DNA tests sought 'for every Briton'

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-09-08 09:18pm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3088920.stm

Monday, 8 September, 2003

Every single person in the UK should be compelled to have their DNA on the national database in an effort to prevent crime, a senior police officer has argued.

Currently about two million people who have been charged with criminal offences have their DNA profiles on the national database.

But Kevin Morris, chairman of the Police Superintendents Association, told the Times newspaper opposition to extending the scheme to every man, woman and child was overstated.

The association will call this week for the extension as a tool to revolutionise the fight against crime and solve hundreds of murders.

Civil liberties campaigners have always opposed the suggestion, arguing it is intrusive to make such demands of people who have done nothing wrong.

Campaigners also fear that data could eventually be used by insurers looking for genetic predispositions towards certain serious illnesses.

They also argue that any such move would make all people feel like suspects.

But Mr Morris told the newspaper: "If we have a compulsory database to which every citizen is expected to donate their DNA as a responsibility within our society, I fervently believe we will not only detect crimes quicker but we will help prevent them in the first place.

"With estimates suggesting that there are as many as 600 people in the UK who have committed murder but who escaped initial detection, the question has got to be asked why we can't do more.

"Experience has shown that the general public come forward in their thousands when they believe their sample will help police to detect a serious crime."

Mr Morris told the newspaper people would be more worried about abuses of the DNA by commercial companies than about being seen as suspects.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-09-08 09:29pm

Well? No commentary on how we need to do this for the public good?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-09-08 09:31pm

I have no problem giving up my DNA. I've never committed a crime and never will commit a crime, so I have nothing to hide. But I wouldn't force others to do so against their will.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-09-08 09:37pm

No qualms with it provided it wasn't forced with heavy penalties or given to corporate groups.

The Third Man · Post by **The Third Man** » 2003-09-08 10:03pm

MKSheppard wrote: Well? No commentary on how we need to do this for the public good?

Not from me. I'm vehemently opposed.

Admiral Valdemar wrote: No qualms with it provided it wasn't forced

Mr Morris does use the word "compulsory", ultimately wouldn't that have to mean forced?

Jadeite · Post by **Jadeite** » 2003-09-08 10:13pm

Im not in the UK, but my DNA is my own.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-09-08 10:19pm

The Third Man wrote:
MKSheppard wrote: Well? No commentary on how we need to do this for the public good?
Not from me. I'm vehemently opposed.

Admiral Valdemar wrote: No qualms with it provided it wasn't forced
Mr Morris does use the word "compulsory", ultimately wouldn't that have to mean forced?

I doubt it'll be enforced like that anyway, the police already collect the DNA of offenders for safe keeping for future reference, a good idea.

Having your DNA is no different than having your fingerprints, and nobody ever opposed that.

Remember the uproar around personal ID cards after 11th September? It'll go the way of this likely, some compromise will be made, but in the end, it can only help the police which is a good thing. Having my DNA isn't going to infringe rights or mean they have cameras looking at me 24/7.

What exactly is your fear with this technique, assuming it is for police use only?

The Third Man · Post by **The Third Man** » 2003-09-08 10:54pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote: What exactly is your fear with this technique, assuming it is for police use only?

My problem is, of course

, one of principle. I try to be a "good" person. I usually try to follow the law of the land, and I will generally do the right thing if/when I'm asked to supply information to the police. But I do this because it's what I believe, from my own set of morals, is the right thing to do. I most certainly do not do it because I am co-erced, or bullied if you like, into doing it by someone who's threatening me with some dire consequence if I don't. When someone tries to bully me into doing something I get resentful and then angry and very unco-operative. I think a lot of other people do too, and therefore my fear is that this sort of compulsory scheme would not, in the long term, be helpful to law enforcement at all. I think it's also potentially unhelpful to the law-making process as well; too much compulsion applied to innocent people tends to alienate them from the idea that laws are for their benefit, and that they can actively participate in the law-making process via democratic government, rather than blindly obeying.

