Slashdot Mirror
What Privacy? UK DNA Database Could Grow Fast
An unnamed and unsampled reader writes: "According to the BBC The UK home secretary is expanding the police DNA database to include innocent people. And, of course, these can be taken without your consent if the police have 'reasonable' grounds. The police state (RIP bill, etc.) emerging in the UK is looking less and less 'reasonable' every day." The article cites Home Secretary Jack Straw as making a comparison that may strike him as more attractive than it does me, namely likening DNA testing to widespread video surveillance. According to Straw, the "introduction of closed circuit television in streets and shopping centres had been seen at the time as an attack on civil liberties but [is] now welcomed by the public." Anyone from that side of the water feel that way?
I am soooooo glad I got out of there and came to the US when I could. Video cameras on most street corners, the ability to MAKE you give up your pgp keys, and now, to crown it all (after the huge Mad Cow Disease gaff and the "British Constitution" forced by losing in the Euro Court of Human Rights one time too many) MANDATORY DNA submission. And this is under the labour party? WTF?
All that is needed to extract DNA is one cell - a speck of blood, a swab of saliva or a miniscule fragment of skin that clings to a strand of hair.
DNA samples can be taken without consent from people who are arrested if there are "reasonable grounds for believing they are involved in a recordable offence (ie one for which they could serve a custodial sentence)".
Few refuse because to do so may encourage police suspicions about their guilt.
At present authorisation for the forcible removal of a sample - usually using a mouth swab - has to be given by a superintendent.
But Mr Straw is proposing reducing this to an officer of inspector rank.
My goodness. I do not want the police oin control of databanks like this! Nobody should have them.. DNA charts should be maintained by the families that possess them, and perhaps by doctors.
Obviously, more people have to refuse when officers demand a DNA search! Make it a political stand, not an admission of guilt- because DNA not only links you like a fingerprint would to a crime scene, it also provides information on your medical history and that of your family.
I do not know the UK law system very well, but does the system have a fifth amendment type protection against self incrimination? Then again, the right not to self-incriminate does not prevent law enforcement from encroaching upon DNA privacies in this country as well...
Goat sex free since 2001
http://www.mediaeater.com/cameras/ NYC Surveillance Camera Project
With unique genes being even rarer than dentists in the UK, it won't take log to round them all up.
That said, I find it pretty creepy that any body would have the legal (if not moral) right to compile databases of DNA information "just in case." So much for the presumption of innocence!
Lead developer, http://wisptools.net
First Presidential post!
George W. Bush
President, United States of America
Well your clearly an idiot, so just to make you look like more of an ass, prove it. Show me facts that white dna is the best. I am half jewish, and half white. Genetic diversity is the only way to have the human race be strong enough to withstand diesese's that attack certian creeds. If the entire world was white, and we released a diesese that killed all the white people. White Dna wouldnt be very good at all, would it? Nope. Also, the entire concept of something being the best is irrelevent. The best for what? I guess if you want more of that type of dna in the pool. Also I would appreate it if you would remove yourself from the world, as if you breed, it will be very bad. Also if you have kids, you should attack them and make them hate biggots like yourself. I hope I never meet you or you might be embarrsed by being beated by a jew.
Fight censors!
"Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M
But I just wanted to add my 2 cents (pence?). When that purse snatcher takes your wife's purse, or the kidnapper your daughter, and a wee bit of evidence is found that could lead to the perp's arrest *IF*ONLY* there were a national database of such information, I'm certain your tune might change. Or would you rather picture the maniacal leer of a child molester getting away with crime after crime because we want our privacy? To hell with that. I'll gladly give a DNA sample if asked, if it means getting criminals off the streets. 'Gigs
of my privacy rights.
Secret Service Agents are following you right now to arrest you for impersonating a president.
Of course if you give me your userid, we might be able to make a deal...
The President of the United States of America
I am not the antichrist. Hasselhoff is.
(fear those 5 words).
________
Does anyone actually have a Java program designed to control air traffic, or for the operation of a nuclear facility?
You may not know that yet but this is also done in a few US cities and what's shocking is that most people in those cities aren't against it, au contraire.
It's a different world out their.
So now we are now going to be all the time under survellience. Only thing it's going to be 2004 instead of 1984.
There's always sufficient, but not always at the right place nor for the right folks.
CCTV is pretty widespread over here now, and yes, it is widely welcomed. It provides a feeling of safety and monitoring that many people welcome.
But to compare the keeping of DNA records on every citizen ever questioned by the police is an affront to our civil liberties, such as they are nowadays. I do not want the government to hold my incredibly rare personal make-up anywhere. The chances of mis-identification by DNA and the ability to abuse these data scares me.
The Slashdot Paradox: "100% Overrated"
There really isn't any problem with video surveilance in a mall or another public area where there are lots of people. If there are already crowds around you, then you have no expectation of privacy, and you already know you're being observed directly by the crowd around you. The problem only comes into play when this technology crosses the thin line and starts monitoring private encounters. Two people slip into a back ally and start kissing, or maybe two people standing in a bathroom start discussing politics or their dislike of a particular security guard's wife. That's when freedom starts to plummet, and surveillance starts to permeate our private lives.
DNA databases are an entirely different issue. A DNA database can be used to match repeat offenders of crimes, provided strict rules are in place to prevent the usage of this database for anything other than crime solving. (Yes, even convicted criminals have rights, that's necessary for the entire concept of rehabilitation to work.) But DNA databases of innocent civilians? This is unacceptable. The only acceptable use of DNA by government would be in solving crimes, but when government begins an investigation with a presumption of guilt, then a lot of innocent people are sent to prison. Is it justice to send a person to prison for murder because one of their hairs fell onto the murderer earlier that day and was carried to the crime scene?
We have no need to catalogue and number the general population using the body's serial number. This is no different from branding a person with a serial number on the arm and setting up a device that can track everyone wherever they go by their serial number. It serves no greater good, only abuse.
This nazi is so fucking stupid, I will wager that he thought you spelled nazi "Notzie" untill you correctly posted what he thinks he is above...
Fight censors!
"Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M
I think it more sinister having those damn security cameras everywhere - I am not in the actors guild but heck I am sure I get on film just as much...
--
Jon - TheSpork
they don't own up because they know that most people would like to kick em in the teeth.
a interesting scene went down a few years ago at the ivanhoe hotel pub, an old-school (1910) beer parlour in vancouver bc.
some bonehead was dissing a native woman who worked there. a hells angel quietly got up and left... to return shortly with his crew which proceeded to kick the shit out of asshole and friends.
dislike of boneheads cuts a wide swath through society, and they are more aware of this than anyone.
Anyway... If they want to be like that, and they obviously do, then why should we get all worked up about it?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I recall a while back the UK police made the very logical argument, that "We'll only keep the DNA of convicted criminals on file, if your DNA is sampled and you're found to be innocent, the sample will be destroyed and your database entry erased." (paraphrased, of course)
Judging by what is happening here, it looks as if the officials have used the above argument as a way to get their metaphorical foot in the door on DNA databasing, so that they can eventually build up a comprehensive database of the populous.
