UK National DNA Database.

I would have no problem with the police retaining a sample of my DNA. Or my fingerprints. Or any other identifier that might help them to catch me if I commit a crime.

Mark

Likewise.

I am more likely to be accused of a crime I did not commit than to commit one. An entry in the DNA database would therefore serve, in some degree, to protect me against wrongful conviction.

Fraser

What particular evil are these people going to do with this information?

What people Biggy?

Well, i have been on this 'DNA database' since 1997...

and i'd just like to hasten to add here, that, "i didn't do it, honest guv!"

But i know for sure it would be a good idea to have everyone included on this database, because now i know i'm on it, this knowledge has stopped me murdering quite a few people over the last decade.

This is proof that it really does help!

nymph

The issue isnt the holding of dna or fingerprints

the problems are:

a) corruption of the data -- and how do you check it is correct?

b) the state selling the data to anyone and everyone. Just look at car data, for example.

Just wait for the insurance industry to start to do DNA analysis for predisposition to all sorts of premium-increasing afflictions, whether real or not.

Corruption and selling - ahhh yes.

Its got nothing to do with whether u have anything to hide by being on it - if its compulsory for all then thata a different matter.

My point is that the UK Govt has been told to remove a very large no of people from the database - i wanted to know 1. if they had and 2. if not how you go about removing yourself?

Seems to be more complex than i first thought.....

The database contains information on those people with an arrest record. It is not ubiquitous. It has effectively already labelled a group of individuals (irrespective of guilt) and stated that is OK for the state to store (where? for how long?) information on that select group (for use by whom? and how?).

A universal database might at first appear fairer. No select group, nothing to fear if you fail to break the law etc etc. How about having a small camera that follows you every second of your life? Fine if you do not break the law because what have you got to fear eh? Happy with that? The state is saying it can sample, store and then even track/trace every smudge or speck of your DNA left at any time or place. Happy??!!

DNA data is not secure (no data is) and it will be subject to errors of interpretation (DNA methods are about probabilistic identification not absolute) as well as of simple administration (incorrect labelling etc). DNA technology will change, and the demands on the data holders will change. Samples taken for an apparent purpose may later be used for another-or at least the temptation to do so will be present. Your DNA is not just a 'footprint' either. It contains information about your current and future health, your parenting and your most intimate chemical 'design'.

The state should not hold samples IMHO. I think samples should be used to examine a suspect for a criminal investigation, as part of the enquiry. After use I believe they should be destroyed.

Bruce

I completely agree with you Bruce.

As someone wrongly arrested, never charged, cautioned - let alone convicted. The Police have no right (legal right as per the recent EU court ruling) to keep hold of my DNA.

Therefore have they disposed of it and if not, how do I go about having it disposed.

Lots of comment in the press about the ruling, etc but nothing tangible about its destruction. UK Govt isnt saying anything either...

Aargh !

This is a curious one. The civil libertarians will always want to prevent the State taking on more powers, and in many ways this is quite right.

What the authorities - the Police, the Security Services, the Health Services, and in some ways the Justice System, and Government - all need to remember what they are there for, and in my view this is, in our nominally free society, to service the needs of society as a whole and as individuals, and uphold the laws enacted by democratically elected governments. These organisations are the servants of society, paid for with taxation from society.

Particularly the Police, but also the other groups mentioned, sometimes seem to forget their purpose ... Seeking to acrue more and more powers over those they serve.

Of course if you are a perfectly law abiding person there is nothing to fear from a DNA data base, at least at first sight, but one does wonder whether in a less benign time the information contained in the DNA might not be used for many purposes, not initially foreseen.

If it were shown that certain genetic characteristics were linked to a high probability of getting some terrible and expensive to treat disease, then what might be the result of that? More expensive life insurance, or no possibility of getting cover at all for example? And who can today guarantee that such information might not be used for such a purpose in the future? I can just see the arguments in favour of such an approach along the lines that it will benefit the majority to stigmatise the minority. Some of the somersaults of logic, even now, of our current government in terms of justfying more intrusive surveylance, seem to suggest that it is not so a question of "if" as of "how long before ...?"

