UK Police Promise Not To Retain DNA Data, But Do Anyway

redalien writes "In 2008 I invited two policemen into my home and voluntarily gave them a DNA and fingerprint sample to help with a murder investigation, as they'd promised it would only be used for that investigation. I was never under any suspicion and could just as easily have said no. Almost a year after the investigation closed they have now confirmed that they've retained my samples and at my request have begun an investigation to see if there are sufficient 'exceptional circumstances' to remove them. I'm not the only one who was told samples would be removed, so if you've had such a promise from the police I recommend contacting their data protection registrar immediately."

Comments

Not the first

[GigaplexNZ]

This isn't the first time the police have lied.

Re:Not the first

[ls671]

He could have spotted the lie just as soon as they promised him the samples would be removed. Almost everybody on /. knows that it is almost impossible to delete data from fail-over sites, backups, archived data, etc. in a way that one can guarantee that all traces of the data has really been destroyed everywhere...

Re:Not the first

[Cassini2]

Police are allowed to participate in a ruse to gain the trust of a suspect.

Make no mistake. You were a suspect in a murder case, until cleared. In a police investigation, everyone is a potential suspect. As such, be careful what you volunteer, because until proven otherwise, you are a suspect and can be lied to.

Re:Not the first

[GigaplexNZ]

Make no mistake. You were a suspect in a murder case, until cleared.

I was? Who did I allegedly kill?

Re:Not the first

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't the first time the police have lied.

This is not Insightful, it is common knowledge. Just about every police force in the world; third world or developed, are almost always perpetually authoritarian in nature, and will lie, steel and cheat to back up their colleagues in collusion.

There are numerous interviews and psychological profiles that you have to pass in order to get into the police force (in Canada at least, and I presume places like Britain as well). If you are HONEST then you will likely end up like Serpico (NYPD) or Richard Barlow (of the CIA). They don't just let anybody in. You need to be despicable and have an aura of authority and leadership in your demeanor (or, at the very least, have an average enough IQ that you notice or stir shit when it happens). You need to be able to Think of the Children and the Public Safety when controlling people. Clearly not all police officers are corrupt. But chances are excellent that if they advanced in their careers they have gotten away with a LOT. It's a psychological fact that Leaders of Corporations tend to have psychopathic personalities (a fact that became well known by the documentary The Corporation). The same appears to be true of police departments. Not to long ago I remember the head of the RCMP (Giuliano Zaccardelli) was forced to resign because of NUMEROUS corruption related incidents. He later got a job with a UN agency. It's a nasty business, protecting the public, especially if you happen to be a member of the public. There are so many incidents of police corruption in high places that I can think of (the ones that have been reported by the media), I wish I had the heart to spend a few hours and describe them here. It's depressing. It amazes me that the "outstanding" and revered and overpaid members of society are (almost) always corrupt, immoral and incompetent.

Disclaimer: I am NOT a cop, but I have known cops (and wannabe-cops).

Re:Not the first

[DangerFace]

On the bright side there is an increasing consensus that DNA evidence is a lot less useful than CSI: would have us believe.

It makes sense, really - it takes quite a while and a fairly large sample to sequence someone's genome with proper error checking, so the crime labs generally don't bother. Instead, they focus on a few areas of chromosomes called loci, and pick sections of non-coding DNA called short tandem repeats. US labs will normally look at 13 loci, UK labs 10. Many experts have testified in a court of law, under oath, that a match of nine loci is 'tantamount to unique identification'.

Studies have been done on small sections of some DNA databases, comparing every profile with every other profile, and found this to simply be false. In Arizona 65 493 profiles were made available - 122 pairs matched at nine loci, 20 at ten, 1 at eleven and 1 more at twelve. In Illinois 220 000 were checked, and 903 pairs matched at nine or more loci, and in Maryland 30 000 were checked, providing 32 matching pairs.

Add to this the problem that eyelashes, skin fragments etc can be carried on the wind, or from a random frottage, and we have some important cases being 'solved' with what amounts to deeply circumstantial evidence. With any luck this fascination with DNA being used as the be all and end all, the assayer of truth, will end as soon as possible.

PS: most of that informative stuff about loci and short tandem repeats was pretty much lifted from New Scientist #2742, dated 9 January 2010. IANAGeneticist, and would feel a small pang of guilt without adding this disclaimer.

Re:Not the first

[jimicus]

On the not so bright side, this won't stop the police from turning your life upside down if you happen to be unlucky enough to match someone else in their database - and I speculate that much of what you describe is not terribly well known to the lay person, which would mean that without a hell of a good alibi it could still be enough to get you convicted.

Re:Not the first

[digitig]

On the bright side there is an increasing consensus that DNA evidence is a lot less useful than CSI: would have us believe.

No, that isn't the bright side, and you misunderstand the meaning of "useful" as far as DNA databasing is concerned. As long as the jury believes all that CSI stuff, DNA evidence is just as useful as everyone thinks for getting a conviction, getting the case closed, and making the police's detection statistics look good. The DNA evidence might not be so useful for getting the right person convicted, but that doesn't appear in anybody's performance indicators so that doesn't matter to anybody. Except to the poor sucker put away for a crime they didn't commit, but they're a convict now and nobody cares what they think.

Re:Not the first

[evilbessie]

In other news the pope continues to shit in the woods and bears are catholic.

Re:Not the first

[AGMW]

Let's look at the nasty assassination of the Hamas chap in the middle east. A bunch of people got forged passports to gain entry to the country he was residing in, waltzed into the guy's hotel, off'ed him and strolled out. In and out of the country in a couple of hours, tops. Now had they wanted to it wouldn't have been too much of a stretch for them to pick up some 'genetic material' from the legitimate owners of the passports. Break in to their houses and take some hair from hair brushes, get finger prints from glasses in the pub, etc, etc. Now we could _totally_ frame the legitimate owners of the passports and create enough doubt so if the actual miscreants ever come to court they can obfuscate the case sufficiently to walk free ... obviously in this case they didn't want or need to drop the actual passport owners in the crap 'cos all they wanted to do was off the geezer and get out of the country, but if yer a burglar you should totally rummage through bins for old hair and the like and drop it like confetti whenever yer on the job!

Re:Not the first

[daem0n1x]

I'm glad this is happening in good ol'England, not some European nanny-state, oppressive, Socialist country. I feel a lot safer.

We all know how those nasty commies want to control everything. Can't be too careful.

Re:Not the first

[Rogerborg]

We'll decide what you did after we find you guilty.

Re:Not the first

[Anonymous Coward]

He could have spotted the lie just as soon as they promised him the samples would be removed. Almost everybody on /. knows that it is almost impossible to delete data from fail-over sites, backups, archived data, etc. in a way that one can guarantee that all traces of the data has really been destroyed everywhere...

It probably wouldn't have mattered whether he volunteered his DNA or not. The police generally just tend to sift through peoples garbage or get their samples from other round-about means if they don't have the cooperation of their victims. I'm speaking universally here. The concept of "search warrants" for ANY country is a rather dubious legal claim when the authorities have so many excuses to disregard civil liberties.

Re:Not the first

[MoonBuggy]

Fair point, but there's still a significant difference between "Your data still exists on a backup tape which is currently in storage, half way through it's five-year retention period" and "Your data still exists in a live, searchable database".

I'd consider the former to be a reasonable, but imperfect, effort to comply with the spirit of their promise. The latter, however, is a knowing and outright lie, for which the police should (due to the inherent imbalance of power) be more severely punished than an equivalent 'guy on the street'.

Re:Not the first

[MoonBuggy]

Out of interest, is it in the UK or the US that this applies?

In either case, are there limits on how much they can mislead you? I assume that questions like "Are you lying to me?" or even "Are you permitted to lie to me?" would be about as useful as the apocryphal drug dealer favourite of "You're not a cop, are you?", but what about "Am I being treated as a suspect?". I would imagine that there are rules, as there are for informing people when they're being arrested and why (although we've lost a few of them recently too...), and it'd be interesting to know what the submitter might've been able to do to protect himself.

Re:Not the first

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

The concept of "search warrants" for ANY country is a rather dubious legal claim when the authorities have so many excuses to disregard civil liberties.

What you neglect to say is that of course the same goes for any motivated and funded person/organisation. Hell even a cult could do this (didn't scientology pull something similar a few years back ?)

The point is that if the government does this, and they fail to provide a legal explanation of how they acquired said evidence, that you go free (in western legal systems). No matter how direct the evidence against you that was acquired serrupticiously.

In a hypothetical case if a policeman sees you standing over a dead body with a bloody knife in your hands screaming "I'm glad I killed the bastard", then breaks down the window and arrests you. If it turns out the policeman had no legal reason to be there, they will not only have to let you go free, but they will have to pay for the broken window, and pay for a new shirt that was damaged by the glass.

So the police CAN do this, obviously. But it's futile and dangerous for them. If you commit a crime now, and they base their case against you on DNA evidence, you're automatically innocent.

Re:Not the first

[ThatsNotPudding]

No prosecutor worth their aspiration for higher political office will ever acknowledge any of this. They (and law enforcement in general) need a body count, and a body count they shall have.

Re:Not the first

[L4t3r4lu5]

I was just wondering if the OP wanted to buy a bridge.

Re:Not the first

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a pretty sad fact that it will probably take a few high profile false convictions before this becomes common knowledge to the point that DNA evidence isn't considered bullet-proof in the mind of joe public. One might wonder if it's even in the public interest to plant some DNA evidence from high profile policemen/politicians to hurry things along, not that I'd ever advocate such a measure, obviously!

Re:Not the first

[paiute]

In a hypothetical case if a policeman sees you standing over a dead body with a bloody knife in your hands screaming "I'm glad I killed the bastard", then breaks down the window and arrests you. If it turns out the policeman had no legal reason to be there, they will not only have to let you go free, but they will have to pay for the broken window, and pay for a new shirt that was damaged by the glass.

No legal reason to be where? (I am not a lawyer, nor do I watch any of the current legal/cop shows, as I feel that after LA Law and Homicide that there are just no more story lines to be told.) If a policeman saw you commit a crime through the window, I can't believe there is any jurisdiction that would not allow them to enter your house to apprehend you right than moment.

If you mean what were they doing on your lawn, then maybe you have a chance. If they had a reasonable suspicion that something was wrong and came onto your property to investigate, they are in the clear. If the cop was dating your ex-wife and was just hanging around trying to bully you, maybe not.

Re:Not the first

[delinear]

He could have spotted the lie just as soon as they promised him the samples would be removed. Almost everybody on /. knows that it is almost impossible to delete data from fail-over sites, backups, archived data, etc. in a way that one can guarantee that all traces of the data has really been destroyed everywhere...

It probably wouldn't have mattered whether he volunteered his DNA or not. The police generally just tend to sift through peoples garbage or get their samples from other round-about means if they don't have the cooperation of their victims.

While you're likely right about them finding DNA from other means, if that means is sifting through his garbage then it could matter to the guy if he was actually not guilty. All they can do with "found evidence" such as this is use it to justify bringing in the guy officially and getting a further sample from him at that point if there is a positive match. If there's no positive match, they can't very well store it against his identity because they have no conclusive evidence at that point that it's actually his DNA.

Of course, that doesn't preclude them from following him around until he commits what could be classed as a petty crime (driving offence or something - even a spurious dangerous driving offence which has zero merit would probably be enough) and bringing him in for official sampling at that point, which I guess are the "other round-about means" you mentioned.

Re:Not the first

[delinear]

I'd be surprised if there are any rules of conduct such as this. In the UK (well, in England - I believe the rules are different in Scotland), the police are legitimately allowed to use entrapment without it necessarily affecting the validity of the evidence they gain from it.

Re:Not the first

[mdwh2]

Lying to the police is a serious crime in the UK, and can get you years in prison, even if you are innocent of any other crime. It's a shame it's not a two way thing. (And before anyone points it out, this wouldn't include undercover cases - by cases a police officer makes himself known as such, and lies to the public.)

Re:Not the first

[Animaether]

Now we could _totally_ frame the legitimate owners

Sure.. if you can also somehow magically make them disappear from their work and family who all swear that at the supposed time of the murders, the person in question was working/with their family.

If you can also somehow magically show that although their actual passports were used to re-enter country X, the fact that there are no records of anybody with that passport -leaving- country X for any other country is irrelevant entirely.

If you can also show that that the framed person knew the victim(s) or even had so much as a motive to kill them in the first place.

And so forth. And so on.

Of course there are mistakes being made - I wouldn't know if this is more so with DNA evidence than any other evidence - and that can have horrible ramifications when innocent people are put away or even put to death.. all the more reason to not let DNA evidence be the -only- evidence.
But some people seem to be strongly advocating that DNA evidence should not be used -at all-.. and that, I think, is going off the deep end on the other side of the debate.

Re:Not the first

[mcgrew]

It's good to know that my country isn't the only one with dishonest, lying, theiving cops.

Yes, thieving -- they had this guy's DNA without his permission and outside the law. That's stealing.

Re:Not the first

[Anonymous Coward]

Forget it. You gave it to them. You aren't getting it back. When you can threaten a few rinky-dink pensions, you have a plan. Until then, you're not the highest bidder.

Re:Not the first

[optimus2861]

Studies have been done on small sections of some DNA databases, comparing every profile with every other profile, and found this to simply be false. In Arizona 65 493 profiles were made available - 122 pairs matched at nine loci, 20 at ten, 1 at eleven and 1 more at twelve. In Illinois 220 000 were checked, and 903 pairs matched at nine or more loci, and in Maryland 30 000 were checked, providing 32 matching pairs.

