DNA retention.
Fortunately the practice has been somewhat curtailed by a European Court ruling but that did not go far enough and innocent people still remain unfairly disadvantaged by this system which is supposed to “protect lives”.
Whilst it is fine (within the constraints of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act) to ask about criminal convictions, it is not acceptable to ask about DNA records because many people on the database have not been convicted or even charged with any offence. It is an unintended consequence of the practice of unfettered DNA retention.
Fortunately the practice has been somewhat curtailed by a European Court ruling but that did not go far enough and innocent people still remain unfairly disadvantaged by this system which is supposed to “protect lives”.
Maybe everyone should be forced to file a copy of their monthly bank statements with the police. The Police could build a detailed spreadsheet on everyone, and anyone banking substantially more than their salary could have tneir collar felt and banged up. People with nothing to hide would not have a problem with complying with sending the police their statements, only crooks sivs woyld complain.
Latest Posts
Society & Culture5 mins ago
ChatterBank11 mins ago
Arts & Literature11 mins ago
Other Sports17 mins ago