IMO, this stinks. I don't want to seem alarmist, but there are very real, very genuine privacy issues that are being dealt with here, and I'm willing to bet that the majority of the public in the UK doesn't know anything about it, and I think that's a shame.
As for the CC Surveylence, I have absolutely no issues with such systems being implemented in public places. These have been shown to decrease vandalism and violent crime drastically, as well as increasing the feeling of safety among members of the community. Good stuff.
Unfortunately or not, the list of dead certainties is long. If there is one thing that can be learnt from Western history, it is that, as a civilization, we will use any technology that we can use. That is what defines us. Economists now talk about "disruptive inventions" as a new thing. But they are as old as print and gunpowder, and if we know ourselves we know that we cannot have enough disruption ( as long as it increases our ability to do things).
That does not mean that technology is deterministic. we do shape it to fit our preconceptions; we do try to fit it within old legal and political structures ( cf. Napster) . But we ( as a civilization) just do not say, 'No Thanks'.
given this copious history, my feeling is that too many privacy mourners are barking at the wrong tree. We now have the technology to track individuals in their everyday life and access that knowledge with growing efficiency. Whether it is good or bad is rather irrelevent. Does this technology increase power? Can we do, thanks to it, what we couldn't do yesterday, or do it with less expenses? Does it create wealth? It seems that the answear is a triple yes. Extrapolating from the past, I believe it is a sure bet that this technology will be widely adopted across the developed world in two decades.
Culture matters! In the UK and France, the government will hold the keys. Scandinavians will put the new databases under public control while the Americans will pretend that as long as its Visa rather than Uncle Sam that knows all about you than it is ok. But we will all use it, ( to all those who think the US is different, btw, New York City is already widely covered by video surveillance)
So what should we do ,Give up? I think we need to recognize that while privacy as we know it is as good as dead, power isn't. We will lose our privacy. But it is up to us whether we will also lose the power over our life that privacy affords us and because of which we value it. Rather than bitch about privacy itself, we should concerns ourselves with the way the new technologies alter the balance of power in society and concentrate on new mechanisms that compensate for it.
-- look, cheese ahoy!
All Things Considered had an interesting discussion of DNA banks and peoples rights. They discussed both the voluntary data bank in Iceland, as well as the purchased databanks, of entire islands that were bought by independant American research companies. They also discused similar actions very similar to a DNA collection, such as Cancer and tumor collection that were collected from patients during surgery, and sent on for analysis and research without the patients consent; their point being think how much we have advanced through not giving people a choice, or even informing them. While I do not neccessarilly agree with this view, it is an interesting one to think about and hear debated. Genetic mapping differs slightly from previous collections in that these samples could theoretically tell you almost everything physical about a person; where as previous databanks like this had been mutated or foreign cells. Anyway, an interesting thing to think about; you can get both transcripts and audio from the site. and if you didn't know about "Science Friday" on NPR you should check it out, it's a great program!
-OctaneZ
What Mr. Straw fails to appreciate is the difference between wholly public areas and private ones. Perhaps no one is complaining about cameras in the streets and shopping centers, but there'd be a bloody row if the government tried putting cameras in people's homes to ostensibly prevent crime.
And that's what widespread DNA testing is. It's like aiming a camera over someone's shoulder for the rest of their life.
(expected rating: -1, Troll) That being said, this is absolutely not a troll. People fear the government far too much. Technically, it exists for you, or in spite of you. If you want to have the benefits of its protections, then you have to submit to the lack of freedoms in some areas. Otherwise, you get martial law, or anarchy. Anarchy is extremely lame, because it denies every advancement we've made in 6000 years. If you can't trust your government, overthrow it. Otherwise, be happy at the protections you get. -k.
When I was visiting the UK in December it was kinda creepy - literally everywhere I went from small town to city, was under CCTV.
:)
The motorways are under CCTV - they can apparently track a vehicle from one end of britain to the other.
And lets not forget the satellite surveilance that covers the entire country...
I think it's plain wrong - sure, maybe in parking lots or near banks, but on the high-street of a little town ?
And now DNA tracking for the innocent - there's got to be a backlash against this by the British public, trouble is, they are all so complacent sitting in front of there media 'goggle-boxes' - many can't afford to eat properly, but they've all got 2 or 3 TV sets !
I'm glad I live in a country where it's possible to 'disappear'
A slashdotting - you get the stick first and then the carrot !
A so called 'positive' identification on the basis of a DNA profile is so uncertain (1/7000) that procecution could only really be obtained in addition to more solid evidence. Screening a blood sample against your entire population should not even be needed since you could screen against people who actually were suspects. This technology should not be an alternative to actual investigations.
-----
"Almost isn't good enough - but it's almost good enough."
-----
"Almost isn't good enough - but it's almost good enough."
-Me
The problem with DNA analysis is that (as someone else pointed out) it doesn't narrow down to an individual. Let's take the other person's numbers and say that 1 in 10,000 people has a particular DNA signature. In a city of 1,000,000 people, that means that 100 people have this DNA signature.
Now, the prosecution may say something like this: "There's only a 1 in 10,000 chance that your DNA print matches the DNA print found at the scene! Certainly that's beyond a reasonable doubt!"
But the defense can counter as follows, "What particular DNA print my client has is not in question. He shares that pattern with 99 other people here in Smog City. So there's only a 1 in 100 chance that you're accusing the right person! How's that for reasonable doubt?!"
John Allen Paulos does a nice treatment of just this kind of fallacy/paradox in "Once Upon A Number," his most recent book, as well as perhaps a couple of his other books (I'm guessing "A Mathematician Reads the Newspaper").
Security cameras, DNA testing and other big brother techniques are all good in theory, providing there is no corruption.
Misuse of these same technologies can bring about blackmail, government agendas and DNA bigotry.
There's nothing wrong with the technology, except the fact that it will be used by humans.
"Whoever is willing to sacrifice "just a little" privacy for security deserves neither." -I can't remember who... When I first heard of the CCTV system, I thought they must be joking, until I heard actual confirmed reports. This is by far the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard, furthering my desire to NEVER EVER set foot on that island. If I lived there I would be the first to get the hell out. The issue of whether or not the DNA/CCTV information will be misused is ludicrous, the very collecting of data on inicent civilians constitutes misuse. Not to mention having *no* trust in britains intelligence community after reading the exerpt from Mr. Tomlinsons[sic?] book found at http://www.thebigbreach.com -cryptophiliac (The only thing that could remedy this problem comes straight out of "Golden Eye"!)
Britain recently made it legal for insurance companies to discriminate on the basis of the results of a genetic test for Parkinson's Disease. Presumably, permission to do so with other genetic diseases will soon follow. Couple this with a government-run DNA database, and you really have to wonder what the hell is going on. I know I posted that earlier message about how credit rating agencies aren't pure evil, but when the government gets in on it, and it's your DNA, it's time to be afraid.
How big a leap is it from this to "monitoring" people who have a genetic predisposition to violent or compulsive behaviours? Perhaps we'll see mandatory DNA sampling of those who get caught in the net of "geek profiling".
I'd like to make a few observations that may be offensive to people who hold certain political views. This is not a troll, but instead is a straightforward (blunt) statement of my opinions.
1. When you take a people's freedoms by force, there is some hope that they will rise up and reclaim them. When you convince them to give their freedom up willingly, those freedoms will never be restored.
