Slashdot Mirror
Human Rights Court Calls UK DNA Database a 'Breach of Rights'
psmears writes "Describing a judgment that is likely to rein in the scope of the UK DNA database, where at present the DNA of those arrested by the police is kept permanently (even if the people concerned are never convicted, or even charged), the BBC reports that the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that keeping such people's DNA in the database 'could not be regarded as necessary in a democratic society.'" Reader megla adds a link to the full text of the judgement.
I'm pretty sure they already do this in the US with fingerprints. No conviction? Well, if we find your fingerprints at any crime scene in the future, you're gonna get it.
"A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers." Hayek
As bad as privacy rights get trampled here in the states, I'm so very glad I don't live in the UK.
Well, now whenever someone gets off, they'll bemoan those "damn bleeding heart liberals who let another one get away over their preeeeciiious rights". What nobody on either side of the debate wants to admit is -- you can't have a perfect justice system. No matter how much technology, funding, profiling, science, and everything else you throw at it, it will be flawed. Innocent people will be found guilty, guilty people will get away, and there will always be doubt and speculation.
As a society we have to decide what's more important: Catching as many criminals as possible, or providing a system that is as fair as possible. The two are mutually exclusive -- you either bias towards letting the guilty get away so the innocent are not needlessly punished, or you sacrifice some innocents to "protect the greater good".
The Court here has basically told the UK -- The rights of the many outweigh the sins of the few.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
The Home Sec (aka Wacky Jackie Smith. You know the one who says 'I knew nothing' about the police raiding an Opposition MP's office like they do every week in Zimbabwe) is reviewing the implications of the Judgement.
From that I read 'Ok Chaps how can we get out of this fine mess you have got me into?'
And an underling pipes up
'Just DNA Test Everyone. That way there can be no discrimination'
However the Court is getting wise to the tricks of NuStasi (sorry New Labour) and is going to monitor the compliance with their ruling closely.
I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
Not particularly, no. I don't really mind the government maintaining a DNA database.
I would like it if they shared the data with the NIH, and I think that work on mapping the human genome is so very important that we can't trust private enterprise to explore all of the possible directions in which it could be taken.
I mean, what is the government going to do with my DNA? Clone me? Invade my privacy by finding out what diseases I'm vulnerable to?
I reject arguments that innocent people have nothing to fear from invasions of privacy, but objections to this don't even seem to be based on one of those.
Sometimes I'm cynical about the EU. To be sure, there is a lot of completely pointless and stupid busy work such as regulating the curvature of bananas and so on. On the other hand, the UK government seems capable of such outright maliciousness that the only thing we have left is the EU. I'll take bouts of stupid and useless over bouts of mindless repression any day.
The sad thing is, we neither elect the EU nor the house of lords. Yet I find myself agreeing with them much more often than with the elected government. Well, what do you expect? Despite getting only 37% of the votes cast, they act like they earned their large majority.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
You lost me at "Phlegmatic cockalorums". Allow me to retort - Before you criticize a man, walk a mile in his shoes. Then you'll be a mile away, and have his shoes.
I'm a firm believer in the philosophy of a ruling class, especially since I rule.
Whereas most people in the UK consider the Euro court of human rights to be a bunch of interfering busy bodys or jobsworths, and in general most of the rulings they come up with do come across as 'annoying'.
Ruling like this however are the reason the court was set up. I do hope this ruling stands and that this court will continue to keep its eye on privacy issues like this and prove to the population in general that it does have a purpose.
NPE
"The existing law will remain in place while we carefully consider the judgement "
Su-fucking-perb! If I ever get nicked and found guilty of an offence I'll be sure to use that one as I wave two fingers at the Judge.
As we have seen only this week over here the Police are out of control, the Government are scared of them and it is slowly dawning on people we have just sleep walked into a police state.
The cops turn up at your door, seize computer equipment, lets be honest you aren't going to get your kit back for a good year at least, even if your innocent. While they have it they can demand all passwords, failure to comply gets you up to two years. Then they get to take your DNA and fingerprints. If you match up at any crime scene you better have a decent alibi son, "cos the Database don't lie". (Just don't mention the Shirley McKee case)
"could not be regarded as necessary in a democratic society... fortunately for us, the UK could never be mistaken for a democratic society, so feel free to violate any and all rights."
