Slashdot Mirror
Judge Says, Record DNA of Everyone In the UK
Many readers informed us about the opinion of Lord Justice Sedley, a senior UK Appeal Court judge, who said that everyone in the UK should have their DNA recorded in the national database — including visitors. Reader ChiefGeneralManager writes, "Sedley calls the current database 'indefensible' because it contains a hodge-podge mix of people, including children and those who have been in contact with the police. His view is that we should make it compulsory for all DNA to be recorded to remove this anomaly. The UK Information Commissioner has expressed some concerns, but not dismissed the idea outright." And reader john.wingfield adds, "Just under two weeks ago, the Independent reported that the Government has admitted that an eighth of all records on the DNA database are false, misspelled, or incorrect — over half a million records. This raises the possibility of a breach of the 4th data protection principle of the Data Protection Act 1998: 'Personal data shall be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date.'"
I interpret this as 'because the police are arresting a disproprtionately high proportion of ethnic minorities and the contents of the DNA database reveals this, we should just profile everybody so that the apparent discrimination disappears'. Maybe they should try dealing with the apparent racism and/or social inequality rather than brushing it under the carpet?
todo - The developer's equivalent of confession: "Forgive me Father, for I have sinned..."
WHO'S ON THE DATABASE?
5.2% of UK population
Nearly 40% of black men
13% of Asian men
9% of white men
Source: Home Office and Census
Enuff said. When the remaining 91% are going to be DNA recorded, they start squirming. Majority of ethnic minorities kept quiet and bore it all....
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
Delete the database.
I doubt extracting DNA and comparing it against a central database will become as fast as examining an identity card anytime in the near future.
A lot of people stated they would refuse to vacation in the States anymore because of the fingerprinting at Customs. This is far, far worse.
> A spokesman for Prime Minister Gordon Brown said to expand the database would create "huge logistical and bureaucratic issues" and civil liberty concerns.
To translate this for you "we only plan to introduce compulsory DNA testing after we have won the next general election"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/n
Civil liberties campaigners and MPs have raised doubts about the national DNA database after the Home Office confirmed it contained more than 500,000 false or wrongly recorded names.
Suspects arrested over any imprisonable offence, including rape and murder, can have their DNA held even if they are not charged or are acquitted.
The database, the biggest in the world, contains about four million names.
But it has been dogged by problems. Statistics released by the Home Office show it contains around 550,000 files with wrong or misspelt names.
Lynne Featherstone, a Liberal Democrat frontbencher, told The Daily Telegraph that she wanted a full parliamentary inquiry into the "shocking" number of errors.
So for whatever reason (and spelling seems to be common), a huge amount of the database is wrong. Those are amazing figures.Take Nobody's Word For It.
It is very good that DNA can be used to help clear innocent people accused of being criminals. However, if the police already has a DNA sample from the crime scene and a person is accused of being the criminal, and such person can always give their DNA to the police for testing. A database of DNA samples for helping clearing innocents is not needed at all, I think. You have the DNA sample from the crime scene, you have the accused person in front of you, what else do you need? How could a database help?
That does not matter. If these loose words of the judge are ever put into law (unlikely, but given surveillance-mad Britain, who know...), this proposal would force every Briton - and visitor - to prove his or her innocence for every crime in the future. That will take time, but UK authorities don't care about that. Their abstract view of justice (catching criminals) has blinded them to the liberality upon which Western justice is based.
Speed be damned. This is about the slow constriction of society.
I already avoid traveling to America; now, perhaps I will need to avoid the UK as well. Although not perfect, at the least the EU has its privacy directive.
The possible problems with this idea are many and varied. We must trust our government to both record the data properly and use it wisely.
Who has not had some simple error made by our devoted public servants cause them hassle ? It may only be a minor problem regarding non-payment of some local government bill, or perhaps some misunderstanding over refuse collection. Once such sensitive information as DNA is regarded as 'routine' it will be treated as such by the very same people which we may regard as 'well meaning' but perhaps 'misguided' when it doesn't actually mean too much.