2. Britain is (or soon will be) no longer a free country. Time to take it back or leave. Mayflower II, anyone?
3. This is why the Fourth Amendment is a good thing, along with the Second Amendment to guarantee that the people always have a last resort against a tyrannical government.
4. My genome is mine. The only people who have any sort of claim on it are my family members. If you want to record, patent, or copy my DNA without my permission, go fuck off and die.
This is absolutely no big deal- in fact I see it as a good thing.
For starters, DNA is not the solver-of-all-crimes it is put up to be.
DNA tests can simply say who has touched an object, NOT WHEN.
All it is used for is to whittle down a list of suspects.
In other words, DNA tests are used to EXCLUDE people from crimes, not include them.
I look forward to the day when DNA samples are taken at birth and I can happily forget all my passwords and keys.
I reckon the UK govt should offer prize money (as per the Longitude Prize for an ocean-going clock a few hundred years ago) to the first people to invent a DNA testing machine that fits inside a shoe box, can identify accurate to 1 in 100 million people, can outwit most forgery (eg. dead limbs), and can provide results in under 10 seconds.
Such a magic box could replace all locks, signatures and passwords.
--
Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
You would think constant surveilance, lack of weapons, and DNA databases should eliminate all crime. Looks like someone was wrong.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
1984?
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.12
It's now standard procedure to append "Do you mind if I search your vehicle?" to routine traffic stop dialogue.
:P
If the police have reasonable cause to do so, they don't need your permission.... yet refusing to allow a search on principle leads to a confrontational situation that may or may not end in a citizen's favor.
Twice now I have been through this conversation:
"Do you mind if I search your vehicle?"
"No, I see no need to search my vehicle."
"Do you have something to hide?"
"No, but you have no cause to search my vehicle."
"If you have nothing to hide, why do you mind if I search your vehicle?"
"Because there is no reason for you to be searching my vehicle."
"You seem nervous. Are you nervous?"
*repeat ad nauseum (for 20 or 30 minutes)*
Of course the cop knows better than the citizen that they have no right to search the vehicle without cause. But still this conversational tactic persists.
A swab in the mouth is arguably less intrusive in the short term than a cop digging McDonald's cartons from under the seat, yet in the long term... the possibility for abuse is terrifying, far more than the possibilities that exist in relation to your car.
"Do you mind if I swab your mouth for the database?" will only escalate the already contentious relationship between the citizenry and the police. And here, we have a situation where it's not only, "Do you have something to hide?" but, "Will you have something to hide in the future?" From the start, such a confrontation will not only set up the citizen as a potential perp at the moment, but a potential long-term criminal....
It has taken a great deal of strength not to look at that gun, get out of my car and say, "Fine. Whatever the fuck you wanna do. I have nothing to hide." People who (a) don't know better, or (b) have less contempt for law enforcement officers are probably at some disadvantage. And it's those people -- people with far less ability to protect themselves from abuse -- that will end up in this database.
But those people are all criminals anyway, right?
I am too drunk to sum it up in any less cheesy way. But you get the point.
And no, I'm not driving tonight.
You really think US troops would fire on their own people? Thats where your argument fails. It would have to be direct loyal followers of the person in power and that would still require a huge number of people.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
As most people are brain-washed to believe, DNA is what has allowed humans to evolve from the lower forms of God's creatures. However, if we assume that God created us, and that all creatures are divinely inspired, we must realize that DNA is in fact Sat*n's own creation engineered to lead His flock astray on their path to Heaven. That's right -- DNA is a DECOY, and we humans are being HUNTED by Sat*n, for our human souls. Next time you ponder the apparent complexity of DNA, you should realize that the double helix is a prison of the soul designed to entangle anyone who should ponder its mysteries.
---
"I'll spot you a NAND gate, and this guy here,..."
If you deny that a DNA bank could have real good criminological uses, you're fooling yourself.
And if you deny that a government would misuse such a bank, you're also deluded.
The solution seems obvious. A private company who keeps the data, and only gives it out for legitimate purposes.
Hey, why don't you brits overthrow that creaky system you've got over there, and we'll add another couple stars on the 'ol stars and stripes for ya.
Think about it -- no more sliding Euro, a full set of individual rights that our courts occasionally hold up, and all the guns you care to own. Our dentists are first rate, and you'll have a navy that kicks ass again!
If I knew the streets were monitored, I'd feel safer walking in San Francisco. If only a few streets were being taped, I might go out of my way to walk on a taped one.
I don't see the problem. If you don't want people to see you, don't go out in public. That's how it's always been.
I heard that street crime has practically disappeared in heavily monitored areas in the UK, but I may misremember that.
'nuff said.
Every bad story about Australia, UK and China there's always some guy who goes (haha you don't have guns, you can't bloodily kill your entire government when they make a bad policy unlike us)
Not to mention guns haven't been made illegal in Australia, just many automatics and the more deadly guns have been made so. I'm not sure about policy in other countries.
So tell me, how many times did you rally up your troops about carnivore or when net porn was temporarily banned in America. Friggin None (I hope).
Ahh message was probably just flame bait anyway.
It's turtles all the way down.
I'm not remotely saying that this is what is happening now, but I ask: how many more people would've been murdered by Hitler if he had a DNA database?
What happens if later a racist dictator gets ahold of such a database later in history and is able to exercise this greater power?
What is the chance of a politcal dissent when the police can go down to the groups meeting place with a cotton swab and arrest and imprison (or worse) all the particpants the next day???
Have our British brethren forgotten their greatest thinkers and writers? Is John Stuart Mill or George Orwell ever read anymore? It takes very little imagination to see how such a technology could (and unless we learn from history, will) be used by a government for mass extermination.
The entity (the government) which has the sole right to hold a gun to a citizen (use physical force,) should not be allowed the right to trace and track society. Otherwise there will be no way to control the government.
It's important to remember that many thousands of times more people have been killed by oppressive governments than by small time criminals.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"DNA samples can be taken without consent from people who are arrested if there are "reasonable grounds for believing they are involved in a recordable offence (ie one for which they could serve a custodial sentence)".
Has it occured to anyone else that the above statement stinks? If the police didnt have "reasonable grounds" for beliving you are involved in an offence, they wouldnt have arrested you in the first place. So now anyone who is arrested in England on suspicion of a crime will automatically have a sample of their DNA taken (if the law passes). Bah humbug, damn brits. BTW, here in Australia we have a Criminal DNA Database...anyone want to bet on what our next step will be?
it's not the database, yes, it would be very useful in solving many crimes. the real problem is that governments aka persons in power are quite often currupt, and the society IS corrupt, and we don't wish to aid it in it's domminance of us.
"Cornflakes are not the innocent critters they seem"- Sterling Morrison
I hope Jack Straw is keeping track of his hair... all someone needs to frame him for any crime is one cell with intact DNA and a PCR system. With the two, they can make all the Jack Straw DNA they could ever want and place it on any fat chick's dress or at any crime scene.
But, who cares about Jack! Anyone who cares to can get my DNA or your DNA and frame either of us for a crime, or at least divert suspicion from themselves. For example, what if a rapist got hold of your used condom, then raped and murdered someone, planted your sperm on the body and then made an anonymous call to the police saying your were bragging about the crime... I think you'd go to jail, or if the body was found in Texas, your grave, real quick!!