Add to this the problem that eyelashes, skin fragments etc can be carried on the wind, or from a random frottage, and we have some important cases being 'solved' with what amounts to deeply circumstantial evidence. With any luck this fascination with DNA being used as the be all and end all, the assayer of truth, will end as soon as possible.

You say all this as if the police walk into a crime scene having absolutely no clue who the perpetrator could possibly be, taking some DNA samples, running it through the computer, then arresting the resultant match and passing it on to the courts. In reality the list of suspects is going to be considerably narrowed by old-fashioned police work: finding witnesses, finding out the victim's history, looking for motive, etc.

In other words, fat lot of good it's going to do you to claim, "But there's a 0.1% chance that DNA isn't mine!" when you've been spotted leaving the crime scene by a witness, were seen having an argument with the victim a couple days prior, he owed you money, etc. Not to mention that if you go to find those other, say, 30 DNA matches, you find out that 21 of them live hundreds of miles away, 3 of them are in nursing homes, 1 is a kid, 2 are already in prison and have been for years...

Re:Not the first

[elrous0]

That's because an oral promise is worthless when the party making the promise has a huge incentive to break it. It's like all these telco's/cableco's in the U.S. right now objecting to net neutrality laws. Sure, they promise to maintain net neutrality--but the second the FCC or Congress wants to HOLD them to that promise with a law, suddenly they're up in arms. They know a law comes with actual penalties, whereas a promise can be later finessed away with spin into meaninglessness.

Re:Not the first

[mcgrew]

In a police investigation, everyone is a potential suspect.

I once saw a cogent comment here at slashdot: To a cop, there are only three kinds of people -- cops, cops' families, and suspects.

Re:Not the first

[trurl7]

+1 Informative

Re:Not the first

[QuantumRiff]

Thats all well and good, but until you can convince the JURY that CSI is not how things happen in real life, then your screwed. As long as they believe DNA can be gotten in 10 min, and uniquely identify you, then it will be used that way to get convictions.

Re:Not the first

[idontgno]

Well, they just have an unauthorized copy of the DNA. That's not really theft. It's not like they comprehensively deprived him of his only copy of DNA.

Yeah, it's something akin to copyright violation.

I wonder if we should copyright our DNA and strictly control access to it via license?

Re:Not the first

[Anonymous Coward]

However, one might argue that there a margin of error in all evidence and 0.2% error is far better than probably all other types.

Re:Not the first

[TheCarp]

Actually its quite easy to do exactly that....

You place severe criminal penalties on NOT doing it, and the technical people involved will not only figure out how to do it, they will figure out how to change their process from the ground up so that it can be done more easily.

There, problem solved.

I have given this issue some thought before and I think that this would be a ripe area for some activism. If I were asked for such a sample, I would happily agree, so long as the police department, and officers involved signed an agreement that they would be jointly and separately responsible for making sure that my samples and all data about those samples would be destroyed within a specific time period, or else severe penalties would be paid to me.

Secondly, I would want papers, by the DA, granting me immunity from being prosecuted for any crime other than the one at issue, from this particular evidence.

If they plan to destroy the samples, then they should have no problem making such an agreement.

Re:Not the first

[Qzukk]

taking some DNA samples, running it through the computer, then arresting the resultant match and passing it on to the courts.

Yet that's the ONLY reason for such a database to exist.

Re:Not the first

[Maxo-Texas]

Oh come on... are you going to trust what people say over hard evidence?

Are you trying to tell me these hair and other dna found ON THE SCENE along with fingerprints that match your client were planted?

Care to put away the tin foil hat?

Re:Not the first

[TheCarp]

Thats very true.

I heard someone going on about how civilian courts have a better record of conviction and how more "terrroists" were convicted in criminal courts than military trials. This was held up as the civilian courts are better.

Though, thats only a standard of precision, not accuracy!

Yes more were convicted, but, that could easily mean the civilian courts are too quick to convict and don't have an appropriately high standard for evidence. Whats to say thats those outcomes are correct? Does nobody even care?

-Steve

Re:Not the first

[camperdave]

It's identity theft, though.

Re:Not the first

[Golddess]

"DNA does not lie."

Those four words alone could possibly trump any attempt to show a person's innocense by so-called "witnesses" to the person's whereabouts. It's the new "the computer says it, so it must be true"!

Re:Not the first

[IndustrialComplex]

Almost everybody on /. knows that it is almost impossible to delete data from fail-over sites, backups, archived data, etc. in a way that one can guarantee that all traces of the data has really been destroyed everywhere...

Hell I don't even really run a real backup system (Just a few HDs sitting in a closet) but the other day I came across files that I thought were long since lost from 10 years ago when I was curious before formatting and reusing a HDD. Data is amazingly persistent, we just know not to rely on that fact.

It is also amazingly viral, as data gets handed around to third parties, or simply just copied over from one system to the next.

It is the viral aspect that I imagine would bother me the most. Even if I went into their data centers, burned it to the ground, as well as their off-site backup locations, I can't be sure that it hasn't been copied and sent to a third party the instant they received it.

And that third party? Who the hell knows who THEY sent it to.

Re:Not the first

[metamatic]

In the US, police are allowed to lie. They can take you in to the station for a polite chat, turn the tape recorder on, and lie on tape that they have a witness who swears that he saw you do it. The only thing they can't do is threaten you with extrinsic, coercive consequences if you don't talk.

This is one of the reasons why you should never talk to the police without a lawyer.

In the UK, the situation is slightly worse: Not only can the police lie to you, they can also tell you that you may face consequences at trial if you remain silent. However, as in the US, they cannot threaten you by saying they'll do something unless you answer. For full details, see PACE Code C, particularly section 11.

Re:Not the first

[mcgrew]

Well, if I shoplift a CD I have an unauthorized copy of its songs, too. If they take my blood, that's not a copy, it's the original blood.

Re:Not the first

[IndustrialComplex]

Damn I wish I hadn't already posted in this thread or I'd mod you up.

I'm having a hard time of determing that there would be any other use of this system other than:

"This DNA was found at the crime scene, run it through the database.... Ok, looks like Clark Jones is a match. Send someone to his house to question him, or better yet, bring him in to be interrogated."

Just by finding the DNA, you can be sure that the police will spend a little extra time investigating you when otherwise they might not have. As a result, they are spending MORE time investigating a currently circumstantial trail when they normally would collect evidence through a process which has been scientifically vetted to result in locating more appropriate suspects.

Re:Not the first

[sexconker]

In a hypothetical case if a policeman sees you standing over a dead body with a bloody knife in your hands screaming "I'm glad I killed the bastard", then breaks down the window and arrests you. If it turns out the policeman had no legal reason to be there, they will not only have to let you go free, but they will have to pay for the broken window, and pay for a new shirt that was damaged by the glass.

Go directly to jail.
Do not pass GO.
Do not collect $200.

Re:Not the first

[geekoid]

There is no 'increasing consensus' everyone knew it's crap from the begining. bear in mind Consensus means agreed upon by experts in the field.

DNA is a fantastic tool.

Re:Not the first

[Animaether]

DNA does not lie

Short of the DNA being fabricated, or having been contaminated in such a way that would be non-obvious and still lead to matching candidates X, Y and Z... ...are you saying it does lie?

Nobody worth a damn uses, or should use, "The DNA profile matches this random man we plucked off the streets, therefore he did it."

Put differently... say your DNA was on record for whatever reason or non-reason. Now they find some manner of DNA sample where its profile matches yours. Are you now saying that the hard facts that a DNA sample with a profile matching yours are a lie?

It either matches or it doesn't. There's no 'lying' involved there. You would be perfectly well to point out - perhaps citing the aforementioned data - that the DNA sample not only matches you, but a dozen other people as well. You could even suggest that the sample, if in fact a perfect match for yours if such were possible, could have gotten there by some other means - the wind carrying one of your hairs over there - including planting.

But there's no 'lie' in it matching or not - have a lab of your own choice run a DNA matching test. If they come up with a 'no match'.. *then* you can start pondering a lie.. but not a lie of the DNA but a lie of either of the labs / those who write up the official testing results / etc.

could possibly trump

In gross perversions of justice, yes. Do gross perversions of justice happen? Sure. It's a trade-off we make. We send homicidal maniacs back into society because there's some 'reasonable doubt', and we send innocent people off to the slammer because all sorts of evidence points to them, and for whatever reason they've got nothing to counter it with to -cause- a reasonable doubt.

But in any sane court case, just a "we found DNA, extracted a profile, and it matches this guy - we have no further evidence, we have no opportunity, no motive, no means, the guy lives 1500 miles away, he's on CCTV footage of an ATM machine by a bank just 30 minutes before the crime was committed and a bunch of coworkers and a bartender claiming he was in a bar having drinks there until at least 3 hours after the murder, but gosh darnit we have DNA!!!" isn't gonna cut it.

Re:Not the first

[BrokenHalo]

Let's look at the nasty assassination of the Hamas chap in the middle east.

Well, why not? That affair seems entirely dodgy no matter which way you look at it.

For instance, why would Mossad, an organisation recognised internationally as being ruthlessly and surgically precise in its operations feel the need to involve upwards of 26 people to "off" one chap?

I'm no friend of any spook agency, but that cockup has all the hallmarks of "CIA" printed all over it.

Re:Not the first

[Anonymous Coward]

'Conspiracy to Commit Murder' 'Lying to a Police Officer' and 'Perjury under Oath' about sums up how I think they would handle the family/co-worker/etc thing.

Honestly it's not much harder to convict them all and let god sort 'em out, and it's MUCH easier than finding the actual murderers.

Re:Not the first

[Anonymous Coward]

Then we put DRM on it! Yeah, that's the ticket. We take Personal Genome Digital Rights Management treatments (PGDRM) and, if anyone tries to do anything sinister with a copy of our DNA, we lock them out next time it phones home to that new cortex that grew in our brains!

What could possible go wrong...

Re:Not the first

[ls671]

Well I view it as getting a pardon for a criminal offense. Your record is taken off the live database but they still have access to it in case you get caught doing something wrong again... ;-))
 

Re:Not the first

[AK Marc]

Many experts have testified in a court of law, under oath, that a match of nine loci is 'tantamount to unique identification'. Studies have been done on small sections of some DNA databases, comparing every profile with every other profile, and found this to simply be false. In Arizona 65 493 profiles were made available - 122 pairs matched at nine loci, 20 at ten, 1 at eleven and 1 more at twelve. In Illinois 220 000 were checked, and 903 pairs matched at nine or more loci, and in Maryland 30 000 were checked, providing 32 matching pairs.

That's a 99.5% or better match rate. Not "unique" but certainly close enough. DNA isn't used to scan databases and arrest any matches. DNA is used when the husband swears he was at a bar at the time of his wife's death, and there's blood on the murder weapon from the attacker. You take his DNA and see if it matches. There's a 5 in 1000 chance that a stranger would match. Again, not unique, but enough to get a good probability of whether it was the husband, and certainly would exclude him if there wasn't a match.

Re:Not the first

[Anonymous Coward]

You say all this as if the police walk into a crime scene having absolutely no clue who the perpetrator could possibly be, taking some DNA samples, running it through the computer, then arresting the resultant match and passing it on to the courts. In reality the list of suspects is going to be considerably narrowed by old-fashioned police work: finding witnesses, finding out the victim's history, looking for motive, etc.

In other words, fat lot of good it's going to do you to claim, "But there's a 0.1% chance that DNA isn't mine!" when you've been spotted leaving the crime scene by a witness, were seen having an argument with the victim a couple days prior, he owed you money, etc. Not to mention that if you go to find those other, say, 30 DNA matches, you find out that 21 of them live hundreds of miles away, 3 of them are in nursing homes, 1 is a kid, 2 are already in prison and have been for years...

Wow there were a lot of assumptions in that post. So are you saying that the unreliability of DNA evidence would never introduce reasonable doubt?

Re:Not the first

[Cederic]

they can also tell you that you may face consequences at trial if you remain silent.

Actually it's nice of them to do that, because they're right.

Whether that's a good thing is the point to argue, rather than them telling you about it.

Re:Not the first

[honkycat]

Nobody worth a damn uses, or should use, "The DNA profile matches this random man we plucked off the streets, therefore he did it."

"should [not] use" is not much of a comfort when they do it anyway.

Are you now saying that the hard facts that a DNA sample with a profile matching yours are a lie?

Not a lie, but if they're not presented correctly, they can be powerfully misleading. That's just as bad.

It either matches or it doesn't. There's no 'lying' involved there. You would be perfectly well to point out - perhaps citing the aforementioned data - that the DNA sample not only matches you, but a dozen other people as well.

Good luck, I hope the courts don't decide to prevent you from raising that fact. After all, you're not an approved expert witness. Courts have been known to limit what should be reasonable questions of accuracy/efficacy for techniques such as BAC tests and fingerprinting, and they're not showing much sign of being smarter when it comes to DNA evidence either.

But in any sane court case, just a "we found DNA, extracted a profile, and it matches this guy - we have no further evidence, we have no opportunity, no motive, no means, the guy lives 1500 miles away, he's on CCTV footage of an ATM machine by a bank just 30 minutes before the crime was committed and a bunch of coworkers and a bartender claiming he was in a bar having drinks there until at least 3 hours after the murder, but gosh darnit we have DNA!!!" isn't gonna cut it.

I don't find this very reassuring. Not every case is going to be that clear-cut. What if it's just a couple hours away and you happened to be home alone that night. The solution is, as you suggested to start with, that prosecutors should not misuse these techniques in blind searches. But the prosecutor's job is to convict people, so we need to be vigilant to be sure that they remain honest. That means raising hell when DNA (or any technology/method) shows signs of being misused. A guilty man going free is unfortunate, but it's not a gross miscarriage of justice. Using flimsy evidence to convict an innocent person, however, is.