Watch...this movie.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/46029/gattaca
How about "selling your DNA to insurance companies"?
Or in case of Great Britain - losing a USB stick with all your private data _and_ DNA data.
I mean, what is the government going to do with my DNA? Clone me? Invade my privacy by finding out what diseases I'm vulnerable to?
Use it to drag you out of your house and charge you with a crime you may or may not have committed, just because a computer says that you might be the suspect based on that DNA (when in truth you may well not be). All it would take is for a small database corruption or some programmatic error, and suddenly you end up having a lot of explaining to do, even if you have nothing to explain.
There's also the 'what if' angle of if/when your government gets repressive. Easier to figure out where and who you are down the road when they have DNA to match you up against...
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Are you kidding me? This is the government that loses data left, right and centre and you don't mind them maintaining your DNA?
Then perhaps you'd like to hear about the case in the US where two men one white, one black both had the same genetic markers in the police database?
or how about when you are called in for a crime you didn't commit like Jill Dando case where they matched the wrong guy's DNA. The evidence was so strong there right? The amount of DNA evidence was almost nothing yet the court was in the mindset of DNA == foolproof.
Does that mean that the practice of taking the fingerprints of Europeans when they enter the USA should also be considered as a breach of the human right of privacy?!
From TFA:
Scotland already destroys DNA samples taken during criminal investigations from people who are not charged or who are later acquitted of alleged offences.
Sigh. If only this technology existed in the 1940's. \\:=(
Would someone who knows please explain how the EU Court has jurisdiction over national laws? Has the UK (and other countries in the EU, for that matter) ceded its soverignity to the EU to such an extent that the EU acts as a Supreme Court? Is the EU as a whole like the Federal government is to the US states or Canadian provinces? I really do not know myself and am asking for a serious answer. Thanks.
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
It is probably worth noting that DNA evidence can be wrong... There have been numerous cases in which a false positive led to someone being wrongly imprisoned. The probability of false positives is significantly higher than most people realize as well. This mostly has to do with the fact that they only sequence part of your DNA -- the parts most likely to differ from one person to the next. This introduces a statistical error rate.
It's a dirty little secret.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Not particularly, no. I don't really mind the government maintaining a DNA database.
This is the same UK government that is so expertly careful about protecting personal information. Any information you give them (and I mean anything... contact details, date of birth, NI number (=SSN for you Americans), medical history, tax returns, your library borrowing list that shows you have a penchant for lycanthropic porn, etc. etc.) you may as well cut out the middleman and post it on MySpace for the world to read, chances are it will become that public in short order anyway. And you're willing to trust them with your DNA?
In that case I have a bridge you may be interested in purchasing...
Nice troll, but I'll bite. The one crucial aspect you're missing has to do with the word "arrested". It's justifiable to store somebody's DNA after he's been convicted. But an arrest is just an accusation. There is no due process, no judge, no jury, nothing of the sort. There ought to be no penalty for an arrest alone. That's what "due process" means.
What does the Human Rights Court say about the UK's adoption of Sharia Law as an alternate legal system?
.
.
.
Nothing? Is that silence I hear?
Well, I guess some human rights violations are more equal than others.
As a British citizen I'd say that this practice was an absolute outrage. If someone has been officially charged and found guilty then fair enough, a DNA profile is justified as part of the price of doing the crime. But to do this merely on arrest is a gross affront to civil liberties and one that has left 1/12 of the population on this database.
The argument is often made that it is a handy tool for solving past crimes and if you have done nothing wrong then you have nothing to fear. I beg to differ.
There have already been cases of criminals planting false DNA on crime scenes (Dr. John Schneeberger of Canada) and, while the technology is very useful, it is not the be all and end all of evidence.
Then perhaps you'd like to hear about the case in the US where two men one white, one black both had the same genetic markers in the police database?
Link?