Why? Falsified DNA. Created, accurate DNA strands. I know we can do this now to a very limited extended--that's how you get primers to do PCR. While the current push nowadays is the accurate detection of DNA sequences, there is the obvious need for the technology to manipulate that DNA (in order to use what we know of the genome, e.g. drug research).
See, if the DNA databases (whether that be goverment or insurance companies, etc.) got too complete, as in keeping a record of each individual's entire genome, things could get interesting.
If they didn't restrict this equipment, imagine a rapist who uses a condom, who then dumps another 2 or 3 others (innocent) DNA at the scene. Domestic violence gets carried out. Drop some blood at the scene from another person.
Heck, even the creation of fingerprints could become likely. Not only could we plant the DNA by getting the sequence from a compromised government DNA database, we would "print" the proteinated image up on a piece of plastic, to later stick where needed.
Might be useful--maybe we could do away with this nonsense.
>Perhaps no one is
>complaining about cameras in the streets and
>shopping centers, but there'd be a bloody row if
>the government tried putting
>cameras in people's homes to ostensibly prevent
>crime.
Unfortunately this is exactly where it's all heading. CCTV in town centres reduces crime in the town centres, but the criminals don't just behave themselves from then on. It has the effect of moving crime out into residential areas where there is no CCTV... yet. Now, d'you think this could be used as the argument to extend coverage out in front of people's homes?
-- Free Album "Scan Happen" - http://www.mirrorkill.co.uk
Does your coworker ever pick his nose? Does he ever secretly read books written by Rush Limbaugh and assert that he is a Democrat to gain peer acceptance? Does he ever laugh at racist jokes?
Does your coworker ever dislike the government's policy about something? Has he ever felt morally obligated to disobey that policy because it was so heinous? There is a thing called Civil Disobedience - in America we regard it as a duty to disobey unjust laws. True, Civil Disobedience is supposed to be a public act, but the practical side of Civil Disobedience is that it can gain momentum by offering the anonymity of the group - anonymity which can be taken away when we let this kind of technology be used by those who govern.
And if we've learned anything with /., it's that if a technology can be used to do something, it will be. If a DNA database exists, it will be used by people who want to pick out political dissidents. It will be used whether you want them to or not, whether that use is "legal" or not, it will be used because it CAN be used. Our governments have the power to access this technology, to use it for nefarious purposes, and therefore they will. Maybe they'll get caught, but they'll do it.
Did you believe those websites when they said your credit card information would be securely stored where no cracker could ever possibly get to it? Do you believe them now? Now ask yourself - do you believe the DNA database will be uncrackable? Do you believe no one can be smart enough, or bribe enough people, or have the right friends, to get access to this knowledge?
And once access is gained, does your coworker KNOW everything that can be done with it? I don't. Neither do you. Neither does he. But I didn't know the flags set on your TCP packets could be used to tell what OS sent the packet, either, and therefore used to figure out how to crack the machine - now I do. All information given away gives away power. And this is an egregious amount of information - this is YOU, down to your toenails.
Don't let them just take it.
--
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
What we need is DNA hashing of some sort. Sure the database contains unique identifiers for every individual, but it doesn't provide further information about the individual's genetic code.
Not sure how well it would actually work, though, since I assume that most DNA db lookups in criminal investigations are fuzzy and not exact. But it's a thought.
The act still requires the individuals permission to keep his DNA on file unless the individual is guilty of a crime. They anticipate that the DNA database will grow because people will want to be on the database, I for one do not want to be on the database.
They still do not have the right to do anything that is contrary to the Human Rights act. That includes taking DNA without permission or a warrant and keeping it without a conviction.
I have not read the BBCs article but I have read the act. I also have a copy of RIP and that does not give them the super powers that you read about here either.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
>> if it means getting criminals off the streets.
> sadly, the only thing to do with people like this
> is line them up against a wall and shoot them.
WOOHOO! And do it before they have that database, so you won't get caught! And, since they're dead, there won't be anyone around to build said database!
> they're too stupid to even look out for their own> good. in fact, they're so stupid that they are a
> menace to public safety.
Really, there are segments of the populace that need killing far more than the well intentioned idiots...unless your real plan is to reduce the earth's population by 90%...I see why you posted AC, but I don't understand how you got modded up to 1...
-------
-----
IANASRP- I am not a self-referential phrase
-----
email: proprietary becomes free, org to com
-------
-----
IANASRP- I am not a self-referential phrase
-----
email: proprietary becomes free, org to com
Imagine what might happen if the government decided to make some extra money on the side by selling the database to companies... or worse yet, if somebody managed to hack into the database and retrieve your "source code":
Dear John Doe,
According to our records, your genes indicate that you're left-handed! We're happy to offer you this one-time-only offer on left-handed stationery and other supplies... etc. etc...
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
kugano
couldnt you take a hash like value of the dna, so that it cant be used for anything but matching another sample? most ppl seem to object to the fact that dna shows additional information about ppl, this if possible should be a way around it.
Citizens do harm to one another. That is a fact of life, unfortunate but something we have to live with. Government should do no harm. It is better to let 100 criminals go free than to wrongly convict one inocent. "To declare that in the administration of criminal law, the end justifies the means...would bring terrible retribution." (Justice Brandeis)
I'm in the process of joining the police in the UK, so I'm probably biased (yes, I am biased), and although I can understand the objections being raised, I believe the benefits can outweigh the disadvantages. Too many people get away with their crimes - either through lack of capture or on legal wrangling. DNA evidence could give us the edge we need to make some kind of impact. Obviously such a database must be carefully controlled, but at the moment I see no problems - of course, when the government changes later this year things might be different.
And as for CCTV, I'd much rather have that than arm every police officer and live my life as a cop in fear of being shot every time I talk to someone on the streets.
Miri it is whil Linux ilast...
"Britain recently made it legal for insurance companies to discriminate on the basis of the results of a genetic test for Parkinson's Disease."
:)
I poked around a little but no luck... do you have a reference handy for this?
In my country (Australia) the government (both federal and state) has sold of large proportions of public assets (for example the telecommunications and public transport systems) when they decide a profit can be made. What will stop the government selling of the collected DNA database of the county's citizens to a large privately held corporation when they can see a profit can be made?
The DirectTV situation stems from the quasi-post-socialism, CRTC induced doctrine that is the current state of Canadian broadcast entertainment... is this changing? My province (Alberta) seems to be more progressice than the rest of the Nation. Any thoughts?
This announcement is hardly surprising - The British public just doesnt seem to be concerned with liberty.
In the UK, there are no citizens - everyone is a subject.
There is no constitution.
There is no bill of rights - in fact no-one has any rights at all , only permissions.
As shocking as the RIP bill is (and it is) it is just the latest in a long line of draconian legislation. Before RIP was the CJA (Criminal Justice Act) which amongst other things banned unauthorised "public assemblies" - if the police considered you to be en route to one you can be arrested. It also removed the right to silence once arrested; Being silent can now be used as evidence of guilt. Feel sorry for mutes.