Re:Not the first

[Anonymous Coward]

There are always posts like yours on /. when DNA is mentioned.

Just to clarify, and to ensure you are not just an irrational paranoid, which are the specific cases where DNA evidence has led to wrongful convictions? I ask this because cases in the UK such as the Sally Anne Bowman murder have proved that if anything, DNA evidence retention is a good thing.

I'm sure this will be modded down to oblivion by your fellow paranoids who like wild conjecture, but it would be nice if just for once some sort of proof concerning the Great Police DNA Conspiracy was posted here, rather than statements such as yours. Oh, and for the record, yes it is a fundamental breach of privacy, but sometimes the case for the public good outweighs the rights of the individual.

Incidentally, the original poster shouldn't be that surprised. If you ask a policeman to remove you from the DNA database, he doesn't think "Well, yes, we should remove him, he's obviously not a criminal"; he thinks, "WHY does he want to be removed?"

Re:Not the first

[digitig]

Just to clarify, and to ensure you are not just an irrational paranoid, which are the specific cases where DNA evidence has led to wrongful convictions?

How would we know, if DNA evidence is considered decisive? All I know is that statements that are known to be misleading regarding the significance of DNA evidence are presented to the courts, at least in the UK. I don't know what the consequences are, but I can't help thinking that it's not right and wondering what the reasons are.

Re:Not the first

[kalirion]

What about the defense? How do they prevent the defense attorneys from bringing up the unreliability of DNA evidence? Does the lawyer get disbarred (as I'm assuming he would for mentioning "jury nullification")?

Re:Not the first

[optimus2861]

Not at all; I'm saying the apparent stance of the GP poster, that because DNA matching is not 100% accurate it should not be used by the police/courts, is flat-out stupid. It's a tool, sometimes a very valuable tool, and sometimes subject to abuse, just as any other police power can be. That does not mean you take it away from them, now and forever.

That said, whether or not the police should have a perpetual DNA database of anyone they ever get DNA samples from is a legitimate public policy debate. I'd probably lean toward "no" on privacy grounds, but I'd like to see metrics such as: cases solved using said database that otherwise would not have been, false positives leading to false arrests and/or false convictions, cost of the database, etc.

Re:Not the first

[Anonymous Coward]

But in any sane court case, just a "we found DNA, extracted a profile, and it matches this guy - we have no further evidence, we have no opportunity, no motive, no means, the guy lives 1500 miles away, he's on CCTV footage of an ATM machine by a bank just 30 minutes before the crime was committed and a bunch of coworkers and a bartender claiming he was in a bar having drinks there until at least 3 hours after the murder, but gosh darnit we have DNA!!!" isn't gonna cut it.

Great. Now, tweak it just a tiny bit:
Someone hates you.
They get your DNA off some hair or whatever, and a fingerprints off a glass bottle. they wait until you have a disagreement with someone, then kill that person in the middle of the night, planting your DNA and prints.

What do the cops have?
DNA that matches yours.
Fingerprints that match yours.
You have no alibi (you "claim" to be sleeping at 3am, but...)
You had an argument with the victim, so... motive.

Q: Is that "gonna cut it" in a courtroom? A: People have been hanged for less.

Re:Not the first

[Anonymous Coward]

All I know is that statements that are known to be misleading regarding the significance of DNA evidence are presented to the courts, at least in the UK.

Once again, specific cases please - if you know of "statements known to be misleading", then state which cases.

Tell you what. I just created a working viable cold fusion power source in my garage. Let's not bother with making me prove I'm not talking bollocks.

Re:Not the first

[AmiMoJo]

The DNA profile matches this random man we plucked off the streets

That is the real danger. The police won't bother doing a proper investigation, they will just wait for the CSI guys to find some DNA and get a hit in the database. Why bother wasting time and money trying to come up with suspects, investigate them and build a case when you can just let the DNA do it all for you and even provide the unequivocal proof you need?

Even if you are found innocent your life could be destroyed by the mere allegation or the case itself.

Say you get arrested and can't go to work for a week. Maybe the nature of the case means you can't return to your job until found innocent anyway. Maybe the mere allegation makes your job or entire career untenable even if found innocent. How many schools looking to take on a new teacher will interview someone who Google associates with paedophilia?

Re:Not the first

[Anonymous Coward]

...and strictly control access to it via license?

That's actually a really good idea....

You believed them when the promised?

[nedlohs]

Seriously?

Re:You believed them when the promised?

[internewt]

Seriously?

That was exactly the kind of thing I thought!

Unfortunately the police, with the help of politicians, have thrown away any respect I may have once had for them. If the police came to my house, doing door to door enquiries, then I would not talk to them at all, and I most definitely would not invite them into my home.

The police have become servants of themselves, through the target systems that exist to gauge their performance. They do not respect the communities they police any more, and I think most police would actually laugh at you if you told them they are pubic servants.

ACAB.

At this point, if you are nasty fucking pig or a pig apologist, you set the box below to troll, overrated, offtopic, flamebait, or redundant.

Re:You believed them when the promised?

[MoeDumb]

Could you tell us more about these target systems? Thanks.

Re:You believed them when the promised?

[wizardforce]

Just replace "don't talk to the police" with "don't provide DNA/etc voluntarily to the police." You don't gain anything by talking to the police nor providing genetic evidence without a proper warrant. Different reasons same good advice.

Re:You believed them when the promised?

[Gandalf_Greyhame]

and I think most police would actually laugh at you if you told them they are pubic servants.

I think everyone would laugh at you if you told them that ;)

Re:You believed them when the promised?

[shutdown -p now]

He may have been naive when he did that, but if UK police force is not up to his expectations with that regard, the blame is still with the police, and that's where things should be fixed.

If you don't trust policemen in your country, same logic applies. Why do you give guns (and the discretion to use lethal force) to people who aren't trusted with much more mundane things?

Re:You believed them when the promised?

[GigaplexNZ]

Who says police in my country are given guns and/or the discretion to use lethal force?

Re:You believed them when the promised?

[Anonymous Coward]

Something bugs me whenever someone brings up "don't talk to the police" as a general rule. (Before I go on, let me say that I'm a libertarian and, while I find that the majority of police officers are good and honorable people, no police force is worthy of blind trust and it is every citizen's duty to keep governmental power to a pragmatic minimum.) The OP said that he volunteered the DNA during a murder investigation. Perhaps the victim was someone close to him, and he had an interest in helping the investigation along as much as possible, perhaps even by volunteering evidence so as to eliminate himself as a suspect so the police could move on sooner. How does one balance an altruistic need to volunteer information to the police against the general "don't talk to the police" principle of avoiding self-incrimination?

Re:You believed them when the promised?

[shutdown -p now]

They still have a lot more power over you than a typical citizens, guns or not.

By the way, the fact that NZ policement don't carry guns normally doesn't mean that they cannot, in general. Then, of course, there are the "non-lethal" Tasers, and the good old fashioned batons.

Also, is it really much better if they can only use crippling (and only accidentally lethal) force against you?

Re:You believed them when the promised?

[Anonymous Coward]

How does one balance an altruistic need to volunteer information to the police against the general "don't talk to the police" principle of avoiding self-incrimination?

I don't see the dilemma here. Altruism is the root of all evil. DON'T TALK TO THE POLICE.

Re:You believed them when the promised?

[stupid_is]

I seem to remember there was a case of some sort in Liverpool a while back (possibly a particularly vicious rape) when the police went door-to-door around large parts of the town asking for DNA samples from young men to "eliminate them from enquiries". Denial was probably usually met with increased suspicion.

Re:You believed them when the promised?

[internewt]

Could you tell us more about these target systems? Thanks.

Hmm, there's gotta be a WP article to link to at this point, but I can't find a good 'un.

A lot of game theory was based on the idea that people are not actually altruistic. Combined with the fiefdoms that existed within the UK civil service, the government came up with the idea of creating a Free Market of rewards to measure and assess the performance of state employees.

Massively simplified, if a policeman solves a crime, he gets a point towards his next pay rise or promotion. But it appears that solving something like a rape is worth the same as solving a crime like drug possession. Considering that to solve a rape, it would require many hours of police work, getting an error free case to court, etc.. But solving a case of pot possession is as simple as
"I'm going to search you under section 44". Pat-down... "Is this your weed?"
"Yes"
"Do you accept this police caution"
"Yes"
Case closed, achievement unlocked.

The effect is that the police focus on simple (usually victimless) crimes, not ones that require actual police work!

A real world example of targets being gamed to the detriment of everyone is the target in hospitals to get the time reduced from when someone comes into an A&E department and when they are seen. What some hospitals did was to simply get a nurse to go round the waiting room and greet people. Bang, patients interacted with by medical staff, times reduced, targets hit.

The excellent films by Adam Curtis give a lot of insight into the modern world. The films that make up The Trap talk about targets, and some of their real world consequences.

Re:You believed them when the promised?

[internewt]

Sorry, it's just the state hookers who are the pubic servants![1]

Whilst joking, here's a good 'un:

Why do the police always go round in groups of 3?

One to read anything that could be useful, one to write down anything that could be useful, and one to keep an eye on the two dangerous subversives!

[1] Idea for software, probably patentable, but I am going to release it here into the public domain: spell checkers should flag words that are spelt correctly, but that could still be a typo of another valid word. Maybe underline the unknown words in red, and possible typos in orange. Perhaps the system should only flag words that could carry innuendo, like my public/pubic typo?

Re:You believed them when the promised?

[digitig]

A real world example of targets being gamed to the detriment of everyone is the target in hospitals to get the time reduced from when someone comes into an A&E department and when they are seen. What some hospitals did was to simply get a nurse to go round the waiting room and greet people. Bang, patients interacted with by medical staff, times reduced, targets hit.

More infamously, if they slipped up and let somebody wait for longer than the target time, that person would be lucky to get attended to at all, because the hospital had lost that "point" already and so would concentrate on points that they could still earn. The UK government has largely replaced measurement as a tool of management with measurement as management, in the name of objectivity (making rewards and penalties automatic on the results of measurement, rather than the measurements triggering humans to look at what is going on). The results are not pretty.

Re:You believed them when the promised?

[thasmudyan]

It doesn't really matter whether the majority of police officers are "good and honorable people" (which is probably doubtful anyway since it's a profession that attracts bullies disproportionately). What does matter is that it's their job to get you. That's right, they're out to get you. Any law professor will tell you that they are allowed to lie to you at any time, and do a couple of other things to you, just to catch you for something, preferably for the crime they're investigating. They have no incentive whatsoever to make sure they get the right guy, their only job is to get someone convicted.

Take for example this case. A guy was found stabbed in a cupboard. They had no clue who might have done it. Finally, it was decided that he actually stabbed himself and then put himself in a cupboard. You have to wonder, why did the police go around collecting DNA samples in the first place if there was no foreign DNA on the crime scene to begin with. Clearly, either DNA was collected from random people in the hope of getting them convicted for any other crime, or the final conclusion that the guy stabbed himself is another lie to make their crime solving statistics look good after months of fruitless investigation.

By the way, while the individual likelihood of being misidentified through your DNA markers as a match for one given piece of evidence is very small, your chance "matching" some completely random piece of evidence among the millions they got lying around is actually getting higher with increasing database size. So if your DNA is on file, and is routinely compared to every new piece of evidence that comes in, an individual's chance of being framed by the birthday paradox is higher than one might think.

Re:You believed them when the promised?

[secondhand_Buddah]

Do yourself a favor and watch the video the parent linked to.

Re:You believed them when the promised?

[Hognoxious]

There was similar thing with trains. If a service was late by more than a certain amount of time they'd cancel it, because the fixed penalty for that was lower than the one worked out per minute.

Re:You believed them when the promised?

[digitig]

And busses that didn't stop to pick up passengers because the penalties for late running were more than the fares were worth. All down to making measurement the master, not the servant.

Re:You believed them when the promised?

[Builder]

Ah, but it's worse - catching someone for speeding gets you the same number of points as solving a rape or a murder. Not only that, but it also generates government revenue.

Where do you think the police solve the most crimes then ?

Re:You believed them when the promised?

[Anonymous Coward]

in the UK they collect train statistics with the following rules...
1) Sundays are ignored entirely. BTW Sundays are the busiest day for train travel in the UK
2) cancelled trains are ignored completely
3) arrival up to 10 minutes late = train was on time (they're campaigning for the time limit to
be increased to 30 minutes)
4) an arbitrary number of days can simply be deemed to be 'void' and ignored. Most train
companies 'void' around 90 days per year.

Most companies have also dramatically increased the posted journey times on many routes.
So a trip that would have been advertised during the 80s as taking an hour will be advertised as
taking 1 hour 30 minutes. This means when you plan a multi-hop journey you'll spend an
inordinate amount of time waiting for you next connection.
They also try to stop you just getting the 'next one to arrive' by forcing you to specify in advnce
the exact trains you'll be taking on the most common cheapest tickets. You got to pay triple if
you want to pick and choose a route 'as you go'.

Despite all this, some companies still only reach 90% punctuality

Re:You believed them when the promised?

[HungryHobo]

It's almost funny:
I spent a lot of the summer reading about AI and the various problems you can run into trying to train your AI to do a task. Quite often it will find a flaw in your measurement system.
Example: a robotic vacume cleaner which gets points for picking up dust... but no penalty for dumping its dust so it just dumps and picks up the same stuff in a loop.

Now machines do this mindlessly and with no malice.

Humans do the exact same thing knowing fully that they're screwing everyone else.

Re:You believed them when the promised?

