Slashdot Mirror
Bioethics Group Raises DNA Database Concerns
PieGuy107 writes "In its report, The Forensic Use of DNA and Fingerprints: Ethical Issues, the council recommends that police should only be allowed to permanently store bio-information from people who are convicted of a crime.
Today, the police of England and Wales have wider sampling powers than the police force of any other country, and the UK has (proportionally, per head of population) the largest forensic database in the world.
When the police first began using DNA, consent was required before samples could be taken. A succession of Acts of Parliament and legislative amendments has increased police powers of sampling; the police can now take DNA samples from all persons arrested, without their consent, for recordable offenses (an "arbitrary" classification), and retain the samples indefinitely regardless of whether the person arrested is subsequently convicted or even charged.
In response to comments from the Home Office that retaining the DNA of people who were innocent at the time of arrest had helped to solve crimes they committed years later, the Nuffield Council stuck to its guns. "There has to be a limit to police powers," said Dr Carole McCartney, one of the report's authors. "DNA shouldn't be retained simply on the basis that it might turn out to be useful."
She added that many of the statistics from the Home Office were "inconsistent, incomplete and confusing" and that much of its evidence consisted of anecdotal accounts of "horrible men caught with DNA"."
I, for one, would be frightened if they caught a horrible man without DNA.
--
If your cousin gets arrested and take his fingerprints, they have information on him. If they sample his DNA, they have information on you.
How about storing the DNA for the length of time equal to the statute of limitations for the crime they are being charged with? If they are not formally charged, then a two- to three- year period seems fair.
"Was it a millionaire who said 'Imagine No Posessions?'" -- Elvis Costello
"The use-mention distinction" is not "enforced here."
and subsequently lawmakers will make it a crime to refuse to "donate" your DNA to the police database. Problem solved.
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
...if one of these DNA databases gets hacked??? What if a criminal's DNA entry gets transposed with that of someone else??? I mean it's not like government agencies are known for securing their networks very well...
Windows 3.1x calc: 3.11 - 3.10 = 0.00
Messing with DNA and stem cells is playing God! Stop messing with God's work! It is evil! We MUST get rid of DNA because it is the product of evil science!
Only here, it will be needed for all school children. They'll have to have their DNA recorded before they're allowed to enter the public school system.
It will be touted as "This is to help protect children from being kidnapped by a non-custodial parent or, God forbid, to identify a child if they have been killed.
Then if every child grows up with this being the "norm" what happens ?
UPS Sucks
I'd say the standard should be the same as all evidence. Are they allowed to keep your mug-shot forever (yes, as far as I know). If they take a handwriting sample and you are not convicted, are they allowed to keep that? The standard should be the same for DNA. They certainly get to keep your fingerprints right?
If they request and get it during the course of an investigation I think they should get to keep it. I see no reason why they shouldn't.
If they start abusing this (arresting people on provably fake charges and such) just to get DNA, they you can do a civil suit. The judge will make 'em toss it and the millions they'll have to shell out every time will help keep them honest.
But if you are at a murder scene and have knife scratches on you, the police should get to keep your DNA if they use it to rule you in or out, just like they get to keep pictures of you.
Now if you want to make it so they can keep the DNA but it can't be admitted to court (so they couldn't convict you on that alone) then I would be fine with that. That's probably a good idea, in fact.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Comrades, you need only be detained for questioning to have your DNA permanently on record.
They're going to end up just taking it a birth or while kids are in school or at hospitals. Unless there are explicit laws disallowing all evidence obtained though knowledge of such surreptitiously obtained DNA, the government will have a free hand to gather any information it wants. Without such laws, judges will cave in the face of teary eyed victims and media pressure, and if you so much as left a hair in a public place ten years ao, the police will be allowed to gather that and add you to their lists.
In case you think there's nothing wrong with this, answer me this. How many wealthy and powerful people do you think have their DNA, or will ever have their DNA, in a government database?
May the Maths Be with you!