Before the CJA was even more scary legislation which could put you away for even contemplating a crime in thought. DNA evidence really doesnt apply when trying to prive this.
Oddly, with the slow grinding and genrally unpopular merge with Europe, our civil rights are being established and strengthened. Regardless of what laws actually get passed in the UK, then can be, and frequently are, overturned by appeals to the European Court of human rights.
Funny old world.
well.. I said it would happen in a chat room and it might do.. if this DNA listing is mandatoru then I'm gonna do the smart thing and leave the UK.. I don't like the idea of them being able to track me from my DNA..
=================================== 'things can't get much worse...'
Let me tell you a true story from my old UK home.
My neightbour did an insurance job. He broke his own window, and then reported his computer as stolen to the police.
When we heard the breaking glass we went to investigate and he was drunk and said he'd had an accident and not to worry.
Next day we saw the police leave. they hadn't come round to ask, So we assumed they just wanted to check what the noise from the previous night.
Trouble was he was too drunk to realize he'd ONLY BROKEN THE OUTER PANE of a double glazing unit.
BUT THE POLICEMAN HADN'T NOTICED OR HAD BEEN BRIBED.
He then broke the inner pane (we watched him - he told us he needed to do it to fit a board across the window).
The insurance man came around, he was suspicious, he came around and asked us. We told him what we had seen.
He said thought so, but now he can do nothing about it.
Its our word against his and since the Police officer has been round, he has a police officer on his side.
The officer was incompetent or lazy or corrupt.
Now to the out of control bit. The local police station from which he comes has settled 2 out of court cases. They were 'plastic-bag-over-the-head interrogation' allegations. It settled them after a suffocation deaths came to light, which was blamed on a cell mate at the police station (the cell mate went to prison for murder).
So here we have multiple allegations of plastic baggings. A death in custody that looks like a plastic bagging.
Yet no Policeman was cautioned or imprisoned.
And a man in overnight for drunkeness (?) is in prison for murder.
I'm shit scared of them, they are way out of control.
I've moved out of that country, its becoming increasingly Xenophobic, increasingly a Police state, taxes keep going up, crime keeps going up.
They have fewer freedoms, fewer and fewer rights and the mental wall they're building around themselves is getting higher and higher.
if there are any that think that then they ought to go to some real police states and see exactly what happens there.
Here's a thought for you. The police have had cases in the past where fabrication of evidence have come to light. What's to stop a manager of these DNA systems fabricating a DNA 'print' to fit the crime circumstances ? This could be particularly dodgy, especially in cases that grab the public wish to find a suspect.... and there have certainly been a few of those recently. A DNA print is no more than a slightly higher-tech fingerprint, and in my opinion , just as subject to fabrication. Are you, the suspect, going to be able to stand over the police to ensure that they do things 'by the book' ? Course not. Unfortunately, the current government have done more in the last two years to eat into the freedoms of the individual than any other government in the past..... ...and I certainly don't regard this, "If you're not an offender, you have nothing to worry about", comment either. Us Brits should get off our backsides and do something, but considering the apathy about the RIP bill, I doubt it'll happen until it's much too late.
M.
Even worse though, the UK government has ok'ed gataka style genetic screening (if you're geneticly likely to suffer from a certain disease, you can legaly be discriminated against by insurance companys & stuff). An absolute nightmare, and given the state of UK politics, one which is unlikely to ever be revoked. It's a sad day... (and I live in the UK, so it's even sadder for me)
+++ BASELINE REALITY FAILURE+++ +++ PLEASE REBOOT UNIVERSE +++
.. whole of uk is just f*cked up.
gah. can't find words. sorry.
/ d
Every comment here seems to say the same bloody thing:
"I commit no crime, so why should they have my DNA?"
How about a whole bunch of people say you murder somebody, raped some girl, whatever, and it's enough evidence to arrest you. You didn't do it. There's skin under the victim's fingernails, and they can't find it on the database. You're on the database. You don't have to be arrested for murder or rape, which would fuck your life up royally, wether it was laughed out of court, or you just scraped past as innocent...
There's two sides of every story.
--Gfunk
Send lawyers, guns, and money!
Heres a fun one, when I was young, about 9 or 10. We had a field trip to a police station. As I remember it was very common for schools to do this.
I distincly remember the whole class having their finger-prints taken, this was as a 'fun thing to do'. It would be about 1990 or just before.
Do we have rights of refusal as children? And is anyone going to say 'NO'?
All this don't matter as its ok as long as you look white and wear a suit. After all its long been a policy of western governments to look after its male, white, middle/upper class, suit wearing peoples first. Take off your cap, and your padded coats, buy a cheap suit, and look like the model of capitalism and you have nothing to fear. You could dress a psychopath in a suit, and a church goer in street clothing and a cap, and the police would grab the street clothed person every time. Its even better if you have a young family aswell. After all they could never do anything to threaten the livelyhood of their children. Also throw out your Eminem, Limp Bizkit cds and buy some nice Celine Dion ones instead so that when they raid your house they only find harmless music where everything's right with the world! Here's to being bland, its the only way to live, or soon will be whether you like it or not.
It was not.
;) But I wasn't pulled over for that violation. I was pulled over for things the cop hoped I was doing. Were they actually wishing that crime was happening on their watch? And where's the line between vigilance and assumption of guilt? Hey, this is on topic, isn't it... :)
And not because of some triumph of principle, but because after a while it just wasn't entertaining for them anymore, and there were other things to occupy their time.
I keep reading the sentence that I just wrote, and each time I get a little more frustrated. In both cases, I was pulled over for trivial things, like failing to use a turn signal at 1AM on a deserted street. Technically, I guess, I broke the law. But you know... why should I ever be in a position in which I am forced to defend myself like that? We all know I was pulled over not because of an exceedingly minor traffic violation, but because the cop harbored hopes that something more significant would arise. Yes, his job is to enforce even exceedingly minor traffic violations. But if I were a 50 year old woman driving a brand new Cadillac... who here thinks that violation would have been enforced? (You caught me! I'm a twenty-something male in a not-so-new vehicle...)
If I had been stopped and simply reminded to use my signal -- or even ticketed for it -- and left to go on my way, I wouldn't be writing an enormous diatribe on Slashdot right now.
The "Why are you nervous?" question both cracks me up and infuriates me. Yes, when I'm driving down the street doing nothing horrendously wrong, transporting nothing illegal, minding my own business, and a person with a gun (and the power to do, ultimately, pretty much anything they want) forces me to stop and begins questioning me with the clear presumption that I must be a criminal, using rhetorical techniques and body language and other actions expressly designed to intimidate, I'm probably not going to be reacting to things "normally." Especially when I'm trying really hard to exercise my rights in the face of someone who ought to understand them better than me, and yet is pretending not to in hopes of an entertaining bust. And of course, all the while I have to work equally hard not to be the irritating smartass I want to be, to prevent the situation from escalating. Best of all, this all plays nicely into their game: sufficient "nervousness" or "hostility" can probably be construed as probable cause, if they want it to be. And then I'm going to have to open my mouth for that swab if eight cops have to hold me down to do it.
I live/study in the UK, although I'm not British.