[Anonymous Coward]

"So if your DNA is on file, and is routinely compared to every new piece of evidence that comes in, an individual's chance of being framed by the birthday paradox is higher than one might think."

This is also the reason I'm so adamantly opposed to collection of my fingerprints as well as my DNA. Of course I'd like to help the police solve crimes. I feel it is my civic duty. But as rare as the cases are, I also know that innocent people have been accused or convicted of serious crimes on the basis of such evidence. The example that really bothers me for fingerprints is the case of Brandon Mayfield, but there are plenty of others, including people on death row.

We're told by some people that the innocent have nothing to fear. This just isn't true.

Even so, my sense of duty is pretty strong. If I were asked for a sample for an investigation as the submitter was, I'd have my lawyer involved. There would be a contract specifying the terms under which the sample was provided, an agreement for the subsequent sample and data destruction when the investigation ends, and some kind of penalty if the agreement wasn't followed. While such a contract wouldn't solve all problems, it might get the police to take the terms more seriously (Can't sign an agreement with these terms? No sample.), and if the terms weren't followed by the police I'd sue for breach of contract -- not much consolation if I was being falsely accused of a crime, but I'll take what I can get. I'm not a lawyer, but maybe the contract could be specified in such a way that the evidence would be excluded from use in any circumstance except the narrow one for which the samples were provided.

Re:You believed them when the promised?

[Hognoxious]

There was also the target of reducing the length of time that people were on waiting lists. This was achieved by having a waiting list for places on the waiting list.

I wonder if someone made a mistake and thought "Yes, Minister" was a training video not satire.

Re:You believed them when the promised?

[jisatsusha]

Small clarification, but the vast majority of police in the uk do not carry guns. When arms are involved, specialised armed response teams are called. The uk is fairly unique in that respect.

Re:You believed them when the promised?

[FuckingNickName]

Of course I'd like to help the police solve crimes. I feel it is my civic duty.

Noooo. I think you have an honourable ideal which, via a fallacious appeal to authority, has led you to an incorrect conclusion. It may be your civic duty to help stop crime, when your circumstances have given you unique access to something, but that does not translate into helping the police, merely helping the victim. This means getting the police involved when you have something, but not allowing the police to get involved with you just because they think they have something.

For example, a month ago I found a large amount of money on the ground. It was entirely appropriate to report that I had found it, because otherwise it would have probably been blown away and collected in smaller amounts. I had a unique access to something, and my involving the police provided a central point of contact for someone perhaps not very well off who may have been desperately searching for this wad of cash which he had carelessly allowed to fall out of his pocket.

The best-case scenario is that no-one comes forward and I get to legally keep it (this was the outcome - woot). The worst-case scenario is that someone was going to report a serious crime involving the loss of money, and then my fingerprints etc would probably be requested as these would have been on the cash and would have to be eliminated. I abhor the idea of the police collecting my DNA, especially because I know it will never really be erased, but I took the risk because I thought the alternative - someone desperate losing a large amount of money because of my concern for myself - was worse.

There would be a contract specifying the terms under which the sample was provided, an agreement for the subsequent sample and data destruction when the investigation ends, and some kind of penalty if the agreement wasn't followed.

Yes, please do "have your lawyer involved", as he will very quickly explain to you that statute overrides contract, especially when it comes to the privileges of the police :-). If you think you can cut a deal with them, you are forgetting that you are not dealing with a civilian subject to the same laws as you. Sure, they might sign an agreement [they know has no legal force], and you might try to sue for breach, and you might have more lawyers than Her Majesty's police service, but if the police have statute to override your contract, you will have just earned yourself a very expensive lesson in imbalance of power.

Re:You believed them when the promised?

[Dun Malg]

Sorry, but whatever fantasies you may have that the NZ police are limited to strong language and stern looks are somewhat inaccurate. Granted you apparently have to start shooting indiscriminately before the lethal force comes out, but the do, in fact, have the discretion to use it.

Re:You believed them when the promised?

[delinear]

That's the thing - while the submission may be voluntary, there are numerous little ways in which the police can make your life uncomfortable if you fail to comply. Nobody wants to turn up at work with a police tail, for instance, or have an officer drag you off for questioning in front of all your friends and family at a gathering such as a wedding, or even to be picked up on every petty little violation - 1mph over the speed limit? You're coming with us, son.

Of course, the stock response is always "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about", which is patently absurd. On the most basic level it neglects to consider false positive DNA matches (which become incresingly likely the more of the population are in the database), that's without even considering the much more serious possibility of accidental or even deliberate cross contamination.

Re:You believed them when the promised?

[dkleinsc]

There's a rather large group of citizens that should in fact never talk to cops, namely people who are already criminals in the eyes of the police. For instance, I as a relatively clean-cut white guy from a fairly nice neighborhood can talk to police to report a crime and be reasonably assured as to my safety. A black guy from the projects, on the other hand, does not have that luxury.

Re:You believed them when the promised?

[stupid_is]

Oh, I agree. Just citing an example where the police deliberately cast the net hugely with the primary purpose of catching someone rather nasty, but with the secondary effect of profiling a large part of the city - despite a large proportion of those being questioned not being anywhere near under suspicion.

Saying that, looking at the data(source), there doesn't seem to be that much of a spike in the merseyside data, so I guess not that many folks complied

Re:You believed them when the promised?

[noidentity]

I look at it like this: the job of police is to find perpetrators of crime. They do this by collecting evidence. In some situations, they can best collect evidence by telling lies.

The police's job isn't to be anyone's friend. I can lie to people as well, for my own reasons, and in general it's not illegal. Nobody is under any obligation to answer truthfully either, or even talk to me. The same with police. They try to find things out using various means, and you are free to tell them to buzz off (unless they're giving your orders, in which case you should comply).

Re:You believed them when the promised?

[david_thornley]

A friend of mine, who works in a government health department, had to get "pubic" and "statue" removed from the spell-checker dictionary. People in the department were typing "public health statute" all the time, and apparently missed letters now and then.

Re:You believed them when the promised?

[u-235-sentinel]

That's right, they're out to get you. Any law professor will tell you that they are allowed to lie to you at any time, and do a couple of other things to you, just to catch you for something, preferably for the crime they're investigating. They have no incentive whatsoever to make sure they get the right guy, their only job is to get someone convicted.

and it's not even against the law unless it turns into perjury in the court.

Re:You believed them when the promised?

[Anonymous Coward]

(which is probably doubtful anyway since it's a profession that attracts bullies disproportionately)

[citation needed]

Re:You believed them when the promised?

[Anonymous Coward]

They likely collected DNA samples from people around because it was expedient. They didn't want to wait the month for the samples from the scene to get analyzed to determined there were 2 different samples of DNA in the area and find out people had skipped town, they likely said "Hey, there's a murder, you were around, if you volunteer DNA we won't have to come back with a warrant for it if it shows there's two samples on site and you'll be cleared immediately. Don't worry, it won't be stored anywhere because you'll never be a suspect." But then they have to enter him as a suspect to get it processed and it stays in the database because he was listed as a suspect while all samples from the scene and his were being run.

Re:You believed them when the promised?

[thasmudyan]

They didn't want to wait the month for the samples from the scene to get analyzed to determined there were 2 different samples of DNA in the area and find out people had skipped town[...]

No, that was not the case. There was a lot of time between the analysis of the crime scene and the collection of random DNA samples. From TFA:

"Over the course of a year they advertised for witnesses many times, offered rewards and interviewed all his neighbours many times. I wasn’t interviewed as I’d been living in Bristol at the time. Eventually, they phoned me up and asked I’d mind helping them out. It was clear they were scraping the bottom of the barrel."

Re:You believed them when the promised?

[careysub]

How does one balance an altruistic need to volunteer information to the police against the general "don't talk to the police" principle of avoiding self-incrimination?

Unfortunately, the answer has to be: you don't. (BTW, did you listen to the "Don't talk to the police" video? Everyone should.)

As a first approximation (without the benefit of law school and years as a practicing attorney, or years as a police detective this is what you have to go on) you must assume that law enforcement and the criminal justice system turns every expectation you have of fairness and reasonable behavior on its head.

It is as simple as this - if you are completely innocent of any wrong doing and tell nothing but the absolute objective truth, and the police come upon an erroneous piece of information (say, a mistaken witness) that contradicts anything you say, then the contradiction with the false data can by itself send you to jail. There is no way to protect yourself against this.

Re:You believed them when the promised?

[nelsonal]

Since the same people who set the goals spend the revenue that might be a feature rather than a bug.

Re:You believed them when the promised?

[Anonymous Cowpat]

Nonetheless, there ARE police with guns, and the legal situation is that they may use lethal force if they think it's necessary, and that decision is basically unquestionable. You can't go to court and argue the question of whether the force was necessary, only the question of whether the officer thought that it was necessary.

This is why there have been repeated screw-ups with armed police shooting innocent, unarmed people (or threatening to do same) and, in my living memory, a sum total of 0 prosecutions over it.

Re:You believed them when the promised?

[The Wild Norseman]

Altruism is the root of all evil.

Wait a second. I thought the love of money was the root of all evil. And since I happen to love money for it's sake...

I AM SO SCREWED!!

Re:You believed them when the promised?

[infinite9]

The workers at my local Wendy's developed an odd behavior. On occasion, whenever we would go through the drive-through, we'd see one of the workers lean out the window and lower a bucket almost to the ground. When they did this, they'd wrap a towel around the handle so that they could drop the bucket lower than their arms would normally reach. After seeing this for months, we asked the regional manager about it (we had gotten to know him over a couple years). His response was to thank us for (unintentionally) ratting out the other workers. Turns out there was a "car detector" at the cashier window that measured how long the customers waited. By dropping the metal bucket out the window, they could reset the timer and get better numbers.

Re:You believed them when the promised?

[Cytotoxic]

This is the classic "you get what you measure" trap. There are always unintended consequences when you incentivise by the numbers. I used to provide a lot of the measures used for incentives in a large sales organization. Since it was a commission based business, the consequences of bad incentive plans were very easy to see.

We instituted a bonus for each contract signed. Sounds simple, but what happened is that the sales associates realized that this was an opportunity and began breaking contracts into smaller and smaller pieces. So where we might have had one large contract before, now we had 10 at the minimum profit allowable. And since there is overhead to each contract, we lost a boatload of money on the deal, not including the money for incentives.

And it doesn't even have to be about money (directly). We built a report that showed activity in the database by employee in 5 minute increments. From this you could see when they were working and when they were goofing off. About 2 weeks after introducing the report, activity on the server shot through the roof and brought our systems to a crawl. It turns out that someone figured out that if you just hold down "F5" (refresh), you'll get lots of activity all day. So they'd put something on the keyboard while they went to the restroom or for coffee. Meanwhile, their computer is issuing dozens of page requests per second. Multiply this by a large user base and Boom!, we managed to DOS ourselves! Genius!

Re:You believed them when the promised?

[Anonymous Coward]

Other way around: the coroner decided that the guy had had a stroke and, confused, crawled into the cupboard. The skewer had been stored in that cupboard and he either skewered himself while crawling in, or did so after getting into the cupboard.

Re:You believed them when the promised?

[JackStrap]

Airlines in the US work in a similar manner. They get dinged by the FAA if they have too many "late" flights. If your flight is already late, then they no longer care about getting you where you need to be. I was on such a flight: we were short 1 or 2 flight crew to be allowed to board and depart. In the mean time, a plane for another flight was having mechanical issues, so they gave our plane to the other flight. So now, we had the appropriate flight crew but no plane... The kicker, they didn't even give us vouchers for our trouble...

Re:You believed them when the promised?

[HungryHobo]

Wait.... you handed in a big wad of money to the police and it didn't disappear into the ether?
Good god!

I've heard enough stories along those lines and hardly any of them ever seem to involve the money going to the person who handed it in (more than one of these stories being from cops) that I feels somehow that such police departments deserve to be added to some kind of whitelist of unusually honest stations.

Re:You believed them when the promised?

[mog007]

Giving the police your DNA, when you're not a suspect, slows down the investigation.

Think about it. If you refuse, and they actually suspect you, then the cops will try to find enough evidence to get the warrant. Assuming they don't falsify the evidence, it wouldn't point to you, but a genuine suspect, which means they're a step closer in the right direction.

Not helping the police do their job doesn't just help you, it helps the police do their job.

Re:You believed them when the promised?

[FuckingNickName]

FWIW, I'm in England and the usual protocol here if you report by telephone is that you are responsible for safeguarding the goods until the waiting period is up.

Re:You believed them when the promised?

[GigaplexNZ]

Sorry, but whatever fantasies you may have that the NZ police are limited to strong language and stern looks

They also have batons, pepper spray and more recently tasers. There is an armed offenders squad (a rudimentary equivalent to SWAT) and certain higher ranking officers can carry a gun in a locked compartment in their car, but the typical police officer does not carry a gun.

Re:You believed them when the promised?

[AmiMoJo]

The police in the UK don't need any such tactics because once arrested you HAVE to give them DNA. It's a legal requirement, and they get to put it in the database.

The police have said publicly that anyone who refuses to give a voluntary DNA sample when asked to will need to explain themselves, and thus becomes a suspect. They don't need any more than that to arrest you.

The DNA database is the one of the police's main tools these days. As of 2009, 2.5 trillion database searches had been made. Refusal to give DNA is pretty much an admission of guilt as far as they are concerned.

Re:You believed them when the promised?

[nedlohs]

Because I live in the real world.

I don't get to choose who gets given guns (and the discretion to use lethal force).

Society has decided (since there is no outcry over it) that since lying helps them "solve" cases they can do it as they please.