What exactly is the data of the stored DNA sample? Surely not the whole thing gene sequence! 3 billion base pairs in a human genome means 6 billion gigs of data per person.
Jacqui Smith will just ensure we're no longer listed as a democratic society. That should side-step this issue.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" - Benjamin Franklin
The insight of those from hundreds of years ago still amazes me.
Wise men, no?
Absolutely my sentiment! I don't mind government invading privacy at all as long as I have access to the data.
Actually, I think the same about all government activities. The greatest evil is secrecy when it comes to government.
You do realize that they don't store the entire sequence in the database. DNA identification is based on a set of marker pairs, which are considered to be among the most variable in the human genome. It is of no use in mapping the genome. Close pairs have been discovered between completely unrelated people in the existing databases. So a plausible scenario: DNA shows a close match with your brother who was detained but never charged nor convicted (protesting against new 3 strikes law). As a result the Police pull you in as a "person of interest" since a close match is usually interpreted as matching someone related. Your boss finds out you have been questioned for murder at the same time you are competing with another co-worker for a promotion. Guess who gets the promotion?
Atlas stands on the earth and carries the celestial sphere on his shoulders.
Why has someone modded this Flamebait? - it perfectly well sums up how completely distanced from reality the Home Secretary is.
Only true NuLabour sheeple would think otherwise
"She's furniture with a pulse"
Quite. There were accusations that the Met made an unusually large number of uncharged arrests at Notting Hill this year so they could build up a profile of black Londoners.
(Notes for Americans and other foreigners; the Met=the London police force which has a history of racism and locking up opposition MPs. The Notting Hill Carnival is the largest Afro-Caribbean festival in the UK)
All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.
Exactly. The probability of a suspect found through other means (eg. social links with the victim) being a false positive is far less than the probability of a false positive when you have the entire country on file (which is where they were headed before this ruling).
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/20/local/me-dna20
Google it yourself next time.. or is that too difficult for you?
All it would take is for a small database corruption or some programmatic error
Actually, less than that. All it takes is a misunderstanding of statistics. If you have a large DNA database and a DNA sample from a crime-scene, then if you use it to find suspects - as many politicians would like to do - then you are bound to get a significant number of false positives, even when the tests are very accurate. The "1 in a billion" statistics that get thrown around regarding DNA matches estimate the chances of two random people matching. Once you expand your search to a country of 60m, the chances of a coincidental match is significant. Read up on the birthday paradox. And because people are told the "1 in a billion" statistic, whoever gets fingered for the crime is seen to have a massive chunk of evidence pointing to his guilt.
There's also the 'what if' angle of if/when your government gets repressive.
That argument has never really held weight with me. Do you also advocate gay people remaining in the closet? After all, if people know that they are gay, then if the government decides to execute gay people, they are fucked. How about atheists? People who wear glasses?
...one of the people that got arrested and released does a crime against you or your family. Then the breach of rights complaint that the person made mysteriously disappears.
Breach of rights? What rights? The right to NOT have your DNA stored in a government database if you were to get arrested for committing a crime?
Stop right there. As far as the law is concerned, the person who's accused of committing a crime against you may or may not have done so. It is up to the justice system to decide whether or not they did, and once that decision is reached, if the answer is "not guilty" (or, for that matter, "we aren't pressing charges"), they are entitled to receive exactly the same treatment by any member of society (or indeed society itself) as if the suspicion had never occurred.
That's the whole point of "innocent until proven guilty", it's been the whole point of British justice for centuries.
What you're effectively advocating is that a person who has ever been arrested for any reason, should be automatically considered "more likely a criminal" than the rest of the general public - even though the police may have kept them for no more than a couple of hours before realising they'd made a mistake and releasing them without charge.
The only fair way to deal with that - and, what I suspect, the home office may well advocate if they think they can get away with it - is to take DNA samples from the entire population.
Probably because of the unnecessarily incendiary language in GP like "NuStasi" for New Labour.
If you don't want to get posts tagged as flamebait, explain and justify your opinions without peppering your posts with gratuitous insults; in short, use arguments instead of epithets.