Ok, so most of us (including those who live in the UK) disagree with this. The question is what do we do now? How do we protest? How do we show our disagreement?
I'm in Ireland, which is under different legislature. But anyway: Here, public video cameras are seen as a measure for public safety. I've yet to see ANY account of abuse of these facilities, but I've seen numerous accounts of thieves, muggers, pickpockets, and shoplifters being caught because of video footage from CCTV systems. I'm certainly more comfortable with them around.
The attitude here seems to be "I'm not doing anything wrong, so I don't mind people looking at me." We don't always understand the Americans screaming about violation of privacy...
What is the big deal with video surveilence of public areas? You're videotaped everywhere you go. Walk into a convience store, BAM, video taped. Go to the mall? How about the grocery store? They have them there too. How many of you go to work? How much are you willing to bet your being watched there, too? Since when is a public sidewalk a "private" area? How come no-one is crying about the cameras on police cars?
What's the difference between having a police officer standing on the corner and watching a crowd, and having him sit in a booth and watch some CCTV of the same crowd? Nothing, however, with the officer in the booth, you can have him watch more corners, and if a crime occurs, video tape doesn't lie, like humans sometimes do (on both sides of the law).
"What about if you want to slip into some back alley for a quick liason with you mistress?". The cops won't care, they're going to be too busy with mugger in the next alley over. And you and your mistress were caught on tape at the office and the tape was played on Fox's RealTV last night...I didn't think a person could do that in a cubicle.
I don't think there is a "thin line" between public taping and the government forcing camera's into your home. I think it is a fairly thick line. The thing is, nobody cares if you watch them in public, there in public! A favorite passtime of many people is "people watching".
Even if you "have something to hide" you still go into convience stores, you still go to the bank or use your ATM card, you still buy groceries at the store. So what, if when you walk out of the store/bank/office you're being watched. You were being watched inside.
Get over it.
If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
The wierd thing is, here, Jack Straw actually seems to be right up the BNP's street, from my experience. At risk of sounding like someone out of the Illuminatus! trilogy - is the BNP raging against Jack Straw because they want to keep him in power? - general british public opinion tends to be pretty much the opposite of whatever fascist rubbish the BNP spouts - so by the BNP complaining publicly about Straw, the general public are more likely to keep the git in power.....
Choice of masters is not freedom.
He will not be happy until his plans to make us live like obedient worker bees are fufilled. Just because he was bullied as a youth should not mean that he can suck the joy out of life, the criminal justice bill made sure of that. Pherhaps he would like to get his own house in order first. After all his brother is a convicted sex offender and his son was caught selling drugs to a reporter. Are we ever going to get a Home secretary that is not controlled by the gutter press?
I don't know why everybody automatically takes this as an "invasion of privacy". As far as I am aware, the UK has more camera survelliance than anywhere else in the world (it's high up the league tables anyway) and nobody complains about them. You don't notice them. They're a part of every day life and they have reduced crime figures and made the streets safer.
Now why should I be worried that there are videotapes of me walking along the street? I'm in public already, hundreds of other people are going to see me - so why should the fact that it's recorded by an "invasion of privacy"? Where's my privacy to start with, since I'm outside? In public? Why do you care that there is a record of you being there? What do you think is going to happen because the council have a tape of you walking along a street with hundreds of others? I can see your argument if they tried to put cameras in your home, that is an invasion of privacy because you're in private. Outside you're not.
Oh yea, and it stops crime. So we have stopping violent crime versus getting rid of a camera you don't pay any attention to and happens to record you as you walk past. Knowing the kind of violent crime that has been stopped on the streets of Britain already (and I have been a victim, and they were never caught) that's a real tough choice.
Now not all the same arguments can be applied to the DNA database, I still think calling it an "invasion of privacy" is a bit over the top though. Again, if it stops crime, what's the harm? What have you got to hide? If you're innocent, why do you worry that something can be related back to you?
Somebody else here made the point of the murder victim having a hair on them belonging to you, because you met them earlier that day. But you didn't do the killing, but still get put in jail because of the DNA from the hair matching the database. Pllleeease, not only is that evidence purely circumstantial, but no court would convict you of murder because your hair was in somebodys jumper. DNA database or not.
Real invasions of privacy come when they want to see something they really don't have any right to, getting inside your home, making you hand over passwords and PGP keys, monitoring your phone calls, emails etc are much more serious invasions of privacy - and if they start doing that, then you'll see me kicking up a stink.
But in the meantime, if they want to reduce crime by filming me in public or being able to match my whereabouts to a crime scene, then they can feel free. I don't have anything to hide in those already public sitations.
This will create an amazing opportunity get people in some serious trouble. Better trust your barber and your doctor. Now a person so inclined could frame someone without much effort. I am guessing that with all DNA in a database traditional police work would be replaced by computer crunching and finding the easy solution. Instead of using the technology as a last resort we seem to have the desire to make it the first step. It will not take long before a true mastermind will use this system to cover there own trail.
Yes, you're right. I think the guys in his family need to go on walkabout a bit more, eh?
The revolution will NOT be televised.
Um, I think the "you" in this case were British or Spanish citizens to start with, no? I mean, since the country wasn't really formed for another hundred or so years after the place was colonized?
:-) Unfortunately true - history is probably far down the list of subjects Americans actually study.
And given *when* that all happened, saying "you" did it is like blaming me for slavery because I'm white, even though my ancestors were starving in Ireland at the time.
did your comment come with a total lack of European history
Is that a rhetorical question?
The revolution will NOT be televised.
Hmmmm. That's a thought. Identification w/o information. Doesn't help the tracking problem, though.
--
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
1. ths subject was convicted of a serious crime (rape, manslaughter, blackmail, ...)
2. there is the expection that the convict will be recidivous.
The simple collection of a DNA sample to compare against a given piece of evidence is allowed (with certain checks) but the sample and collected information has to be destroyed afterwards.
Brought to you by The Mark Thomas Comedy Product, Channel 4 in the UK:
"CCTV Competition
The Competition is for the most creative short film obtained via the Data Protection Act. The subject matter and content are entirely up to you.
You can send the video to us in any format and it can be of any length. The judgement will be made more on what the content is rather than who you obtained the video from. Keep proof that you used the Data Protection Act to obtain the footage.
Mr Jonathan Ross of Film2001 has agreed to judge and award the prize, and Mr Mark Thomas is donating £500 Prize to the lucky winner!!
Entries need to be sent to CCTV Competition, Vera Productions at the below address, however it might be a good idea if you write and tell us that you are intending to enter so that we can register you in. Give us an idea of what you are up to.
Good luck!
CCTV Competition, Vera Productions Ltd, Third Floor, 66-68 Margaret St, LONDON, W1W 8SR
Or you can email us at theproduct@channel4.com"
sig sig sputnik
...with another country, and that country has a copy of the national database. I wonder if they could use it to construct a virus to destroy a significant percentage of the UK population ?
here's an interesting little tidbit. In the states, we seem to be moving the same direction (some would say we're already there) as the british. The brits seem to do these things a couple of years before our legislatures get around to it. Anyways, this idea terrifies me. Here in the US, some of the states actually sell the information that you include on your drivers license to Corporations for marketing purposes. Imagine if they had DNA info about you. It is a marketers wet dream.