I'm also wondering just exactly what Mr Morris is getting at when he talks about "not only detect crimes quicker but we will help prevent them in the first place". I'd like to know just how he sees this "prevention" being implemented.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2003-09-09 12:57am

I'm against it just because I don't trust the government to do the right thing all the time, or to always be competant.

However low the odds are I don't even want to be suspected of something I didn't do just because my DNA or some similar to my DNA happens to be on the scene.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-09-09 03:03am

It's not so much that I'm worried that it will be misused (though it certainly can be), it's the fact that they're trying to force people at what amounts to gunpoint to give up their DNA to the state. As someone else in this thread said, a man's DNA is his own and unless the state can prove he's broken the law, he and only he is the final arbiter of who sees it and who doesn't.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-09-09 03:08am

RedImperator wrote:It's not so much that I'm worried that it will be misused (though it certainly can be), it's the fact that they're trying to force people at what amounts to gunpoint to give up their DNA to the state. As someone else in this thread said, a man's DNA is his own and unless the state can prove he's broken the law, he and only he is the final arbiter of who sees it and who doesn't.

Actually, I'm a little fuzzy on this. How has it been established that privacy of DNA information is a fundamental right? Your appearance is your own too, but the government can track that and no one complains.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-09-09 04:18am

Darth Wong wrote:
RedImperator wrote:It's not so much that I'm worried that it will be misused (though it certainly can be), it's the fact that they're trying to force people at what amounts to gunpoint to give up their DNA to the state. As someone else in this thread said, a man's DNA is his own and unless the state can prove he's broken the law, he and only he is the final arbiter of who sees it and who doesn't.
Actually, I'm a little fuzzy on this. How has it been established that privacy of DNA information is a fundamental right? Your appearance is your own too, but the government can track that and no one complains.

That analogy doesn't really work. Here's why.

1. Appearance is obvious and public. It's long been established that actions committed in public are not privledged and can be observed and recorded by anyone, including the state, without your permission. That's part of the fundamental nature of public space. DNA is neither--certainly not obvious and while it's inevitable that everyone leaves some lying around in public (that DNA, by the way, is not privleged), the stuff you leave floating around can't be traced back to you unless your sequence is currently on record.

2. It's generally established that anything that isn't obvious and public is protected by privacy rights unless the state has just cause to violate those rights. A police officer cannot arbitrarily stop you on the street and order you to turn out your pockets, or take a piss test for drugs, even though your pants and your bladder are both in public spaces.

3. Recording a person's appearance is not invasive. Self-explanatory here. Even if the method the government uses is just a cheek swab, it's still an invasion of one's body by the government.

4. Recording appearance is not compulsory. While it would be a major hardship, you aren't forced to appear in public, pose for a driver's liscense photo, walk within line of sight of a policeman or security camera, etc. Only criminals or the incredibly paranoid bother to do so, but it's still their right. This proposal would force everyone in Britain--free citizens who have not been proven by the state to commit any crime--to submit their DNA, and if they refuse, they will be sent to prison and have their DNA forcibly extracted anyway. Again, I reiterate: your body belongs to you and only you, and you, not the state, not some corporation, not anybody else so long as you're of sound mind and abide by the laws of a free society, can make decisions about it for you.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2003-09-09 04:19am

I have no problem giving up my DNA. As long as I can arrange it so my identical twin doesn't have an alibi when I commit a crime, they can't prove it.

The things you learn when you're a twin, its wonderful, really. Did you know that a paternity test can't distinguish between identical twins?

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-09-09 04:38am

CaptainChewbacca wrote:I have no problem giving up my DNA. As long as I can arrange it so my identical twin doesn't have an alibi when I commit a crime, they can't prove it.

The things you learn when you're a twin, its wonderful, really. Did you know that a paternity test can't distinguish between identical twins?

It's ironic that a simple fingerprint can do what the latest state of the art in identification can't.