MP = Member of Parliament (in other words, one of the UK's elected representatives in Parliament - much like a Senator in the US)
"She's furniture with a pulse"
The government already keeps all kinds of data on you, name, address, phone number, license plate, heck, they even take your picture...why not DNA? Just get yourself sampled when you sign up for your drivers license.
That'd be Member of Parliament to all those not familiar with parliamentary nomenclature. So the Home Secretary siccing the police to raid an opposition party member's offices might be vaguely analogous to the Bush Administration abusing its official powers to bully US Attorneys into resigning for not kowtowing to the party line. I.e., a power freak seeing how far they can stretch their authority and get away with it.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
I really did, I tried so hard to think up an insightful comment in response to this story but all that I could do was sit giggling to myself at how upset Jacqui Smith is over this and how she aint gonna sleep well tonight.
For those that don't know, Jacqui Smith has been involved in or is responsible for:
- UK ID card scheme where every citizen has a biometric ID card
- A national database of every single child's details
- 42 days of detention without trial for terror suspects
- This very DNA database of even innocent people
- Plans for a scheme to store all telephone call, text message and e-mail records
- Massive nationwide CCTV surveillance programs
- Silencing of political opponents by using heavy police force
- Allowing local councils to use terrorist laws to spy on citizens to catch them for such offences as trying to get their kids into a specific school outside their catchment area or letting their dog foul in a public place
- Creating a scheme for newspapers to put up wanted posters from CCTV images of people dropping litter
There are plenty more but simply too many for me to remember all of them right now. This woman is evil and must be stopped, period. We can't put the blame on just her however because people like Gordon Brown have the power to stop her but aren't and opposition parties could be far, far more vocal about how evil this woman actually is and yet they're not.
I'm pretty sure the lives of our grandparents here in the UK and the rest of the world weren't given on the beaches of Normandy, the fields of France and other places so that it would eventually be our own government that would rise up against us and begin to enforce the same level of dictatorship as seen in the many facist nations during World War II. The very fact Jacqui Smith is pushing for this kind of regime should make it the responsibility of everyone with the power to make a noise- politicians, media and so forth to stand up and refuse to accept this. It is the complacency and ignorance amongst the average joe on the street towards this type of thing that makes me understand now how over time evil totalitarian regimes can arise.
I do not believe Britain will every reach the point Jacqui Smith is hoping thanks to the EU injecting at least a little bit of common sense into the situation as per this article but the very fact that she has been allowed to get this far is simply unacceptable in a modern, free society.
Probably because of the unnecessarily incendiary language in GP like "NuStasi" for New Labour.
If you don't want to get posts tagged as flamebait, explain and justify your opinions without peppering your posts with gratuitous insults; in short, use arguments instead of epithets.
Interestingly I've been seeing more and more of this type of language around the internet; my favourites are "Jaquiboot Smith" for the home sectary as it sums up my opinion of her, and "NuLab" because of the obvious Orwellian comparisons to IngSoc. I don't think it's flamebait, just a concise way to sum up thoughs on the creeping authoritarianism of this new* Labour Goverment
*how long can they justifiably continue to style themselves as "new"?
If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
Whoever modded that flamebait needs their karma reduced to zero and never given moderation points again.
Google finds it pretty quickly
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
That's what got O.J. off the hook.
They were right - the revolution did not get televised. It was posted on YouTube instead. All in 120 characters. SLOOSH!
Not really, because a free market also requires competition, which often requires that organizations keep trade secrets. In a free market economy, the cost of developing new techniques to bring superior goods or services to the market, or reducing the cost of existing ones, can only be justified if the resulting information can either be kept from would-be competitors (trade secrets), or the competitors barred from using it (patents, copyrights).
Basically, for a given good or service, there is a lot of information that's not relevant to the potential buyer's choice, and a lot of this information is of enormous value to the producer.
Are you adequate?
...
How about convict you of crimes you didn't do? Here's how it goes down.
It is a popular misconception that DNA tests uniquely identify people. That would be true (ignoring twins...) if they compared at enough positions. However, such tests are expensive. So what they actually do is compare at a few positions.