Just like society has decided that it is OK for politicians to lie and doesn't expect them to actually do what they said they would - since they elect them again next time.

Ask 20 random people "should a police officer be allowed to lie to a terrorist suspect in order to get information from them? How about a murder suspect?" I suspect most will say "yes and yes". So here they are lying (about keeping the data) in order to get DNA information from a suspect.

And yes, he was a suspect, they were not trying to eliminate some of dozens of DNA samples they found at the scene. They were trying to find who did it.

Re:You believed them when the promised?

[jrumney]

Void days do cost them though - they have to give a discount to season pass holders the next time they renew if they've had void days in the previous period.

Re:You believed them when the promised?

[Builder]

It's a 'feature' if you're running the show. If you're a shitizen being governed by the show, it's a bug :D

We really need to move to an 'Open Source' government where as users we can fix these bugs. But most people are too dumb to vote, and those who do just vote for either of the two main parties.

Hairdressers

[rtb61]

I would think you would have more to fear from your barber and a possible black market in DNA traces, for investigative misdirection. Who else might become suspect, doctors, are hospitals removing all samples or are they being put on file as well. Even public transport might be considered an unsafe DNA dispersal risk location.

Re:Hairdressers

[Pinky's Brain]

If you're not in the database then you won't need to fear a planted sample either. Not being in the database reduces your risk both from false positive and from planted sample ... being in the database is a pure lose/lose situation.

Re:Hairdressers

[grim-one]

I don't know about you but I don't give my name and number to my barber. I also pay in cash only.

Re:Hairdressers

[Lemming Mark]

Well, presumably the police having your DNA *on file* increases the likelihood that you'll be hauled in by them for other things, should there be a spurious match (say). And regardless, if they're keeping personal information they promised not to keep then that's a serious moral issue regardless of the practical consequences - can people trust the police at their word? Should they?

Re:Hairdressers

[BlackBloq]

The barbers hairs would have sharp cut ends like that made by scissors and no follicle. So he/she would have to pluck one or get a loose one. Walk bye plucking?

Re:Hairdressers

[Anonymous Coward]

You missed the point.

If your DNA is on file with the police, someone could take some of your hair from a barber and leave it at the scene of a crime. Then when they compare that hair sample with their database, your name will come up.

Re:Hairdressers

[ArsenneLupin]

Around here, some hairdressers are so busy that you need an appointment. So you need to at least give first name.

And possibly also a number, just in case they need to call you back if they have to move your appointment for whatever reason.

Re:Hairdressers

[martin-boundary]

So you need to at least give first name.

Then make them happy. Tell them you're Tony Blair.

Re:Hairdressers

[Anonymous Coward]

Bah, I own a pair of clippers and cut my own hair!

You can't be too paranoid these days ;-)

Re:Hairdressers

[Anonymous Coward]

Golden Rule #1 - NEVER help the UK Police, NEVER NEVER EVER talk / offer / assist the UK Police. NEVER

Re:Hairdressers

[iphinome]

No

Re:Hairdressers

[delinear]

I just let my hair grow, it's extra insulation against microwaves as well as reducing chafing from my tinfoil hat. Sounds like you're not too paranoid enough!

Re:Hairdressers

[delinear]

There would be plenty of loose hairs collected when they initially brush the hair - and a freshly cut hair doesn't necessarily preclude that it came from a criminal who'd had a hair cut within the last fews days so wouldn't necessarily rule it out as evidence, it's just one more thing for a good defence lawyer to pick them up on.

Re:Hairdressers

[Anonymous Coward]

My barber doesn't know my name, SSN, drivers license number or anything else, and I pay in cash. She just gets some hair from some random guy off the street, one of many.

Re:Hairdressers

[ukbazza]

Then make them happy. Tell them you're Tony Blair.

I wouldn't tell anyone that if they were holding a sharp pair of scissors.

Re:Hairdressers

[rtb61]

The idea is, they shouldn't become to reliant upon a single piece of evidence. You should not be automatically declared guilty because they found a single hair follicle at the scene of a crime. The DNA database concept is all about lazy policing and lazy prosecution, about looking good at promotion time rather than pursuing and proving the truth. The reality is you want a better justice system, don't look for the easy dumb solutions, start penalising people for false prosecution, hold them personally accountable for passing sentence upon innocent people. Police should really have nothing to do with prosecution, they should be neutral investigators who compile all the evidence for and against and let the prosecution and the courts sort it out focus upon building trust with the community rather than seeking promotion by attacking it.

Re:Hairdressers

[AmiMoJo]

But if the criminal is also not on the database and knows that the first thing the police will do when they find a DNA sample at the scene is ask everyone in the area to "volunteer" for testing then you are at risk if you are on the database or not.

Anyone planning a serious crime would do well to gather lots of DNA samples (hair, skin, spit, maybe even swab some urine from a public toilet) and then spread them liberally around the crime scene. Even if they did become the number one suspect based on other evidence the existence of lot's of other people's DNA at the scene could be a powerful argument for the defence. At the very least the police would have to waste a lot of time an energy ruling all the others out, which in practice will probably be impossible, especially if some of them are not already on the database.

Condition for Non-Retention

[kandela]

Data should not be retained if the condition of obtaining it was that it would not be retained. Anything else is immoral, and should be illegal.

Re:Condition for Non-Retention

[PCRanger]

The European Court of Human Rights ruled that the blanket policy currently in place in the UK for retention of DNA and fingerprint samples is not legal for non-convicted persons, let alone those just offering up a sample to help in a particular case. The implications of keeping this data when it should be destroyed could be catastrophic for both the police and the government, as people will be less willing to offer up samples to assist in elimination of suspicion after reading stories such as this one.

Re:Condition for Non-Retention

[delinear]

It was reported at the end of last year that the government was recommending the DNA of "innocent" people only be kept on record for 6 years. Seriously, if you're helping the police by offering sample DNA, their duty of responsibility to you should be to test it and eliminate it from their enquiries as soon as possible. What possible reason could they have for keeping it for 6 years, let alone being able to automatically cross search that DNA on non-related offences without your prior knowledge or permission.

Re:Condition for Non-Retention

[mcgrew]

Anything else is immoral, and should be illegal.

There's nothing immoral about smoking marijuana, but it's illegal. There's nothing illegal about adultery, but it's immoral. Since when has there been any connection between "legal" and "moral"?

Re:Condition for Non-Retention

[kandela]

You'll note I said should.

Perhaps you should delve into the history of law if you don't know the answer to that question though. The idea that good laws have their foundations in bad morals is very old.

Freedom is a lie

[Anonymous Coward]

Its funny. Im a Brit living abroad in a former soviet Country for the last two years, and the more I see the more I realise how big our illusion of freedom is in the UK.

We have more Security Cameras than anyone. Our government wants to record every website, email and text number used. We are profiled beyond compare.. Even our internet private is monitored..
1984 :)

You have more chance of being free elsewhere.

Re:Freedom is a lie

[Anonymous Coward]

I've considered relocating to the UK, I'd be bringing jobs not taking jobs. I have to admit my two biggest concerns are the crippling taxes, everything seems to be taxed, and the feeling of being under a microscope. I love the country but those two things make relocating there a tough choice. In truth I'm not sure which one concerns me more.

Re:Freedom is a lie

[Anonymous Coward]

Its funny. Im a Brit living abroad in a former soviet Country for the last two years, and the more I see the more I realise how big our illusion of freedom is in the UK.

You may want to wait till that former Soviet country has the same surveillance budget as the UK, and then compare.

I'm not necessarily saying it'll be worse mind you. Some former CCCP members suffered enough that they know what they need to avoid. They have no delusions of how corruption follows unchecked power. No "it can't happen here" mentality. Yet. But give it a little longer to achieve economic parity, and get another generation away from the Troubles, and then make a fair comparison.

Re:Freedom is a lie

[Anonymous Coward]

This is how tax on $50,000 would come down living in Connecticut:
Fed Tax: 15% (filing as head of household)
State Tax: 6%
Social Security: 7.5%
Medicare: 1.75%
Total: 30%

average income tax + national insurance in the uk: 29.8%

and the "feeling of being under a microscope" isn't as bad as the internets make it sound

Re:Freedom is a lie

[Hognoxious]

I wouldn't take much comfort from the absence of security cameras. There's no need for them if the police can just beat a confession out of anyone they don't like.

Re:Freedom is a lie

[jez9999]

But compare our petrol (gas) taxes to those of the US. :-)

Re:Freedom is a lie

[xaxa]

Yeah, but compare our public transport, healthcare, welfare system, road safety, crime levels, etc with those of the US ;-)

Re:Freedom is a lie

[Anonymous Coward]

You are an idiot.

Currently we are a discussion on what rights there are around storing DNA in the UK. This will eventually find a sensible balance. It probably won't be resolved until someone has their improperly collected DNA used against them in a court. In the meantime, the issue is discussed freely in the media, Parliament, the Lords and in Europe. This is not the illusions of freedom. This is freedom in a modern, mature democracy.

If you are unfortunate enough to find yourself in trouble with the police in your 'free' former Soviet country, I hope you have sufficient money / contacts to get out of trouble.

Indications of the slashdot 'freedom' idiot:

1) Wittering on about security cameras. There are two options here, either you're so much cleverer than everyone else who has failed to spot / understand the potential problems with the cameras, or everybody else knows that they are so useless that their only use is to deter chavs.

2) Quoting 1984. A book that you've obviously never read nor have the faintest idea of the contents of.

Re:Freedom is a lie

[Anonymous Coward]

Watch what happens to that number if you make it to over £37,400 and start paying at the 40% rate.

Re:Freedom is a lie

[Anonymous Coward]

but generally, and it's true about both US and a large part of Western Europe, especially UK, we are heading in a very wrong direction with our systems of government... i mean:

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

and I believe every single word of the above quote...

Re:Freedom is a lie

[Hognoxious]

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

and I believe every single word of the above quote...

Do you believe that Benjamin Franklin wrote it? Hate to break it to you, but he didn't. It should have "essential" and "temporary" in it.

Back in the real world, anybody who isn't a hermit or Robinson Crusoe gives up some liberty to gain some safety.

Re:Freedom is a lie

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you telling me you just realized this? As a basic rule of thumb, the bigger and more powerful the government, the less freedom. Without even getting out the calculator, all of the world superpowers are right off the freedom list.

Re:Freedom is a lie

[I confirm I'm not a]

Since income tax is a marginal tax, your average tax burden would increase slightly. You wouldn't be paying 40% of your total income in tax (and never would: paying nearly 40% tax on total income only becomes a possibility as your income approaches infinity).

Re:Freedom is a lie

[dunkelfalke]

No, he isn't. Speaking as another former Soviet citizen I can attest that in some things people were more free there, especially in the eighties. Stalin died in 1953, you know.

Re:Freedom is a lie

[Anonymous Coward]

So your defense of all those camera's is that people already know the problems with them and that they are a clever ruse to deter criminals?

You may value your practical freedom, but you seem to have no concept of the abstract idea.

It's okay to put in a system design to spy on me because it isn't very effective? What happens if it become more effective? Do you take them down? Do you get upset? How would you know?

Your right that we do not live in "old school soviet russia", but do not pretend that your government isn't trying for the exact same thing. They are just taking a soft approach.

Frankly, I'd prefer the government to be heavy handed in this regard so that people like you do not lull yourselves into happy dreams while the government systematically removes all our chances of resistance.

Re:Freedom is a lie

[mdwh2]

It probably won't be resolved until someone has their improperly collected DNA used against them in a court.

No, it already was resolved, by European courts ruling the retention of DNA to be illegal. What's changed? Nothing.

In the meantime, the issue is discussed freely in the media, Parliament, the Lords and in Europe.

Oh that's okay then, it can be "discussed". What good does that do?

This is not an isolated case either - from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8434713.stm , "The average removal rate is only 22%, with six forces not removing any."

I have no idea if the OP's comparison to the country he lives in his valid, but I'll take the opinion of someone who's lived in both countries, over you.

There are two options here, either you're so much cleverer than everyone else who has failed to spot / understand the potential problems with the cameras, or everybody else knows that they are so useless that their only use is to deter chavs.

If they're so useless, what's the point in having them? And evidence that they reduce crime by deterrence? And where do you get the idea that no one other than the OP disagrees with them?

Re:Freedom is a lie

[Ma8thew]

Have you got a citation for the UK having the most CCTV cameras?

Re:Freedom is a lie

[moeinvt]

"It should have "essential" and "temporary" in it. Back in the real world, anybody who isn't a hermit or Robinson Crusoe gives up some liberty to gain some safety."

As you correctly point out, Franklin (who, by all accounts was a real person living in the real world) condemned sacrificing ESSENTIAL Liberty for the sake of TEMPORARY safety. I'm not sure what you're implying with your Robinson Crusoe example. Are you suggesting that the idea of "liberty" in some absolute form implies anarchy and disregard for the lives and property of others? One of the most fundamental concepts of libertarianism is that one person's liberty stops at the point when pursuing their own self interest infringes on the liberty of someone else. There is absolutely no parallel between accepting the limitations of a system of mutual respect among citizens and accepting a police state.

P.S. to the O.P. If you're going to "quote" someone, at least try to get it right, otherwise make it clear that you're paraphrasing.

Re:Freedom is a lie

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, technically if you earn a million pounds in a year, you'd be paying something in the region of £385k just on the portion over £37.5k per year, and over £390k if you add on the remainder, so to all intents and purposes, while that's still a considerable sum, it's a long way off infinity and still realistically equates to 40%.

Re:Freedom is a lie

[Hognoxious]

I'm not sure what you're implying with your Robinson Crusoe example. Are you suggesting that the idea of "liberty" in some absolute form implies anarchy and disregard for the lives and property of others?