The question of usefulness does come into play, however -- and realize that in what I am about to say, I'm not a DNA expert so I welcome further commentary from those who are. If a sibling of mine were to be the person that is guilty of a "horrible" crime, and for whatever reason my DNA profile is on record (say for a security clearance type position, etc.), would my profile be useful to the police in finding that sibling? And at what level does this come into play? If the sibling is guilty of nothing but being nearby a scene and there is DNA, or the so-called crime doesn't really rise to the level of "horrible", shouldn't my anonymity and the siblings anonymity be guaranteed up to a point?MP> What do you think?
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
...the vast majority of the British public won't give a shit.
On the one hand, they're spoonfed endless pseudo-forensic schpiel that give the (false) impression of DNA being nigh-infallible. On the other hand, they're stuffed full of political propaganda telling us how DNA sampling will make $random_crime a thing of the past, how it'll mean that "paedophiles can no longer pretend to be teachers!" and on the third, weirdly mutant hand (broken index in the DNA database I think), years of being taught not to think critically and not to question authority (gubmint knows best!). All you need to do to pass a draconian law is to fawn to the Daily Mail-reading "Middle England" about paedophiles and illegal immigrants (is it rascist to say the Brits are sterotypically xeonphobic? That was certainly my impression growing up) and all of a sudden people can't vote for you quickly enough.
Disclaimer: yes, I am a British citizen. I don't believe the majority of our public could stand up to a wet paper bag. I would love to be proved wrong. UK is in a race to be the first "democratic" police state, who wants to join us and finish second?
Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
Imagine the added weight of all that random DNA collection gear that police will have to carry all day. And DNA collection can be a messy business. Can't we all put our minds together to combine say, a Taser / DNA Extractomatic?
Maybe we really just need to take a broader approach: EVERYONE gets their DNA mapped and EVERYONE's DNA is made public. We should know just as much about government personel as they do about us. It's possible, and, I suppose, likely, that the information could be used for segregational purposes, but I think we should just bite the bullet and find a good way to render the information constitutionally now, instead of waiting for problems to show up. Bottom line: We're not going to be able to keep our DNA code a personal secret forever - just look what's happening to SS#'s.
"Avast! It cannot be Medium John Silver's DNA on that XBox 360 Special Monkey Island Edition!"
"Sir, it matches the database."
"Yarr. Caught red handed."
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
If they example the DNA of thousands of rapists, for example, and find they all have certain genetic traits in common, will they then theorize that anybody with this genetic trait be more likely to commit rape? What would they do? The potential for "crime prevention" might be high in their eyes, maybe even to the point of pre-emptively arresting and convicting people for their genetics? Think about the potential for false positives; do you think that would stop them from trying to convict "potential" criminals?
I disagree that DNA is just like a finger-print; the amount of information they can gain, or they can speculate on, is orders of magnitude higher. Anything like this should always under-go major scrutiny, especially measuring the potential for abuse. Politicans and Police Officers CAN, HAVE and WILL abuse whatever powers they are given, history has shown very clearly to me that that will probably never change.
It's one thing to give Police tools that could be useful in finding somebody who's commited a crime, but i'm 100% against giving them anything that would allow any sort of pre-emptiveness against peopel who "might" commit a crime. Once the police get ahold of a way to do genetic profiling to try and determine potential criminals, it'll be too late.
For years, prosecutors have been fond of citing "statistics" that purportedly show that DNA matching is reliable to "1 in billions". However, this has never actually been established.
For one thing, the figures cited are founded on the assumption that the DNA sites that are being matched up are individually independent. But they have not established that beyond a reasonable doubt yet.
Here is an example of what I mean: what are the odds that a randomly-sampled American has the genes that result in curly hair? Relatively low... maybe around 0.2 or so.
On the other hand: what are the odds that the same person has the genes for curly hair... GIVEN THAT he also has the genes for sickle-cell anemia? That would be pretty high: maybe around 0.99, give or take.
Individual genes (or lots of them anyway) are NOT completely independent. They depend on others in complex ways that are not yet fully understood. And until we understand more about that, we should be very careful before making claims about the "reliability" of such tests. In certain cases (and there is no reliable way to tell which), the reliability of the test might only be 1 in 100,0000 or even less. That might still sound like a lot, but it is not. That would match 4 or 5 people just in my immediate area.