This is not enough to uniquely identify you. It is enough to narrow the possibilities down to, in a good case, a handful of people. When that is combined with non-DNA evidence, it is almost certain.
For instance, suppose you've got a woman raped, robbed, and murdered. Through traditional police methods, you find out that she was seen shortly before the crime arguing with her ex-boyfriend who was stalking her, and that she had a pizza delivered where the delivery man turned out to be a paroled serial rapist, and finally, a burglar had been known to be working the neighborhood at the time of the crime, and he had some of her jewelry when he was caught a few days later (but claims he found it on the ground and was never in her house).
Do a DNA test on those three suspects and get a match on one, and you've got your criminal. Sure, there might be a dozen (or even hundreds or thousands, depending on the test you do) people in the world that match, but the chances that someone would have been identified as a suspect through non-DNA traditional police methods AND be one of those dozens (or hundreds...) are low.
In other words, the proper way to use DNA testing is to use it in a Bayesian fashion with other evidence to seal the deal.
Without safeguards in place to prevent misuse of the database (such as using it to pick suspects in lieu of finding suspects the old fashioned way), an incomplete DNA database is a major risk to your rights, if your DNA is included.
This indeed is one of the best decisions of the EU, particularly in that it ends the whole biometric scam, at least for here. Since DNA and fingerprints are the most 'stable' biometric measures, all other methods, disproved over 100 years ago, would seem to be included. The ramifications of this are great from ending (real)ID cards to George Bush's false "War on Terror".
This is real change. Funny it starts in Europe.
I wonder, when we get someone like this in the US government, it is usually because the person (or someone close to them) has been the victim of a crime and this person feels an overwhelming sense of guilt and is trying to stop ALL crime (which is just silly, even if noble in some strange misguided way, since what they want is impossible). Does anyone know if this person is just a loon, or a loon that went through something traumatic? I'm actually curious about it.
Well considering you said case, which I think a few people would assume to mean court case and the LATimes article didn't come up first with the query I used, nor did it refer to a specific case with a white and black man, I thought I'd ask for some clarification. Here's a link I found interesting after looking at that, though: http://leitermaninnocent.com/
Although I heartily agree with the EU on this, I don't see it as a vindication of our ongoing membership.
This (and many other matters), are deeply alarming developments in British democracy, but they have come about because of a constitutional failure, largely brought about by the dilution of our democracy and its compromise by our membership of the EU itself. There are many other factors, including the failure, malicious or otherwise, of our left-wing education system to educate people about their history and country.
Sadly, I think leaving the EU is the prerequisite to rebuilding a very broken and disordered Britain and restoring faith in democratic institutions.
I just do not want to pay for this database through my taxes - much like the optional id card that looks like it will be illegal not to have quite soon.
Google Knows All â
I reject arguments that innocent people have nothing to fear from invasions of privacy, but objections to this don't even seem to be based on one of those.
Someone once said that you would be suprised how many people who think that their father is their father is really just their fathers friend. This database would be used to search for people with simular DNA as well as exact matches. Say you get a partial DNA hit on a crime only to find out that your father is not your father and that some one else commited the crime. It does target innocent people don't even think that for a second. Or that your brother and father are part of an investigation but you were somehow ruled out. It could break up a family it could tramatize a young adult. There is a reason we have privacy, sometimes it's the secrets of the parents that ruin the young but it shouldn't be up to the goverment to decide what secrets we should have or how they are told.
Using incendiary epithets is flamebait.
The fact that the incendiary epithets happen to comport well with your personal feelings doesn't change that (in fact, it would be odd to use an epithet which didn't.)
If you want to make arguments about creeping authoritarianism without flamebait, then make the arguments without the epithets.
in the US, they call it "driving while black" and in some states, its an arrestible offense.
see, the US is much like the UK. common heritage, I guess.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
It's flamebait if it's likely to attract flames. Given that even the Labour supporters I know think the current offering are a bunch of wasting, wannabe dictators, I can't say it's really going to be attracting flames from anyone...well, outside of the Labour party.