My initial reaction to a compulsory DNA data base was one of vague welcome, but the more I think about it then I think the element of compulsion, or even storage of the information after arrest, and no charge, or proven not guilty after a charge, is absolutely not justified.

However I think there is compelling enough reason for having a voluntary system.
The situation of identity theft would conclusive be correctly shown if one had already volunteered to put one's own DNA on record. Of course if one did this, I can see no reason why this information should not be made use of in the investigation of criminal activity. Presumably only those who would not indulge in it would "volunteer."

I would happily do this if it were offered as a possibility, but I can see no reason for compulsion except in the case of those who are found guilty of breaking the law. In doing so inevitably one should forfeit this particualr right to a privacy IMO


Anyway, that two pence worth from here. George

Hi George - thank you for your considered contribution.

I was always pro the database - on the basis of "nothing to hide, nothing to fear", etc. I am law abiding - and have no intention of being any different.

If the database was compulsory id be on it and that would be that. Similarly, if voluntary, id consider "joining" and be happy with my decision either way.

What I object to is not having that choice - and being told I am going to go on it and stay on it - when (in my case) I was very wrongly arrested and no action was taken. Therefore - as a legal point (not to mention one of principle) why should I be on the database?

Given the recent EU legal ruling, 17 judges felt that way too and made clear that the UK Govt was in the wrong - yet, from what I can see, they have not relented.

I want to find out: -

1. am i still on the database
2. why i havent been removed in view of the ruling
3. if not - why not?

So do i write to the Police, the relevant Govy dept, etc etc etc or take Legal opinion / help.

Hope this clarifies my situ a bit.

Thanks again..

Lee

Dear Lee,

I would start with my MP, and taking the best legal advice. I think this is an example of the government forgetting its role. And sometimes I think that being in Europe is a check on our government, to be heartily welcomed.

Good luck with this. George

I would be happy to provide a DNA sample for the purpose of an enquiry. The only person who I trust to store my DNA is me...in vivo!


Bruce

The UK government has quite a bit of previous of past and continuing refusal to implement EU court rulings and do so with impunity. What makes you think they will implement this ruling?

This is a chicken and egg scnario, isn't it?

I mean, think of the enqs where its taken years before the DNA has been obtained, then with the circumstantial evidence needed the offender has been convicted...

And before i get lynched, its only one side of the issue....

I don't think so Andy.
There have been many old cases getting to court in recent years.
This is nothing to do with delays in obtaining DNA sample(s), but advances in DNA recovery methods.

I would be happy to provide a DNA sample for a police enquiry on the basis no information is recorded,
because like Bruce I have nothing to hide or fear.

I would not trust the authorities to store my DNA; they can't remember to take a laptop get off a train, out a car, etc.
There has been a massive erosion of civil liberties in the New Labour years.
I find the prospect of a DNA database of those accused & convicted of nothing an alarming prospect.

555,

I note your opinion, but don't recall that last time dna records were lost out the back of a car?

Fair enough Andy, I appreciate some like to rummage around in the debris of their memory. I prefer Google ...

Ah - you mean 'records' as opposed to 'samples'. Gotya.

quote:

Gotya

How reassuring for you.
I meant both, because they contain the same information & are open to the same abuses.

Wasn't reassuring at all - public services should look after their info better than the few well publicised lapses, as if they had done it would have promoted public confidence rather than sapping it.

My Gotya was not meant sarcastically. If it came across that way - apologies.

I meant that you were referring to records lost re the Dutch case - i thought you'd alluded to actual sample going missing, which is an alltogether more serious loss IMV...

The records of many DNA samples are more important then one sample.

I don't necessarily agree with that, depending on the perspective.

The default, tho, is neither should go walkies.

In terms of personal security a DNA sample or record amount to the same information.
The government wants us to trust them with our DNA,
but they want MP expenses to be exempt from the freedom of information act.
I don't trust them!