Welcome to the global access network.
Please press thumb onto pad for DNA authentication.
Checking thread... done!
You are now logged in.
You have one message from GOV_IRS.
$ chkmail *
Displaying message 1/1 ("Hello..." from GOV_IRS)
"We're watching you..."
Sorry... This isn't very funny, I lost interest in it when I remembered that when this was in real use there would be no such thing as a shell...
Do you like German cars?
Much more realistically, what's to stop a criminal from leaving someone else's DNA at a crime scene? I've heard that this has actually begun to happen. Why go to the trouble of fabricating a DNA fingerprint when you can just borrow a couple of hairs from somebody's comb?
The disadvantage of DNA evidence-- and I think this will become apparent to attorneys and juries within a few years-- is that it can reliably be planted without the knowledge of the owner. Fingerprints, on the other hand, are much more tightly linked to a human being. Except in cases of rape, where semen or other fluids have clearly been left behind by the perpetrator, DNA evidence is going to become decreasingly reliable. Will that stop DAs from prosecuting based on DNA evidence? Probably not.
I have to disagree. Private companies have an excellent record of honoring privacy, when that is central to their success. Better than any government.
One example is banks, whose secrecy is famous and hated by governments everywhere. Auditing and accounting are other fields where loose lips will kill your business.
On the CCTV thing, I have no problems with it here in the UK. I feel much safer walking around places like Charing Cross or Lecister Sq. if I see one of those yellow Westminster survailence vans. And (for all who follow UK news), look at the Damiola Taylor case. The only suspects they've found have been as a result of the CCTV footage.
Dan.
And I submitted this earlier.
Cue The Sun...
Well, it's probably a lot cheaper that way... "oh, those are just camera cases to work as dummies, we didn't have enough money for real cameras".
Just telling people they're being surveilled is enough to stop most people... apparently your thugs knew better.
The revolution will NOT be televised.
Certainly child molesters and serial killers commit deplorable acts against individuals, but they don't frighten me in the least as compared to a controlling and all powerful government who commits equally deplorable acts against entire nations!
--It's Pimptastic!--
I've said it before. I'm not sure I want to live in a world without privacy, but I'm not sure we have a choice in the long run..
Surveilence electronics get smaller and cheaper, same with DNA printing gear. Fifty years (or maybe five) and high school kids will be bugging and printing each other for kicks..
Electronics will make privacy go away, unless we sign up for a police state to make certain electronics illigal, which is even worse..
That said, how about an open database with everyones DNA in it. Access is open to all, police and high school kid alike. This way, if I'm going to be jailed on DNA evidence, at least the entire world can confirm it. People can dig about my medical history, but that's not too exciting as long as you live somewhere with civilized health care.
The trick (for me) is to just relize that privacy isn't that great anyway. What do you have to hide? It's probably not very exciting, if it's illigal, it probably shouldn't be because everyone does it.. I could live with camera in my house, as long as I had cameras in everyone elses.. The problem comes when big brother has cameras and I don't..
What else did you expect? The populace has been thoroughly disarmed, and now lies prostrate and helpless before the power of the State. The rulers no longer have to worry about the peasants rising up against their masters, so they have little need for restraint and caution anymore.
Well... George Orwell was after all an Englishman. A problem is that the same pols that decide to tape us publicly and save our genes in a bank are the ones that decide what constitutes a crime. When related to purse snatching it sounds OK... but who knows what these wonks will decide is a crime tomorrow You folks that feel comfortable with this should re-read 1984.
WTF,
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
Well said.
Ill take 1000 uncaught serial killers and child molesters over one corrupt, powermad government any day. And governments are always corrupt and powermad. Dont believe anything else. History teaches a grim lesson.
None of the above was caused by lone maniacs, but by governments, some even "democratic".
If 6000 years of living beneath the heel of chieftains, kings, priests, emperors, lords, presidents, ministers and CEOs havent taught us to always distrust authorities, any authority, then noting ever will.
If you choose security over freedom, you will in the end have neither.
/Dervak
People just don't see the possibilities in law enforcement.
If you catalogue everyone's DNA in a country and then compair that DNA to the people who commit crime, you can establish DNA sequences that cause criminals.
At birth every citizen is tested, if they have one of these criminal sequences thay are immediately jailed at birth.
Think of it! Near zero crime!
Well after having my car broken into twice in one week on my college campus I wish there was a video camera watching. Of course as with any system it can be abused, I guess the question is how much do we trust the watchers?
Imagine you could hack into a DNA database (or better yet just bribe someone with access), and find the hundred or so people that matched your DNA imprint in your city.
Now it's a simple matter to figure out how to make one of them be around the area you plan a crime, and plant 10% of the loot somewhere in the vicims home. The police come looking based on the database, they find some evidence - case closed!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Here's an alternative point of view as to what has been really going on in England recently.
'The Abolition of Britain' Geoff Metcalf interviews author Peter Hitchens on the end of England
The USA has the largest prision population in the world, period. There are people in the US that have been held "awaiting trial" for as long as fifteen years in extreme cases. And people still come here to escape opression?
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
My memory is a little shaky here, but I suspect this is in reaction to a recent court case where a man was found to be guilty of a particulary gruesome rape - but had to be let go. The DNA evidence they had taken from the scene was matched against DNA of his taken during an earlier investigation into another crime - one he had been found innocent of. That's how they caught him. But under current UK law after an investigation is concluded all DNA evidence collected has to be destroyed (not sure about the DNA evidence of the accused but I think that has to go to).
So the police shouldn't had had the earlier DNA on file - it should had been destroyed years ago. The only evidence that could had convicted him was inadmissable in court and he was found to be innocent.
Oh, as regards CCTV camera's they are everywhere here! Mark Thomas said recently that we have the highest camera/person ratio in the world! (I'm told by an American friend of mine that schemes like this would never fly in the states.) And lots of studies have concluded that they do nothing to reduce crime - and in many case crime goes up. It's seen as an alternative to putting real officers on the beat and CCTV footage can't be used as proof of identification in court.
In Bridgewater, Devon there was a spate of robberies in the town centre timed to conincide perfectly with the shift change at the CCTV centre. Most CCTV footage is very low resolution - incredibly blurry. I believe they typically multiplex about seven feeds onto one tape. Unless the police eating doughnuts in front of the TV screens notices something happening and flicks it to a higher quality output they can be next to useless.
Oh this is amusing. Under the Data Protection Act 2000 any organisation, company or government body has to provide you with any information they have about you. It cost a tenner. And as Mark Thomas pointed out recently it include .. dah dah dah dah daaah... CCTV cameras!
That's right - you too can act like a loon in front of CCTV cameras, then write to your local council with a tenner inclosed and they have to send you a copy of the tape!
Been taped by the police at a local football match/protect/err...riot recently? They get a copy off the police to prove you were there..
Hours of fun...
First of all everyone interested in this thread should check out the book Database Nation, which discusses DNA testing at some length among other things. Second, where this is going is DNA samples will routinely be taken from all newborns in the hospital at birth. So the DNA database will include everyone, not just criminal subjects. Be very afraid.
When I lived in Tokyo, it was impossible, during my late-night 45-minute bikeride home, not to see one or two policedudes cruising on their incredibly rickety white bicycles.