The DNA is one small part of a much wider problem, while there has been a small victory for these men on the dna records kept it doesn't address the records which will be kept till their 100th birthday of the original incident.
It's rather depressing to read the following link
http://gizmonaut.net/bits/suspect.html
but perhaps not anywhere near as bad as
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/3548795/Jean-Charles-de-Menezes-inquest-Family-protest-as-jury-sent-out-to-consider-verdict.html
"Sir Michael Wright, the coroner, has already withdrawn from the jury the option of a verdict of unlawful killing. The 11 jurors will consider two outcomes: either that Mr de Menezes was lawfully killed or an open verdict. "
Is it better in your country?
I can't find any information about anything remotely nasty happening to her so I'd bet she's just a loon.
That argument has never really held weight with me. Do you also advocate gay people remaining in the closet? After all, if people know that they are gay, then if the government decides to execute gay people, they are fucked. How about atheists? People who wear glasses?
Unless you can show me a government repository or list of folks who are gay, wear glasses, athist, etc... such an argument doesn't really hold all that much water, yanno?
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
For as long as they're right wing Tory bar-stewards continuing the Thatcherite rape and pillage of the working classes!
Note to mods - this isn't polemic, it's documented fact ;)**
**for reference see the latest NuStasi attempts to reduce benefits payments to single mothers who have a 1 year-old child by 40% if they're not 'actively seeking work and can demonstrate a clear plan of action to this end'
Tuttle != Buttle
Have you ever heard of a census? In the UK, you can be fined £1000 for not taking part, and it includes both religion and sexuality. As for people wearing glasses, at the very least, everybody who gets their glasses through the NHS will be on record.
People who argue against their own rights never fail to amaze me. The only logical explanation is that due to the phallus on their forehead they don't consider themselves humans!
The sad truth is that whether the court agrees with tne notion that it's a breach or rights or not, even if authorities will be prohibited from using the existing database officially, everyone knows that some authorities (MI5, MI6) will keep on using and sharing it ... It exists, so the damage is already done.
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
In response to your final 3 words (modern, free society), can I point you to this article by Mark Steel? ;D
Maybe so, but if she carries on with these tactics to alienate the proletariat from the Central Party Members, then she may just find that something DOES happen to her. You see, The War Against Terror (henceforth T.W.A.T.) is fake, so they need to CREATE enough anger that the population boils over to give them something REAL to hold up and say, 'See, we told you so' and introduce yet more fascist measures of repression. Once we remove the T.W.A.T.-mongers from power normal service shall resume.
Human rights fanatics never stop amazing me.
And government oversight/police state fanatics never stop amazing me. What people like you don't seem to realize is that when you say that it's ok to give away your rights, you're saying that it's ok to give away mine, as well.
She also wants to outlaw prostitution between consenting adults, and get the Women's Institute to spy and report on amorous young women throughout the country.
Unfortunately the motives of the Conservative party in opposing the laws you list are just as suspect - Conservatives opposing 42 days detention for terrorist suspects? Have you ever met a Conservative who was pro-terrorist-suspect rights? Or being against CCTV nationally, but Conservative councils all over the country implementing CCTV? Or being against ID cards in 2008, but backing them in 2004, with Michael Howard apparently wanting to introduce them during the last Conservative government?
I can't help feeling that if their current roles were reversed, both Conservative and Labour would still feel quite at home...
I mean, what is the government going to do with my DNA?
Plant it because it hates you for stealing its girlfriend.
Oh, did you forget the government is staffed entirely by people?
You're forgetting, evidence gets used to convict you, not to set you free.
I DO object to my DNA being kept on file. I do not want to become a favorite suspect just because my DNA coincidentally turns up at a crime scene.
That's the issue here (to me anyway). It's not an objection to the police properly using DNA evidence to solve crimes, it's about police improperly using DNA to send people to jail.
More subtly, I do not want the police to think of my DNA ans a sample that hasn't been involved in a crime yet .