My problem with this 'idea' is that it pre-supposes, as many similar concepts do, that government is intrinsically benevolent, and all facets of government are also intrinsically benevolent. Sadly I do not really subscribe to this point of view.
Legislation is the last chance saloon for the innocent when beaurocracy has run amok or conditions have conspired against an individual and we must be ultra careful/vigilant before we effectively remove recourse from that individual, when he is faced with the power of the state.
There is also the point of view that says much of the anti-social or illegal behaviour which we see now, and which prompts widespread discussion of such draconian measures as this can be approached in less indiscriminate ways. Investigate social issues and attack them individually rather than legislate in some broad, 'catch-all' fashion.
For those that say that almost any infringement on civil liberties is OK because if you're innocent you have nothing to fear this just leads naturally on to the 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone' scenario. We will (almost) all do something in our lives which our government may find objectionable. We will hope that our transgressions are viewed with maturity and common sense. However if we allow laws to be passed that narrow the responses available to the authorities, then we will eventually reap the rewards for this.
Perhaps I am a natural optimist, but I think we should begin from a basis of believing that the person we meet on the street is our friend and not someone that must be finger-printed and DNA analysed before he can become part of our society.
(Oh, and by the way I live in London, one of the biggest cities on earth and I am neither naive nor an idiot, although some amongst you may disagree...and we in the UK are already observed almost from the moment we step outside our homes. Fancy that do you ???)
Nope, tourism in Britain won't die because, even if this madness came to pass as law (which it wouldn't), the European Court of Justice will throw it right out of the window as it runs against a fundamental EU notion of free movement of people and goods.
Now, go on you eurosceptics Brits and hate the EU some more...while all it does is create more checks and balances so that crazy stuff like this happen less often.
--
this proposal would force every Briton - and visitor - to prove his or her innocence for every crime in the future
I apologize, I haven't had my morning coffee yet, but I don't understand. DNA samples tend to clear innocent suspects, not falsely implicate them. In the US numerous people suffering from false imprisonment, DNA tests were not available at the time of their trial, have been released as they managed to get DNA tests performed. Thank goodness for long term preservation of evidence.
This guy's not an idiot. He must know that if a universal DNA database was brought online, not only would it cost a *huge* amount to implement, but convictions would skyrocket. We're already out of prison space, so I think he's putting this forward as an option purely for the backlash it will cause. In the light of this suggestion, it becomes politically feasible to legislate for fewer imprisonable offences (for example), and it shows the people who already are arguing for more sensible management of the existing data in a favourable light. My money's on the DNA data for unconvicted people being deleted after a fixed period, when the dust settles. Either way, I'm glad that the proposal's been made at a time when it's politically acceptable to resist it - it'll help stave off a time when it isn't.
Reality is the ultimate Rorschach.
The homepage for the Canadian National DNA Data Bank says that DNA samples are taken only from convicted criminals. The site says:(emphasis added)
Moreover, this page discusses debate (in 2005) about whether or not a DNA database could help with missing persons investigations. The discussion doesn't mention using an already-existing DNA database of all citizens (or all citizens born since 1994) but instead seems to discuss the creation of a new database. In the discussion about whether such a database should be created, they say: In short, this sounds like a proposal for a voluntary system where loved ones of a missing person could donate DNA samples to help locate the person or identify their remains. It makes no mention of an existing effort to retain DNA on all newborns since 1994.
Anyone have any further information on this subject?
(Anecdotally, I'm not aware of any such DNA testing on any children recently born in Canada--e.g. my nephew.)
Once everyone's DNA is indexed somewhere then it opens up a can of worms. It's inevitable that at some point it will be misused. Perhaps it's opened up for other uses (Insurance companies, public domain, etc) or maybe someone just gets access to the data.
In the US, since the 1970s, government agencies have been restricted in terms of what information they can collect and what they can share even amongst each other and subcontractors. Since then privacy rules have become even more restrictive, in particular with respect to medical information.
The insurance company screening argument is a red herring to a degree. They could collect a DNA sample as part of a mandatory physical. Unless such profiling is outlawed, it will happen regardless of whether or not there is a national DNA database.