No. Here's a hint: when I see a name I haven't heard of, I use Google.

There is absolutely no parallel between accepting the limitations of a system of mutual respect among citizens and accepting a police state.

I don't recall anybody saying there was. While you're a-googling-oh, you might want to check out "false dichotomy" and "strawman"

P.S. Don't you think that you're being a little naïve with that "mutual respect"? What if someone doesn't want to play nice?

Re:Freedom is a lie

[I confirm I'm not a]

True, but £1 million p.a. is, for intents and purposes, approaching infinity for the vast majority of the UK workforce. £610,000 net is not what most of us would call poor ;-) That's ~20x higher than my last UK (gross) salary. Assuming you managed to "only" spend half your salary you'd still have enough left over to buy a decent house outright - 2 or 3 decent houses if you were buying outside the South of England.

Re:Freedom is a lie

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, on £100k Tax + NI only gets to about 36.4%. 0-2440, free 2441-37400: £6992 37401-100,000: £25039.6 NI=£4377 Total: £36408.6 That's 3.6 whole percentage points away on total income. Great point!

Re:Freedom is a lie

[AK Marc]

Are you suggesting that the idea of "liberty" in some absolute form implies anarchy and disregard for the lives and property of others?

Suggesting? He's explicitly stating that, and I'm agreeing with him 100%.

One of the most fundamental concepts of libertarianism is that one person's liberty stops at the point when pursuing their own self interest infringes on the liberty of someone else.

It's in my self interest to breath. It infringes on my liberty to have someone else's waste CO2 dumped into the air from their lungs into my area. So, either people stop breathing so I have the liberty of not being subjected to their waste gases, or we'll have to agree that the only way for "liberty" to exist is when there exists only one person on the planet.

Re:Freedom is a lie

[Anonymous Coward]

He is probably basing it on the piece of research which was based on counting the number of CCTV cameras on two streets in London and somehow got extrapolated up to a figure for the entire country.

NEVER talk to the police.

[jcr]

Watch and learn.

-jcr

Re:NEVER talk to the police.

[Manip]

This doesn't apply in the UK. If you don't tell the police a mitigating piece of evidence you cannot use it in court later.

Re:NEVER talk to the police.

[Skreems]

Tell it to them WHEN? If you can't wait long enough to have a lawyer present without giving up your right to mount a full legal defense, then the UK system is even more broken than the US one.

Re:NEVER talk to the police.

[naeone]

"You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you may later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence." they only imply that they will infer your guilt due to silence, doesnt mean its true though or proper or right, but LOL you belived a police man LOL (not you strictly but OP)

Re:NEVER talk to the police.

[jcr]

This doesn't apply in the UK.

Yes, it does. Even in the UK, you have the right to remain silent.

-jcr

Re:NEVER talk to the police.

[91degrees]

You can. The problem is that the jury is allowed to draw conclusions from the fact that you didn't mention it.

Re:NEVER talk to the police.

[Anonymous Coward]

No inferences may be drawn, however, if you were not given an opportunity to consult a solicitor prior to being questioned.

if you are questioned after charge, the caution is simply that anything you say may be used in evidence but that you do not have to say anything (as above). This is because there is no provision in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 for inferences to be drawn from silence after charge.

Re:NEVER talk to the police.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it's amazing how many experts on the UK there are, most of whom have never been there and couldn't even point to it on a map.

Care to take a guess what country he's from?

Re:NEVER talk to the police.

[cerberusss]

doesnt mean its true though or proper or right, but LOL you belived a police man LOL (not you strictly but OP)

Are you 14 or something? This is slashdot, home of geeks between 20 and 70. Could you please turn up the spelling knob?

Re:NEVER talk to the police.

[Anonymous Coward]

No no no! Let's clear this up once and for all. IANAL but I am a English officer of the law. A PACE caution says "1) You do not have to say anything, 2) but it may harm your defence if you do not mention something that you later rely on in court. 3) Anything you do say may be given in evidence".

In relation to the three points, this means:

1) Exactly what it means. You don't have to say anything. BUT...
2) If you choose not to answer questions during police interviews but later provide answer to the same the questions in court, a judge can direct a jury to consider whether they think you were lying (eg so you have time to make up an answer). A jury are not allowed to do this unless a judge directs them to, which will normally follow legal arguments.
3) Anything you disclose can be brought up in court proceedings.

That's all. There also exists another provision called a Special Warning which can be used under certain limited circumstances. If this happens, you MUST be advised you are being given a special warning and de-warned when questions relating to the topic that the Warning relate to are complete. The difference is that the Police must specifically record that the Warning was given and it is brought to the Judge's attention. Most police don't realise they have these provisions and they are rarely used.

Re:NEVER talk to the police.

[squizzar]

So as I understand it - from what I thought was 'if you do not mention when questioned something that you later rely on in court' you should make sure that you mention in a police interview anything that you may wish to mention in court. Am I right in presuming that you are entitled to a solicitor during a police interview?

Wikipedia seems to back this up - "Adverse inferences may be drawn in certain circumstances where before or on being charged, the accused fails to mention a specific fact which he later relies upon and which in the circumstances at the time the accused could reasonably be expected to mention. If this failure occurs at an authorised place of detention (e.g. a police station), no inferences can be drawn from any failure occurring before the accused is allowed an opportunity to consult a legal advisor. Section 34 of the 1994 reverses the common law position that such failures could not be relied upon." - so basically there should be no prejudice if you don't answer or state anything until you have a lawyer present, but if you decide to mention it in court having not mentioned it during police questioning then the jury may infer that there was some reason or motive for you not mentioning it earlier

To be fair this seems pretty reasonable. However if I get arrested I will not be answering any questions until a solicitor is present. A friend of mine was arrested, and was treated respectfully by the police, assured that answering questions now would make everything easier later etc. etc. and then when he came to court all his statements are read out by the officers, out of context and with their 'interpretation' of his meaning, needless to say not to his benefit. Hardly seems like the reasonable actions they promised. In the unlikely event that I get arrested I will not be answering anything until I have some legal advice present, since it seems that without such advice the treatment received by someone who does not know the 'system' from the police is somewhat unfair.

I have a lot of respect for the police and the job they do, however it is eroded by behaviour such as this, which attempts to take essentially law abiding and honest people to the cleaners because they don't know how to get away with things unlike the chavs who are in the nick every week and know every trick to make life difficult for the police

Re:NEVER talk to the police.

[VShael]

Our American readers need to know that the UK does not have the same Miranda rights as in the US, when you are being arrested.

Specifically, a number of years ago the warnings were changed. Note the difference carefully, and see if you can see how clamming up until a lawyer gets there, might be directly harmful to your freedom.

"You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."

Now, you might think "surely that wouldn't apply to questions they asked you before your lawyer arrived". And that would make sense. But this is the UK we're talking about.

If this failure to mention something occurs at an authorised place of detention (e.g. a police station), the common law stated that no inferences could be drawn from any failure occurring before the accused is allowed an opportunity to consult a legal advisor.
But Section 34 of the 1994 Act reverses the common law position that such failures could not be relied upon.

Re:NEVER talk to the police.

[L4t3r4lu5]

UK citizens: Ignore the advice in this video. It is accurate for the US legal system, not the UK legal system.

I've watched the whole thing before, and there are so many items in the video that simply do not apply that the whole thing should be ignored. Hell, the very first frame you see is regarding the Fifth Amendment: We don't have a constitution.

Do you want advice on how to deal with the police in the UK? Go to Citizen's Advice. The internet has some basics, but they're not comprehensive.
Do you want instructions on how to handle arrest? That's easy: Comply. Do nothing to resist. Listen to everything that is said. As soon as you're arrested, say nothing about the reason for your arrest. Not "I didn't do it!" not "It was that guy!" There will be time for this later, after you've spoken to a solicitor.

Confirm personal details at the station, nothing more, and when asked state politely but firmly that you can not answer any questions regarding your arrest or enter an interview room until you have spoken to a professional legal representative. It's because you've not done this before, and want everything to be done right. Law is complex. Late at night (if required) this might be a phone call, but you can still request a solicitor to attend in person. Usually this will be the next day, which is good. Try and get some sleep; You can't go anywhere or do anything, and talking to anyone is a bad idea.

IANAL, IANYL, this is not legal advice etc.

Re:NEVER talk to the police.

[Anonymous Coward]

However (and I speak as a recent ex-policeman from the UK), the key is "MAY harm your defence". If you can give good reason in court as to why you didn't disclose it ("I needed to speak to my solicitor first", "I didn't want my wife to find out about my affair", "I was being threatened by the bad guy") the court will take this into account and allow the evidence (or at least give due consideration to your reasoning). I will not automatically exclude the evidence (note the full stop and the word may). Of course this won't apply where you don't have a good reason (i.e. it was to cover your tracks) or if someone is harmed or a further crime committted (you don't give the info giving your acomplice time to kill the hostage and bury the body).

Re:NEVER talk to the police.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it does. Even in the UK, you have the right to remain silent.
But unlike in the US it is not a defense and is normally interpreted by officers as an admittance of guilt. Not mentioning something is just as dangerous as mentioning something in court, unless you've got an alibi if you don't mention something at the moment it'll be disregarded later, basically if you don't say you were somewhere they'll decide where you were and unless you've got an alibi in court your where THEY decide.

In my dealings with police I find the best response is to agree with them as much as possible without actually saying anything. Eg "We're searching you because this is a suspicious area, why are you here?" "This is a suspicious area, I'm often concerned walking here at night but this type of regular policing should help" and end sentence, dont make another noise until you've been given another question. The officers mental response should be something like "WTF? He's supposed to be suspicious?!? Not like a politician?!? This is so weird!! Wait, what was I doing?".

Re:NEVER talk to the police.

[rhook]

And the brits act like they don't live in a police state.

Re:NEVER talk to the police.

[Anonymous Coward]

So as I understand it - from what I thought was 'if you do not mention when questioned something that you later rely on in court' you should make sure that you mention in a police interview anything that you may wish to mention in court. Am I right in presuming that you are entitled to a solicitor during a police interview?

There isn't actually an official caution, so you do see local variations. But to answer your questions yes and no in that order. They aren't necessarily qualified solicitors but are qualified legal advisors. By "mention" it does not have to be verbal - quite often a prisoner and their legal rep will chat in private (another guaranteed right) and prepare a written statement but then not answer any further questions. The legal advisor will ensure the prisoner is not questioned inappropriately (ie between tapes), and they also act as a separate witness to the sealing of interview tapes so they cannot be tampered with. Typically, the legal advisor and police officers will discuss the matters of the case prior to the legal advisor speaking to the prisoner, so they can advise them appropriately (eg whether there is no harm in being candid or whether they should not answer particular questions until further enquiries are complete or particular evidence is obtained).

Following that, a separate CPS lawyer reviews evidence and they not the police make a decision to charge the prisoner with a specific offence. The danger in not answering questions is that if there is sufficient evidence to charge someone at that point (bearing in mind they prisoner cannot be questioned further) and it is a serious offence, you could get remanded in custody pending your first court appearance. If you are candid and provide the police with information, they are duty-bound to go and follow it up. There is more likelihood that you are then given police bail to return to the police at a later date for further questioning.

A lot of old-school coppers berate PACE saying it favours the criminal, but actually it drastically reduces the chances for miscarriages of justice because it guarantees the criminal/prisoner an opportunity to have their say and an opportunity to have or take legal advice any time whilst they are in custody, the benefit of which is that it is also explained to the prisoner on tape. Just remember that it's nothing like what you see on The Bill ;o)

PACE also makes it harder for a prisoner to be abused or coerced (unlike the pre-PACE days) because their detention is authorised by a Custody Sergeant and reviewed every 4 hours by a police Inspector, so it would require large-scale abuse of power or authority to carry out.

Re:NEVER talk to the police.

[jcr]

But unlike in the US it is not a defense and is normally interpreted by officers as an admittance of guilt.

In any country, the cops are going to arrest you if they feel like it, and they'll invent any pretext they care to. Your right to remain silent isn't a way to protect yourself from the arrest, it's a way to protect yourself from a conviction in court. You can not help yourself by volunteering information to the police.

-jcr

Re:NEVER talk to the police.

[internewt]

A friend of mine was arrested, and was treated respectfully by the police, assured that answering questions now would make everything easier later etc. etc. and then when he came to court all his statements are read out by the officers, out of context and with their 'interpretation' of his meaning, needless to say not to his benefit. Hardly seems like the reasonable actions they promised.

If you or I lie to the police it is "perverting the course of justice". If they lie to us it's "well done, you've made sarge".

"Fuck 'em, and their law".

Re:NEVER talk to the police.

[L4t3r4lu5]

Re: My above comment

Section 34 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 2004 means not giving any evidence which could exonerate you when questioned under caution by a constable (at the scene, prior to formal interview at the station) could affect your ability to move for case dismissal based on that same exonerating evidence you did not mention at the time, and also exonerating evidence can be disregarded if a judge or jury decides that there is a case to answer based upon other evidence heard. Thanks to VShael below for pointing out the relevant legislation: I'd always been curious!

IANAL, this (again) is not legal advice, but I seem to have a gift for reading and interpreting Legalese (My Law tutor said so).

Re:NEVER talk to the police.

[jcr]

You said: Ignore the advice in this video. It is accurate for the US legal system, not the UK legal system.

and then you said: when asked state politely but firmly that you can not answer any questions regarding your arrest or enter an interview room until you have spoken to a professional legal representative.

Which is exactly the same advice given in the video I linked to. The key point is that you can not benefit from volunteering information to the police.