NIH can have my DNA for research purposes, as soon as they can absolutely assure me that neither police or insurance companies will ever get their hands on it (preferably by destroying any data they have linking my identity to the sample).
Two words: "no preference".
The UK does have problems with privacy - big time. That much I certainly agree to.
That said, the Brits (Heaven bless 'em) have been notorious for lying to census takers ever since the original Domesday Census, in spite of the penalty back then of instant execution by the crown. :)
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
The UK uses the SGM+ system of DNA profiling which only looks at 13 markers in the genome plus gender. I can't imagine that that takes up *too* much space.
"your library borrowing list that shows you have a penchant for lycanthropic porn"
where is your library?
Why do the police need my DNA records then.....? Haven't they tried a Google search for 'Sex attack, , , who is the offender?'
Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
In one recent case, using fingerprints this way, the FBI arrested someone from Oregon for the Madrid train bombing. After 17 days in jail, he was released because Spanish police found the real source of the fingerprint. FBI apology here: http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel04/mayfield052404.htm
News coverage here http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5053007/ (or do a search; there's enough out there).
The evidence they presented was that his fingerprint partially matched one found on another continent. I don't think reports said he is known even to have left Oregon. What would have happened if the Spanish police had not been so successful? That's why it's dangerous to have these databases in place. Not because they can't be useful, but because they will be used incorrectly.
I think it is not a coincidence that George Orwell was British.
People in this country come in opinion polls as very supportive of intrusive ideas like ID cards, DNA databases and all other kind of intrusive powers.
It is funny how East European migrants explain to the locals very often how much those measures remind them of the good old days pre Berlin Wall fall.
And still people in the UK will not get it...
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
"how long can they justifiably continue to style themselves as "new"?"
They'll do so until nobody alive remembers "old Labour", i.e. a party which, like the Conservatives and Liberals during the same period, actually had people in it who entered politics because they believed in the core principles of the parties they belonged to, and stuck to those principles irrespective of whether they happened to be popular with the press or not.
Of course, all that's in the past now, because we've entered the period of the self-serving career politician whose only principle is "what's best for me", which at the moment largely consists of being a vizier in Emperor Murdoch's court. Note that I'm not just referring to New Labour here, because the same thing is true of today's Tories and LibDems as well.
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
I think either you missed my point, or I didn't express it well enough. My point is that if people talk about "NuLab" or "Zanu Laour" doing x, y or z then you know they think that the action they are taking are more comparable to IngSoc or Mugabe's ZanuPF as opposed to those of a responsible political party of government in a western democracy. It's a hyperbole and a quick comparison to show your disgust at the action, not a detailed analysis of the situation. Either way, it's not really flamebait to anyone execpt Labour party members anyway (and after her statement yesterday it seems even some of them would be happy with the OP's description of Jacqui Smith as "Wacky Jaqui").
If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
This is the Jackie Smith who is also too scared to walk around her own consituency without a bullet proof jacket on, even when she has a police escort !
It looks like she's basically planning on ignoring this ruling anyway, things will stay as they are she says, until she has considered her options.
I thought Blunkett and his crazy ID scheme were bad but this woman really does take the biscuit, she is immune to debate and is quite clearly going to carry on doing exactly whatever she likes until someone stops her.
Thank you devolution.
This is excellent news - since New Labour gave the police the power to arrest people for trivial offences, large numbers of people who were never even subsequently charged had DNA samples forcibly taken and added to the database. Hopefully we can progress from here to dismantling the other parts of the police state New Labour have created.
People who wear glasses? PEOPLE who wear GLASSES?! Specky little bastards; make me sick!
see the latest NuStasi attempts to reduce benefits payments to single mothers who have a 1 year-old child by 40% if they're not 'actively seeking work and can demonstrate a clear plan of action to this end'
That isn't "rape and pillage of the working classes". For one thing, that person is not working. We should invent some new classes in the system. Let's call them the "scrounging off everyone else" classes.
