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.'"

Comments

Oh, sure.

[morgan_greywolf]

Why not? In the U.S., don't we already record fingerprints at birth? Let's just all do this.

If you're against this, you probably have something to hide and you should be prosecuted anyway. If you didn't do anything wrong, you have nothing to hide, so why you should care? After all, we need to be protected from the terrorists!

You can't be against this, because it will protect the children. After all, if we have their DNA and they're kidnapped, we'll be able to find them quicker. Will someone please think of the children?

*sigh*

I'm moving to a deserted island in the middle of the Pacific to start my own country. Anyone care to join me?

Could be an interesting political tactic...

[Loosifur]

I'm not real familiar with the way the British courts work, but I know that in the US a tactic sometimes used by judges that want a law overturned is to simply enforce the letter of the law. The idea is that the law itself is so flawed that by enforcing it strictly and literally it becomes evident that the law should be changed. Similar thing happened recently where some congressmen tried to reinstitute the draft, the reasoning being that if it's important enough for US soldiers to fight and die in Iraq, then it's important enough for every eligible US citizen to join up. Of course, and this was their point, if it's not that important, then we shouldn't be there. Maybe this judge is making the same point about DNA profiling: either everyone has to be on record, which would raise some serious privacy and legal issues, or no DNA records are kept at all because there isn't a fair way to do it.

Re:I find this highly offensive

[srmalloy]

I am reminded of the offhand reference in Robert Heinlein's novel Friday that the California Republic, having determined that citizens with a bachelor's degree earned, on average, 40% more than citizens without such a degree, passed legislation awarding each citizen a bachelor's degree when they reached 18, thereby eliminating this shocking social inequity.

What "the government" is and isn't.

[Kadin2048]

The government (in the USA anyway) has at LEAST the following: Your full name, birth record, race, eye color, hair color, parents names and IDs, your social security number, address, drivers license number, license plate, vehicle VIN number, vehicle registration number, insurance information, bank account numbers, credit account history, mortgage information, phone number (if you have ever included it on a form or called them from home, but they can get it on request anyway if you haven't), tax history, employer name(s), payroll information, fingerprints (from birth, typically elementary school age in most states, and adulthood if you've ever been to a police station or filed them voluntarily), your dental records and medical records (by request of a judge or coroner), military ID and rank (if any), and the list goes on. You act as if the government is a single, monolithic entity. It's not.

"The Government" is a hodgepodge of agencies with mutually contradictory goals and aims, most of whom would sooner throw rocks at each other than cooperate. This is, perversely, a good thing.

Why? Because although "the government" may know a lot about you, it doesn't know all of that in any one place. There's no single database -- yet -- where you can sit down, CSI-style, and bring up any citizen's dossier. Your local police department knows your name, address, and how many parking tickets you've gotten this year, but they don't have access to your tax information from the IRS. (And the IRS is actually pretty snarky about not sharing information casually; if I had a dime for every time one of my LEO buddies bitched about the IRS making them jump through hoops, I'd be a rich man. I guess there's honor among thieves or something.)

This is the way the system is supposed to work. (Well, I'd like to see the size of the bureaucracy cut down dramatically, but that's a different topic.) In order for the bureaucracy to function, it needs to know a certain amount about you. But different agencies need to know different things. As long as the data is kept compartmentalized -- as it is, in large part, today; owing less to design than simply because it's a really hard problem to correlate it all -- it's not a mortal threat to privacy.

It's when you start to get all that information put into a single database, and where there's a natural primary key that allows the database to be easily searched and information to be linked (why do people get paranoid about SSNs? Because they're the obvious choice for a primary key), that you start to get really Orwellian. With minor exceptions, we don't have anything like that in the U.S., although there are a lot of people trying.