-jcr

Re:NEVER talk to the police.

[L4t3r4lu5]

In the US, your rights are "Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law."
In the UK, it's "It may harm your defense if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."

Interview can work for the defense as well in the UK, but the regulations are different. You must volunteer (under caution) evidence which will exonerate you before trial, or it may become inadmissible as basis for dismissal.

As I said, the video is advice for US citizens. I've since added further info to my post as a reply.

Re:NEVER talk to the police.

[AGMW]

But the "Don't Talk To The Police" video is saying "Don't Talk To The Police If You Don't Have To". Once the police arrest you, and read you your rights you're already in the frame. A lot of what the video says is if you talk to the cops it may well put you in the frame, so keep it zipped!

It is an interesting video and well worth a watch. The most interesting/funny part for me was the detective chap talking about interviewing suspects and the suspects thinking they're "all that" and can easily pull the wool over the eyes of the cop who's been interviewing people for 20+ years!

Re:NEVER talk to the police.

[Professor_UNIX]

No, what the video is saying is NEVER talk to the police, even with a lawyer present. It will NEVER help your defense and it will only hurt you. If you watch the whole thing you will understand why and how they can trick you and use your own words to incriminate you even though you feel you're just helping them. Things you say can and will be used AGAINST you, but never to aid your defense. Obviously the 5th Amendment doesn't apply outside the USA though.

Re:NEVER talk to the police.

[Hognoxious]

We don't have a constitution.

A common misconception, but in fact we do - it just isn't collected into one tidy document like the US one. In fact, parts of it aren't written down anywhere.

Nonetheless, it does exist.

Re:NEVER talk to the police.

[gedhrel]

That is not the case. The wording of the caution is that if you do not mention anything when questioned that you later use in your defence, that may prejudice your defence.

That is to say: a prosecuting barrister is, these days, within their rights to sneer and imply to the jury that what you've said in that regard was clearly made up after the fact.

Re:NEVER talk to the police.

[Anonymous Coward]

UK citizens: I
  We don't have a constitution.
 

And you were doing so well up until you got to there

I've heard this repeated so many times that people think it is true.

Yes we do have a constitution.

We don't have a WRITTEN constitution.

Please try and get things right.

Re:NEVER talk to the police.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds to me like you need a new Magna Carta, Part II

Re:NEVER talk to the police.

[L4t3r4lu5]

My Law tutor told me this too. There are various sections of legislation which roughly equate to the protections of the US constitution, but they are not a constitution of sorts. You have to go searching through so many parliamentary Acts spanning sometimes centuries that it's impossible to pin them all down. Otherwise, someone would have drafted an English Constitution (even iif it is just an index of relevant sections of legislation).

By the way, which parts aren't written down? If you believe that you're legally protected by something not in the law books, I have a lovely bridge you might be interested in.

Re:NEVER talk to the police.

[WCMI92]

No, what the video is saying is NEVER talk to the police, even with a lawyer present. It will NEVER help your defense and it will only hurt you. If you watch the whole thing you will understand why and how they can trick you and use your own words to incriminate you even though you feel you're just helping them. Things you say can and will be used AGAINST you, but never to aid your defense. Obviously the 5th Amendment doesn't apply outside the USA though.

Exactly. Talking to the police won't gain you anything and can ONLY harm you. They are out to hang someone, not to find out the facts. Even if they did want to do thorough investigations, they don't have the TIME to do so. And even if they did, there is no incentive, they are evaluated based on how many perps they hang, not how many innocent they clear.
 

Re:NEVER talk to the police.

[Rogerborg]

How curious; you say to ignore the advice in the video, and then repeat it word for word.

If you actually want to add something, how about citing Nightjack's Survival Guide for Decent Folk which adds some counter-strategies?

Re:NEVER talk to the police.

[L4t3r4lu5]

So which part of this "hearsay" constitution are you hedging your legally protected rights on?

As I've just said in reply to another comment, we have legislative sections which confer similar protections as the US constitution, but they are innumerable, vague, and often inapplicable or incomplete compared to the US equivalent. Otherwise don't you think some bright-spark lawyer would have created a website "www.EnglishConstitution.co.uk - £5 gets you access to your rights!" and made a killing?

Re:NEVER talk to the police.

[Anonymous Coward]

The advice in the video is along the lines of 'confirm your details, ask for representation, nothing else', and your advice is 'confirm your details, ask for representation, nothing else'.

What's the difference here?

Re:NEVER talk to the police.

[Anonymous Coward]

We do have a constitution, it's just not codified in a single document.

Re:NEVER talk to the police.

[Rogerborg]

That's the 1994 Act, and the evidence cannot be "disregarded"; all that it allows is that the court "may draw such inferences from the failure [to disclose it] as appear proper."

Your law tutor certainly sounds like a kind chap or chapette.

Re:NEVER talk to the police.

[Rogerborg]

Correction: it exists if you believe in it hard enough. If you don't believe in it, children, then President Peter can't even wipe his arse with it.

Re:NEVER talk to the police.

[Calinous]

If it's the video I've watched some time ago, the interviewer said something to the effect:
Question: Did you ever decide the suspect you interrogated was not guilty based on your interview with them?
Answer: (if I remember correctly) Twice in some 600 interviews.

      Now, that ex-detective probably was a very good man, who didn't want to convict innocent people, and was very lucky in interviewing only the guilty. However, do you fancy a less than 1:100 chance of proving him you're innocent, or will you take the path of silence?

Re:NEVER talk to the police.

[Calinous]

You can benefit in some cases (maybe even the most of the cases), but you stand to lose (quite a lot) in some other cases.
      The best move (although not the winning move) is to not volunteer anything, and have a legal representative nearby.

Re:NEVER talk to the police.

[shilly]

Lots of the British constitution is not written down, but not much of those parts is relevant to criminal law. Examples include how hung parliaments are resolved -- not much is written down, and most of what is written, is in the form of a letter to the Queen dating from 1974 from the Cabinet Secretary (if memory serves).

Re:NEVER talk to the police.

[mdwh2]

If you choose not to answer questions during police interviews

So the "You do not have to say anything" only applies to police interviews (when the person will have access to a lawyer)? And doesn't at all apply when they're arrested and read this information?

It's an honest question - I always assumed that it meant from that point onwards, i.e., including when the person has yet to have a lawyer.

Re:NEVER talk to the police.

[L4t3r4lu5]

Indeed, 1994. I was trying hard to remember what I'd read and to put it into less formal language. Wasn't really concentrating on being technically accurate regarding statute title.

What might those inferences be? Might they be formed as an instruction to a jury to consider the evidence as possibly fabricated? The jury aren't there to decide points of law, so the judge must tell them. Left to their own devices, they take all as gospel unless it conflicts. It may well be for the jury to ultimately decide, but after being on a jury myself I can say that what the judge said was taken as gospel.

The specific references I attempted to paraphrase were Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 2004, Chapter 3, Section 34 (2)(c) and (d). I don't have time to read the Magistrates' Court Act or the Criminal Justice Act (1987 or 1991)to comment on parts (a) and (b). I might look at it for some bedtime reading...

Finally, I'm aware that "disregard" has a special meaning in Law. However, to the lay-man it's a substitute for "ignore" or "don't consider." If my answer is still inaccurate then please say, and I'll take the karma burn I deserve. Like I said, IANAL.

As a troll-ish footnote, though, how about you do better? You quoted statute, which helps nobody to understand the implication: "failure [to disclose it] as appear proper"? Is my interpretation so far from accurate as to be false?

Re:NEVER talk to the police.

[Anonymous Coward]

My Law tutor told me this too. ... By the way, which parts aren't written down? If you believe that you're legally protected by something not in the law books, I have a lovely bridge you might be interested in.

Perhaps you should have spent more time listening to him, and less practicing how to be a patronizing asshole?

Re:NEVER talk to the police.

[Ma8thew]

Because we don't. If all you know about the British law system comes from Slashdot I can see why you'd think that, but our legal system has less issues than many others. You only have to read about 'America's Toughest Sheriff' Joe Arpaio to see that the US system is even more fucked up than anything in Europe. That and the fact that the US has more prison inmates than any other Western nation.

Re:NEVER talk to the police.

[Rogerborg]

Yes.

I'd write more, but I have a real job.

Re:NEVER talk to the police.

[L4t3r4lu5]

http://xkcd.com/303/

Re:NEVER talk to the police.

[pbhj]

As the AC says in the sibling reply, you're wrong.

And in particular you have to provide your full legal name and your place of abode when asked otherwise you're committing an offence.

Re:NEVER talk to the police.

[L4t3r4lu5]

It's a genetic trait. Maybe we're related?

Polite conversation is fun!

Re:NEVER talk to the police.

[Anonymous Coward]

>English officer of the law.

Remember that. You are here to upload the law, not to fucking think youre above the law. This is what fucks me off about Police, theyre all power hungry ego maniacs. fuckers, the lot of them

Re:NEVER talk to the police.

[Anonymous Coward]

Much the like Americans still act like they live in the fabled "Land of the Free", when in fact they swapped it for the land of "buy one get one free"....

And the Germans still think they're protecting their freedoms by not letting anybody use them...

And the French still think they're the center of universe and their farts don't stink either...

All people hold everyone else up against their own ideal - except their own country and representatives, whom are the only ones they really should compare against.

Re:NEVER talk to the police.

[VShael]

Mostly good advice there, sir. But let me throw in a quick nugget on top of that.

Do not go asleep if you can help it.

Way way too many cops (and UK police too) seem to believe this urban legend about how only guilty people can sleep after being arrested.
Because they know the worst has already happened to them.
They think the innocent ones are constantly pacing and in fear, because they KNOW they don't belong there.

Do you really want to set the cop to thinking "Well, this guy is clearly guilty" ?

Re:NEVER talk to the police.

[Anonymous Coward]

Then instead of bitchin about it, maybe you should become a cop and change things, Serpico.

Re:NEVER talk to the police.

[Anonymous Coward]

This doesn't apply in the UK.

Yes, it does. Even in the UK, you have the right to remain silent.

-jcr

You do not have the right to remain silent in the UK, not since the 80s. It was eliminated by the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988. And the fact that it was easily eliminated in a part of the UK means it's not a right at all, at least not as Americans would understand the term.

Re:NEVER talk to the police.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've also heard lawyers say to never, under any circumstance, submit to a sobriety test if you get pulled over. Refusal to submit may mean an administrative license suspension, but that is nothing compared to a DUI.
Good advice, but very hard to do when you are actually in that circumstance.

Re:NEVER talk to the police.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I would rather cut my penis off that become one of those fat headed, ego wanking fucks. Fuck the Police and fuck everything that they stand for. Theyre nothing more than a weapon for the state control of people now. gone are the days that police were here to help people, theyre a weapon used to control people and god help anyone that tries to stand up for themselves, their opinion, if it flies in the face of what the police have been told to do.

Read up on the EDL going to scotland to protest peacfully.

While I feel for the families of police killed, I smile and think "great, one less cunt"

Re:NEVER talk to the police.

[Anonymous Cowpat]

[citation needed]

afaik there are very narrow circumstances where you can be forced to identify yourself on the street, and only some of those make it specifically illegal not to. vis.
Section 44 of the terrorism act (only applies in areas designated by the secretary of state)
When being issued with a fixed penalty notice or caution
When being cited for prosecution (i.e. you're being accused of an offence)
I think there's a fourth, but I can't remember what it is.

You do not normally have to identify yourself when being stopped and searched (except for a section 44 search), and there's no general right to go around demanding names and addresses from people.
The only time that you have to produce documents is in relation to driving, and then you have 7 days to do so.
That, of course, does not preclude officers from demanding that information in an authoritative manner where no genuine authority actually exists, and getting it immediately from 99.9% of people. Like you.

Re:NEVER talk to the police.

[Cederic]

I believe it's been the law in the UK for many years (long before the current anti-terror legislation) that you must identify yourself when requested by the police.

Of course, that's all you have to do. You certainly don't have to provide documentary evidence of your identity (except, as you say, in relation to driving).

Re:NEVER talk to the police.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Do you really want to set the cop to thinking "Well, this guy is clearly guilty" ?"

That's absurd. If you have been arrested, THEY ALREADY THINK YOU ARE GUILTY! Nothing is to be gained by losing sleep. Not thinking clearly due to sleep deprivation can do much harm.

Cops don't want to arrest innocent people and like to believe they are doing the right thing. As a result they will go to great lengths to rationalize away evidence to the contrary. Anything you say or do will be intrepreted negatively.

Re:NEVER talk to the police.

[mog007]

Arpaio is an outlier, Maricopa county doesn't represent the majority of the counties in the USA. My area is still bad, but it's nowhere near as bad as Arpaio's little fascist state.

Re:NEVER talk to the police.

[AK Marc]

Which is exactly the same advice given in the video I linked to.

It seems different to me. The video says don't ever talk, no matter what. No good will come of it. In the UK system, you lose rights if you don't talk. That's different from the US. So, you should talk in some cases in the UK, but never in the US system.

The general idea of both systems is that whether you are guilty or innocent, you shouldn't talk in the US. In the UK, you must talk if you are innocent to retain rights you would otherwise lose. If you are guilty, there is nothing you gain by talking, so you should remain quiet.

The key point is that you can not benefit from volunteering information to the police.

In the UK you directly benefit, in some circumstances, by volunteering information to the police. So your premise is wrong, along with the advice and the conclusions.

Re:NEVER talk to the police.

[Ma8thew]

The fact that Arpaio is allowed to do what he does indicates a flaw in the US system. And you didn't address my other point. The hallmark of a police state is that it criminalises and imprisons a large proportion of its populace.