Post by **NecronLord** » 2003-09-09 05:53am

RedImperator wrote: 3. Recording a person's appearance is not invasive. Self-explanatory here. Even if the method the government uses is just a cheek swab, it's still an invasion of one's body by the government.

And spittle, which IIRC you can get DNA from, is that invasive?

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-09-09 08:23am

CaptainChewbacca wrote:I have no problem giving up my DNA. As long as I can arrange it so my identical twin doesn't have an alibi when I commit a crime, they can't prove it.

The things you learn when you're a twin, its wonderful, really. Did you know that a paternity test can't distinguish between identical twins?

Well, of course it doesn't. Your DNA is identical to that of your twin.

Naturally, I have no problem, because this line:

Campaigners also fear that data could eventually be used by insurers looking for genetic predispositions towards certain serious illnesses.

is a load of BS. If the dedicated opposition can't come up with a real reason, then there's probably not one.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-09-09 08:25am

RedImperator wrote:Again, I reiterate: your body belongs to you and only you, and you, not the state, not some corporation, not anybody else so long as you're of sound mind and abide by the laws of a free society, can make decisions about it for you.

If you don't have a problem with compulsory registeration of cars, why should you have one for bodies?

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-09-09 10:36am

BoredShirtless wrote:
RedImperator wrote:Again, I reiterate: your body belongs to you and only you, and you, not the state, not some corporation, not anybody else so long as you're of sound mind and abide by the laws of a free society, can make decisions about it for you.
If you don't have a problem with compulsory registeration of cars, why should you have one for bodies?

Because its your own fucking body maybe?

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-09-09 10:38am

Alyeska wrote:
BoredShirtless wrote:
RedImperator wrote:Again, I reiterate: your body belongs to you and only you, and you, not the state, not some corporation, not anybody else so long as you're of sound mind and abide by the laws of a free society, can make decisions about it for you.
If you don't have a problem with compulsory registeration of cars, why should you have one for bodies?
Because its your own fucking body maybe?

It's your car too isn't it?

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-09-09 10:45am

BoredShirtless wrote:
Alyeska wrote:
BoredShirtless wrote: If you don't have a problem with compulsory registeration of cars, why should you have one for bodies?
Because its your own fucking body maybe?
It's your car too isn't it?

"and we find these truths to be self evident"

It would seem certain people are a little obtuse.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-09-09 10:48am

Alyeska wrote:"and we find these truths to be self evident"

It would seem certain people are a little obtuse.

I don't really recall any part of that line referring to your body being sacrosanct. Luckily, this is in Briton, where the 'Individual is always greater than society!' crowd is not in control(Honestly, given the arguments I've heard from that subsection of the world, it sounds like something the result of a slippery slope.)

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-09-09 10:48am

Alyeska wrote:
BoredShirtless wrote:
Alyeska wrote: Because its your own fucking body maybe?
It's your car too isn't it?
"and we find these truths to be self evident"

It would seem certain people are a little obtuse.

Nice rebuttal asshole.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-09-09 11:35am

SirNitram wrote:
Alyeska wrote:"and we find these truths to be self evident"

It would seem certain people are a little obtuse.
I don't really recall any part of that line referring to your body being sacrosanct. Luckily, this is in Briton, where the 'Individual is always greater than society!' crowd is not in control(Honestly, given the arguments I've heard from that subsection of the world, it sounds like something the result of a slippery slope.)

I am not even talking about the declaration. I am using it as an example that privacy should be a fundamental right. Hell, might as well claim that people should have tracking chips inserted in them and cameras installed in their homes as well. After all only the criminals need worry...

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-09-09 11:39am

BoredShirtless wrote:Nice rebuttal asshole.

I take this as a compliment. Twice now you have used the fallicious argument that saftey to society is more important then personal rights.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-09-09 11:46am

Alyeska wrote:
BoredShirtless wrote:Nice rebuttal asshole.
I take this as a compliment.

Don't. It was an insult, dumbass.

Twice now you have used the fallicious argument that saftey to society is more important then personal rights.

I was asking questions, not making arguments, you fucking moron.