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?

Comments

Cops are dangerous

[perdida]

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...

Re:Cops are dangerous

[GavK]

firstly we have a right not to answer questions put to us (and silence, as I recall, can't be taken to infer guilt)

Wellll. The UK USED to have this, but if you get arrested now it says:

"You have the right to remain silent, but it may harm your defense if you fail to mention something which you rely on in court"

Not quite the same really...

I left the UK just over a year ago and moved to amsterdam, the police here are *nice*, *Friendly* and *helpful*. The laws are vaguely sensible, and Jack Straw isn't here.

Oh, and street crime is almost non-existant. Funny that.

The UK disgusts me now, the way they are going...

How useful is this, really?

[TheBracket]

When I was studying criminal law (in the UK), a section of one of our courses was dedicated to DNA evidence. Our professor cited several tracts showing that DNA identification is only accurate to around 1 in 10,000 people. That may sound pretty accurate, but that would yield 10 suspects for any piece of DNA evidence in a city of 100,000 people. I'd certainly hope that nobody would be convicted purely on DNA evidence unless the other 9 people had been traced!

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!

Re:How useful is this, really?

[Anonymous Coward]

You'll have to excuse me if this info is incorrect. I'm an engineer, not a biologist! With that said...

I've been taught (just this past semester, no less) that the accuracy of the test depends on the number of loci (specific places on the DNA strand) examined, and that there is no set figure for the odds of an incorrect match.

Here's why:

The human DNA sequence is too large to look at as a whole, so biologists realized that they could use things called restriction enzymes to isolate small fragments of the entire sequence. The trick is to find locations which vary a lot in the population. If you looked at a segment the codes for toes, for instance, the odds of finding a match would be pretty good.

So if you find a large number (say 15 or 20) of these loci which vary greatly in the population, the odds of an incorrect match are quite small. I can't remember exact figures, but they are much less than 1 in 10,000.

--
chahast AT pangaea FOO dhs FOO org
s/FOO/dot

Too lazy to register

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Too lazy to register

[gunner800]

I'll gladly give a DNA sample if asked, if it means getting criminals off the streets.

If your DNA were needed to get criminals off the street, then you must be a criminal. Personally, I am not one. My DNA is of no use for crime prevention, and I resent the implication that it is needed.


My mom is not a Karma whore!

Re:Too lazy to register

[cwhicks]

I work with someone with a similar opinion to yours and it seems the sides are like the abortion argument. The other side thinks the other is rediculous and never the twain shall meet. But here I go...

Although I understand what you are saying I completely disagree.

Yes, if someone kidnapped my daughter and all I had to do was give some spit to give her back, it all seems reasonable. But you're putting it in a context of a personal situation as compared to a societal, and one is different from the other. If you ask me if everone in the country should give a DNA sample to the government to solve a sticky case that pops up tomorrow, I would say no way in hell. Freedom has a price, and someone able to get away with murder sometimes is the price for us all not being followed around by a government policeman all day.

Let me ask you this. A better way of finding criminals is to put a non-removable tracking bracelet on every citizen, and the government records where everyone is at every moment of the day. That way when a body turns up, the just print out of list of everyone who was at that location since the murder.

Now the guy I work with would say, "I have nothing to hide, I don't care if everyone knows where I am all the time and what I am doing."

This is so insane to me I don't know where to begin, but I also can't make a good argument against it. It is as if he has no sense of personal freedom or self determination. If someone else can help me out, I would be glad to hear it.

Re:Too lazy to register

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're not a criminal, what have you got to hide?

Tell me you haven't fallen for that old and tired fallacy. I do have things to hide just like everybody. That's, in fact, why we have the concept of privacy in the first place.

If a horrific crime had been committed and the police would come to me asking for a DNA sample I most definitely would NOT give it to them if it was for screening purposes only. I didn't do it and that's it. I don't want my DNA ending up in some database even after I've been found innocent.

On the other hand, if the police could come up with GOOD reasons regarding why I, in particular, should provide a sample then I would consider it. Good reasons would be like a witness reporting that I had been near the crime scene just before the incident, or someone claiming that I did it. Limited police resources are not a good reason to go rounding up all the people for a test.

But for a brute force method like in your case... no way.

Closed circuit video surveillance.

[zCyl]

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.

Re:Closed circuit video surveillance.

[tbo]

If there are already crowds around you, then you have no expectation of privacy

On the contrary, I'd say that everyone has an expectation that their day-to-day public activities are reasonably anonymous. In other words, you expect that it would be difficult for someone to know exactly how you spent your entire day, and that they would have to go to the expense of hiring one or more people to follow you to obtain this information (similar to how you expect privacy in your home, even though someone can spy through a window using binoculars.

The problem is that security cameras, combined with face-recognition software, makes it possible to automatically track a large number of people. Think cookies and web bugs, only for real life, and you can't turn them off. Worried yet?

NPR Discussion

[OctaneZ]

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

Re:Guns!

[evilandi]

Slashdoter: It's things like this that make me thankful for the right to own firearms.

At least with a DNA database we'll be aiming our non-existent guns at the right person, rather than just going on random killing sprees that you seem to prefer over there.

--

Sale of database to insurers?

[tbo]

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.

Cops are VERY dangerous

[table and chair]

It's now standard procedure to append "Do you mind if I search your vehicle?" to routine traffic stop dialogue.

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. :P

Camera on me, please!

[Gorimek]

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.

He does have something to hide

[xant]

You coworker's problem is that he has an incomplete understanding of "nothing to hide". He means "I have nothing to hide from the law." This may be true, but I doubt it. Nearly every human being over the age of 20 has committed a crime of some sort for which they have gone unpunished, be it jaywalking, illegally going through a stop light at 2 am when he wasn't paying attention, stealing a pen from an unwatched desk, etc. But let's assume the government's motivation for punishing those types of crimes remains what it is today - zero.

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.
--

I think you should read the act

[Zemran]

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.

Re:Paranoia is Lame

[DzugZug]

I think it was Barry Goldwater who said:

A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have.

Re:Bye bye blighty

[Pentagram]

How the hell did this get marked Insightful? What happened to political tolerance?

There's two major points wrong with this comment, apart from the rhetoric:

1) The UK Labour party is socialist? When did that happen? They haven't been a socialist party for 20 years. Even they don't claim they're socialist.

2) Socialists don't have respect for individual rights? What about: abolition of slavery, votes for women, votes for non-landowners, vote by secret ballot, abortion rights,national health service, state pension, minimum wage, gay rights etc. All of the above were (or are) opposed in the UK by the Conservatives and supported by the socialists.


---