This whole attitude of bailing out people who screwed up (invariably at the expense of those who made wise decisions and lived within their means) is really starting to get on my nerves now. I have no debts, I rent because I can't afford to buy a home yet, I haven't had kids yet because I don't have enough money saved up to support them as well as I would want to, and what savings I have are invested either in sound companies that make real products (not financial institutions and the like) or in interest-bearing bank accounts. And for living within our means this way, my partner and I are getting screwed almost daily at present, as the government bails out failed financial institutions, underwrites people who took out mortgages they couldn't afford to repay, and so on. We are penalised for being financially sensible, while those who made poor judgements are rewarded at our expense. This is exactly the wrong way to run an economy!
Don't get me wrong: I'm no Labour supporter. But on the score of dramatically reducing the freebie hand-outs they've invented/increased over the past decade, I agree wholeheartedly.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I can't find any information about anything remotely nasty happening to her so I'd bet she's just a loon.
Except apparently "Wacky Jacki" isn't considered mad enough to be "sectioned", at least not yet. Personally I'd love to see her arrested and held as a "terrorist suspect". Considering the creativness which has been shown when it comes to this there should be no problem keeping the entire Cabinet out of everyone's way until the end of January.
to say that privacy is contrary to democracy is completely illogical.
the foundations of democracy are founded by philosopher John Stewart Mill and the harm principal, or the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people. Or, hedonism.
It is my belief that it is not in societies best interest to keep a database of the most personal of all information. It does harm to society when they are in fear of the govt, and the power they hold. It swings the pendulum in favor of the govt, which is totally counterintuitive of democracy, which is power to the people. Please prove me wrong.
I'm not sure that DNA archives are all that bad. Many of the fears that are discussed seem a bit insubstantial if you think about it. I don't think I buy the one about privacy fears; the only one I can see that may be real is that insurers might use certain genetic markers as an excuse for not providing insurance, but there are ways around that, such as universal, public health care, which I am sure is going to be adopted everywhere.
The benefits, on the other hand, are substantial, not least in identifying people and relatives, but even more in medical and other research. Quite apart from that, I think there are many who would be very curious to know as much as possible about their own genes; I wonder how many would simply volunteer their DNA to a national - or even international - permanent register? I probably would.
to anyone trying to argue for the case of more powerful govt, i believe you should read about the harm principal, or in other words, the founding text of democracy. This philosophy drafted by John Stewart Mill, was the root from which democracy grew. And this philosophy would NEVER support government databases of any kind keeping tabs on the public.
One thing is for sure, how many top tier government workers have their DNA in the database? I would venture to say close to 0.
check this out for your own knowledge, it will make you a smarter, more complete and able bodied critical thinker.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principal
Yes, and its still flamebait.
If they want to make the argument about what actions are problematic and why those actions are problematic, then they can be part of a decent, productive, substantive discussion.
Everything that is flamebait tells you what someone's opinion of something is. That something is a shorthand way of conveying opinion doesn't stop it from being flamebait.
That something uses incendiary language to simply express a judgement rather than presenting an argument to support the judgement makes it flamebait.
Hyperbolic expressions of disgust are, inherently. flamebait.
I just saw your list of things Smith is responsible for.
All (yes,ALL) of those have been implemented in the Netherlands over the last 5 years.
Indeed. Gordon Brown appointed Jacqui Smith and she implements government policy. When those polices are popular with Middle England, the government claims credit. If the policies aren't popular, she will be blamed and the policies forgotten. If the policies are very unpopular, she will be moved to a minor cabinet post or to the back benches. Appointment to the post of Home Secretary tends to be a career limiting move.
I included that because people are so precious about things like their sexuality when it comes to talking about abusive governments, when the reality is that an abusive government can be a danger to just about every demographic, and attempting to keep private everything that an abusive government could possibly kill you over is impossible. If you don't believe me, read up on the Khmer Rouge. They murdered people who wore glasses because they represented intellectualism.
In the Jill Dando case there was a lot more evidence of the man's guilt, but it was mis-handled and inadmissible in court. In light of this, I don't think that is a good example. It is unfortunate the other evidence couldn't be used, but necessary to ensure innocent people don't get stitched-up by corrupt police.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favour of the DNA database, just pointing out that was a bad example to use.