This was cool, and I think that and the distributed 'traffic watch' police stations ('koban') is a significant factor in why streetcrime in Japan is low, if not absent.
Is there any chance that you were one of the jurors for the O. J Simpson case?
Interesting, you dont want to be sterotyped and you dont think nazis should be either, yet you still sterotype the jews. Fuck you.
Fight censors!
"Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M
All I can say is: Agreed.
You can just ask for a DNA test after you're arrested, to see if it matches the sample from the victim's fingernails. Being in the database is of no help at all.
when the next American Revolution comes, I believe that the troops who are the most 'indoctrinated' will certainly kill Defenseless Citizens in large numbers. That is one of their functions. Their deaths will be reported as 'Armed gangs', 'Terrorists' or andy of the other semantically-loaded labels that our govt propaganda office uses regularly. The cops don't gun down 'students'; only other govts do that. We only kill 'Drug dealers', 'Gang members' or suspected mafioso. Who would have thought that the same propaganda that Hitler used against the jews would be so popular in the 'Drug War'? We have 10 percent of our population in jail for nonviolent crimes. Guess that really makes the unemployment numbers look good; those people wont be vying for jobs anytime soon. Makes it a lot easier for the congress' idiot relatives to keep their jobs. We wont see the cops shooting down any Kennedy children, but the rest of us are out of luck.
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
Let's see. The guns were taken. Then, video cameras went up everywhere. Now DNA is becoming the mark of the beast. Jury trials will be history next. Did I miss anything? From the sound of it, the Ruskies have more freedom than the brits. The russian gov't can't afford to spy on it's people like the brits are.
This is more of the cavity search mentality that is sweeping the world.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
When legal pistol (handgun) ownership was prohibited in Britain, it was not prohibited in that other part of the United Kingdom called Northern Ireland. I suppose it would have provoked just too hollow a laugh.
Predictably, the volume of gun-related crime in Britain has risen since the ban. The criminals found that (a) they were refused gun licences and (b) discovered that guns worked quite well without the benefit of a licence.
The DNA thing is because the law enforcement authorities are fundamentally lazy -- it's why they spend so much time persecuting car drivers -- it's easy, they have a big ID number on them.
Do you get kicked in the teeth? I know lots of people that have baited ignorant cops and enraged them, but they had video cameras on them t the time and thus were not clobbered.
Probaby, judging from what I once witnessed. A friend of mine managed to piss off a cop to the point where he was being pistol-whipped by one while 2 others were holding him down. I must say, though, that this guy brought it on himself, cursing the cop up one side and down the other, insulting the cop's mother, etc at the top of his lungs, kicking the door of the cruiser, and happened to have a big sheath knife on his belt (he uses it for cutting thick foam rubber material at his job, but I doubt the cops knew that - they just saw a bigass knife). In the end, he was arrested for assaulting an officer and resisting arrest, taken to the hospital then to jail for a couple of days, then sentenced to time served and $1500 fine.
I certainly don't think it was right of the cops to pull a Rodney King on this guy, but then again, the guy hasn't been mouthing off to cops since then. And coincidentally, he hasn't been even hassled by the police nearly as much as he used to, and hasn't gotten any ass-kickings from them since then either.
Just my $0.02
"Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
The situation seems to me to be similar to that in Germany in 1930, when "alarmists" warned against the same type of arguments used by the Nazis. Most Germans, however, and the Hearst papers (which paid Adolf Hitler for 3 columns!), waived off these objections as, yes, alarmists. Hitler would never use these powers for evil purposes. Well, we saw where that lead.
Dig this. My company has not set up its co-locate in the UK, preferring the greater Internet freedom in the "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China" for its greater Internet freedom, after the "RIP" act.
Now that is scary.
---
---
BDOS ERR ON A:>
I'm an American student studying in London for the year. When I first got here I was surprised, and scared, by the number of CCTV cameras they have here. You are ALWAYS on tape! At first it's uncomfortable and eery, but soon after that, the cameras blend in and you forget about them. You also become desensitized in general; I probably am a lot less apalled by the idea of all the CCTVs now than I was then.
Being desensitized to this type of issue is a serious problem. This DNA database will probably provoke some protests and outrage at first, which will gradually die down, after which everyone will forget about it and grow accustomed to it as a part of life. That's why it's important to protect your freedom beforehand. Otherwise, it will be slowly eroded without anyone really recognizing what's going on.
It doesn't matter what the issue is: freedom, guns, privacy. Think twice before you give up your rights!!
www.niceFire.com
www.niceFire.com
Funnier than a speeding bullet
I hope that everyone has seen this movie. Gattica sheds a lot of light on the subject. Sure today it's for the use in tracking down criminals. What about tomorrow? What impact will such a bill have on our children, our children's children? Will they start taking DNA samples at birth and using them to fit individuals into a caste society based on their genetic makeup? Just look at fingerprinting, a hundred years ago fingerprinting was only done on hard felons. Today everyone gets fingerprinted at birth, but unlike figerprinting DNA samples can be used to determine whether you may have a genetic disposition for one health condition or another. How would you like your children or grandchildren to be denied a job because you carry a gene that gives them an 80% chance of heart failure before the age of 40? We have seen just such offenses come to pass in the last year. What happens when governments start colecting databases filled with this information? How long would it take for HMO special interest groups to ram a bill through congress to make such information public domain?
"Thou art God", So you might as well start acting like it
However, the number of shootings in the UK in a year is still less than the number in LA in a month.
Well the broad history of Britain has largely been about moving the power from the monarchy to the elected parliament. We still don't have an entirely elected legislature.
It's a small island. In England, at least, the govenment never seems that far away. There isn't really the idea that the national government is some alien thing.
That isn't to say that I agree with the legislation. There seems to be a tradition on /. to believe that bills get passed without amendment. Some of the worst provisions of the RIP Bill were removed. I confidently predict that this Bill will be heavily amended.
[Home Secretary Jack Straw] said the introduction of closed circuit television in streets and shopping centres had been seen at the time as an attack on civil liberties but was now welcomed by the public.
The difference there is that you can video tape me doing the hokey pokey in Time Square and you don't have modicum A of evidence about the strange dancing preferences of the rest of my family. If you have my DNA on file, how long is it going to take reasonably intelligent law enforcement to figure out they can get 50% matches of my parents or siblings (and differing percentages of other relatives)?
Letting the government track your DNA has effects much more far reaching than that of your individual person. I'd argue that the pattern of "your" DNA has private information that belongs to your entire family, and should never be retained without due cause -- and then should not be able to be used in court to constitute evidence against a relative. (Though we all know such a database would still be used "off-the-record".) Talk about a scary precendent (sp?).
2
Ruffin Bailey
"This may be the fault of the interpreter, in which case HE is the hippopotamus."
It's all 0s and 1s. Or it's not.
Warning: if your parents brought you to one of those police fingerprint days when you are a kid, your fingerprints are *already* on record. The whole point (or so it seems), is that if you're abducted as a kiddie, etc., that they can find you more easily because they have your fingerprints on record.
You might want to look into one of those plastic keyboard covers if you are considering keeping your fingertip skin sliced off...
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?