Re:NEVER talk to the police.

[jwhitener]

I'm not seeing the difference here. You basically said, listen, comply, only give out name/address simple facts, and request a lawyer before answering anything beyond simple personal details.

Isn't that the same advice offered in the video for US citizens? Basically, be polite, comply with arrest, and keep your mouth shut until you have a lawyer.

Re:NEVER talk to the police.

[pbhj]

[citation needed]

afaik there are very narrow circumstances where you can be forced to identify yourself on the street, and only some of those make it specifically illegal not to. vis.

The subject is "Miranda Rights" and the situation is that of being cautioned for committing an offense. You're right that under stop and search, unless you're being arrested, you don't have to provide identity details (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/police/powers/stop-and-search/).

However that is not the question addressed here, note the "unless you're being reported for an offense" in the above link as in the current situation. PACE(G) p.222 refers to this wherein it says a caution must be given that failing to provide ID info when charged means detention is likely; but I'm not sure from whence the general power comes.

There are non-arrest, non-terrorism, situations where you're obliged to provide identity details. Such as: under S165 of the Road Traffic Act (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1988/ukpga_19880052_en_14); under S50 of Police Reform Act 2002 when being anti-social; S43B of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 when being issued a penalty notice; etc..

In Scotland S13(1A) of Criminal Procedures (Scotland) Act 1995 requires identity information be divulged even by "suspects and potential witnesses".

Re:NEVER talk to the police.

[rhook]

Yes, because we should give prisoners 5 star treatment in jail. This is just more proof that europe is full of a bunch of libtards. Here's a fact for you, jail is not supposed to be nice.

Not you friend.

[Anonymous Coward]

You must understand despite what you have been led to believe the police are not your friend. They are a necessary evil. Never trust them or allow them into your home without a warrant. Limit your responses to them simple yes or no if you are forced to talk with them.

A policeman's job is to arrest people and put them in jail. They understand this quite well. You must as well.

You did trust any UK governmental personel?

[garry_g]

Sorry, but at the way the UK (as well as other countries around the globe) are evolving way beyond Orwell's '84, you didn't really believe them, did you? Honestly?

govts in disintegration; remember the Duke case

[harvey the nerd]

The local district attorney on the Duke rape sat on clear, exonerating DNA evidence that the psycho stripper erred or lied. They had 6 or 7 DNA samples from her (and underwear) that failed to match any DNA of the falsely charged Duke kids. Ooops, wrong team!

So why bother with the free DNA?

Of course, the police and DA everywhere else will cluck their tongues and say this never could happen at their place. Today, only a fool considers government and corporate reps as anything but potentially dangerous adversaries, and their promises as anything more valuable than glib promises printed on second hand toilet paper.

I invite police officers into my home every week

[zx2c4]

...for a nice game of fingerprint practice... "In 2008 I invited two policemen into my home and voluntarily gave them a DNA and fingerprint sample" I believe, good sir, that your problem begins there.

Do not cooperate with the police

[cerberusss]

Seriously, do not ever again help the police. Sure, follow their instructions when within the law. But helping the police does not help YOU at all and might seriously endanger yourself. If the samples were contaminated or mixed up, you could have found yourself in jail.

Watch the presentations by Professor James Duane of Stanford University:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=NL&v=i8z7NC5sgik

Re:Do not cooperate with the police

[Great Big Bird]

Police come to your door due to a missing little girl they are looking for. They want to ask you if you have seen her. Do you deny any answer to the police or simply answer their question with a "no"?

Re:Do not cooperate with the police

[QuoteMstr]

The tragic part is that the policy have expanded their powers so much that not answering any questions is the safer course.

Re:Do not cooperate with the police

[cerberusss]

That is a laughably simplistic question.

It would be much more like:
LEO: "Have you seen this little girl?"
You: "No".
LEO: "Where were you around this and that time?"
You: "Alone, here in the house."
LEO: "Can anybody confirm that?"
You: ...

Do you see what I mean? What looks like a simple question, could actually turn into an unpleasant conversation of which your lawyer would tell you to stop explaining yourself.

Re:Do not cooperate with the police

[choco]

It's a good question. There are several ways of looking at it. For example:

The "missing little Girl" is your daughter. The Police are knocking on your neighbour's doors. You now have to face the fact that some of your neighbours might be finding it hard to offer the Police complete support - at least partly because the Police have previously acted in ways which reduced the public's confidence in the Police.

How do you feel ? Who do you blame ?

I would much prefer to live in a society where "Policing by Consent" still means something. Policing by consent is in the overwhelming interest of all law abiding people.

One requirement for "Policing by Consent" is that the Police understand and support their side of the bargain. Another requirement is that the legal system and government maintains a certain level of basic confidence and support. I believe the UK currently has some serious problems with all those things and we are all worse off because of it.

Re:Do not cooperate with the police

[cerberusss]

It's a good question. There are several ways of looking at it/p>

There's still another way of looking at it. You don't have to talk to the police to be helpful. You could instead just help your neighbors directly.

Re:Do not cooperate with the police

[aslate]

So that seems any better when your lawyer is there? Are you meant to make up some form of alibi? Are you supposed to try and make up a place where you weren't?

It might be an unfortunate fact that where you were was somewhere, alone that's quite unverifiable. However this is reasonably common, what are you supposed to do?

I don't buy that example one bit.

Re:Do not cooperate with the police

[cerberusss]

So that seems any better when your lawyer is there? Are you meant to make up some form of alibi? Are you supposed to try and make up a place where you weren't?

No, you're supposed to shut up. My whole point is that you cannot win when talking to the police.

Let me repeat that: you do not have anything to gain when talking to the police, you can only lose. If you think the risk is small, then sure, talk to the police.

But the summary mentioned a murder inquiry. Why would you want to get involved in such an investigation? You have nothing to win. If you're such a champion of justice, then vote for the local politician that promises more cops on the street.

Re:Do not cooperate with the police

[Anonymous Coward]

So that seems any better when your lawyer is there? Are you meant to make up some form of alibi? Are you supposed to try and make up a place where you weren't?

Without a lawyer present, police officers will deliberately lie to your face and twist your words. They'll tell you whatever they think might help them convict you; regardless of innocence or guilt.

I've personally witnessed police officer lying about "inconsequential formalities". If a lawyer would have been present, they either wouldn't have dared to lie or he would have stopped them.

A lawyer helps you to not get screwed by those who are supposed to protect you.

Re:Do not cooperate with the police

[BeanThere]

No, you're supposed to shut up. My whole point is that you cannot win when talking to the police.

Let me repeat that: you do not have anything to gain when talking to the police, you can only lose. If you think the risk is small, then sure, talk to the police.

But the summary mentioned a murder inquiry. Why would you want to get involved in such an investigation? You have nothing to win.

To help catch actual bad guys? If everybody followed your advice, it would be basically impossible for the police to ever investigate anything.

Re:Do not cooperate with the police

[Cederic]

"We'd like to eliminate you from our enquiries. Please provide a DNA sample."

"I'm sorry, I'd prefer not to provide a sample."

"I am arresting you on suspicion..."

Suddenly they get their DNA sample, they get to mess up your life and they set you free afterwards anyway with no recourse for false arrest etc.

They've done it before.

Re:Do not cooperate with the police

[cerberusss]

If everybody followed your advice, it would be basically impossible for the police to ever investigate anything.

Excuse me, but this is slashdot. The fallacy in your argument was noticed immediately, and ninjas have been dispatched to deal with the problem.

Re:Do not cooperate with the police

[AK Marc]

So that seems any better when your lawyer is there?

Yes.

Are you meant to make up some form of alibi? Are you supposed to try and make up a place where you weren't?

Nope. You just stay silent and your lawyer answers "he has no info that can help you with this investigation." That way "he has no alibi" can't be said, because whether or not you have one, they won't know.

Re:Do not cooperate with the police

[jwhitener]

LEO: "Have you seen this little girl?"
You: "No".
LEO: "Where were you around this and that time?"
You: "Alone, here in the house."
LEO: "Can anybody confirm that?"

Well, and add to that the fact that you might slip up honestly. Say you ran to the store real quick for milk. But were basically home all day long. You just forget to mention that one quick trip. Later the police interview someone in the neighborhood, and that neighbor says "sure I saw him in the store". Congrats, you are now higher up on the suspect list.

Or say you didn't even go to the store. But some neighbor swears to the police that they saw you at the store. Mistakenly. Now, because you have already stated you were home alone, the police suspect you of lying to them. If you say nothing, it would not have contradicted that later interview. You'd still be "neutral" to them.

Re:Do not cooperate with the police

[Rakishi]

So let's say the police have two options and you get to choose which they do:
a) Shoot you and a murderer (assuming you're 100% certain he is a murderer).
b) Let the murderer go.

You're saying you'd pick choice a) without any qualms at all? If not then what probabilities would each possibility need before you say yes? 1% chance of shooting you and a 5% chance of shooting the murderer? 50% and 100%? Well?

This is essentially what we're talking about here. You increase the odds of catching the murderer a tiny amount but also increase the odds of getting screwed over yourself. So just how altruistic are you? Willing to sacrifice yourself for other people every time?

When will people learn...

[Fallen Kell]

The police in an investigation can and will only ever help the prosecution. They are not going to help the defense of anyone. The only person who will do that is you and your lawyer. Even if you have proof that you were not the person, if the local DA or Magistrate or whatever it is in your country decides to have charges brought against you, whatever you said, did, provided, etc., will be used against you. Even if you are simply saying something like that you were not in the area at that time, you don't know if the police already have a witness that said they saw you, and as such, unless you have real "proof", you are simply "lying", and thus they will think even more so that you are the guilty party. I know people think that they should "help" the police in many of these cases, but the best thing you can do is say, "I am sorry, but I will not talk to you without a lawyer", and leave it at that. All you can do is get yourself in trouble.

Re:When will people learn...

[Calinous]

"Even if you are simply saying something like that you were not in the area at that time, you don't know if the police already have a witness that said they saw you"
      like someone who knew you a decade ago, and thought he saw you in a different place you mentioned the police, and the judge/jury prefer to believe that witness and not your alibi

Re:When will people learn...

[Denial93]

And if that sounds boring to you, various things may be okay to say after your lawyer agrees to them. You don't need to suck down your cheekiness completely, just wait for it a couple hours. And if that pisses you off, try and estimate how many million man-years in sentences have already resulted from unnecessary talking to the police.

Re:When will people learn...

[sjames]

That's the problem. The adversarial system has been taken WAY too far. The DA and police no longer even pretend to seek the truth or facts. They simply seek to convict for the most serious possible charge. Innocence is irrelevant. Reasonability is irrelevant. Given that, the less they have to hang a criminal charge on, the better.

It's quite a shame really.

WAIVE NOTHING..EVER..EVER!!

[fred911]

If you talk to the police without consul, during an investigation you have waived your rights and demonstrated to the police that you are an idiot, not honest or friendly. They are not your friends. The do not have to tell you the truth. When asked to waive my rights by an officer of the law I respectfully tell them that I am unable to waive them without the advice of an attorney. That pisses them off and they usually start threatening warrants and other harassment.

  "With respect for your position sir, I respectfully decline any more communication without an attorney present, and understand you have a job to do, please proceed with what you have to do. Am I under arrest or are you detaining me? If so please provide consul. If not have a nice day!"

Re:WAIVE NOTHING..EVER..EVER!!

[Anonymous Coward]

> they usually start threatening warrants and other harassment.

Usually? Jesus Christ - how often are you in contact with the police?

Re:WAIVE NOTHING..EVER..EVER!!

[Kjella]

If you talk to the police without consul, (...) If so please provide consul. If not have a nice day!

It may be because of your insistance to have a Consul present rather than Counsel. Then again, if you don't know the difference not talking without one is most wise.

Re:WAIVE NOTHING..EVER..EVER!!

[jamesh]

If you talk to the police without consul, during an investigation you have waived your rights and demonstrated to the police that you are an idiot, not honest or friendly.

Bullshit. You just make it harder for them to do their job. Sure there are cops who are crooks, or just jerks, but if you presume that they all are then you are no better than your make-believe stereotypical policeman. Have a think about which dark corner of society would benefit if everyone starts being hostile towards the police.

We had a policeman knock on our door a while back. There was a grassfire a few km down the road and a car vaguely fitting the description of our car parked in our driveway was seen leaving the scene. By the time he knocked on our door I assumed he had already put his hand on the bonnet etc to see if had been driven recently, and he even told us that our car didn't really match the description after all. We chatted for a while and he left. If i'd had behaved like a prick like you suggest what would it have gained me?

I can only begin to guess at what a horrible job it must be most of the time. You'd see the worst of people every day. You'd have to knock on doors at 3am and tell parents that they have one less living child. Every time you pull someone over you know that there is a slim chance that someone's going to pull a shotgun on you. And if you make it hard for them to do their job then the only people left doing the job are the ones who don't take your sort of shit lightly.

Hopefully if you ever need the assistance of the police, you won't run into one that you've pissed off along the way.

Re:WAIVE NOTHING..EVER..EVER!!

[0123456]

Bullshit. You just make it harder for them to do their job.

The only time the police have an easy job is in a police state.

If you're not a criminal, victim or witness then you have no reason to talk to the police about a crime, and if you are a criminal then you have no reason to talk to the police without a lawyer. So there are very, very few cases where talking to the police is actually beneficial, and many where it's going to get you in a world of hurt... even police themselves will admit that.

Remember, these are the people who recently shot an innocent guy in the head eight times for 'suspicion of looking a bit muslim' and walked away with no consequences. Britain is rapidly approaching a police state if it isn't already there, which is precisely why I left a couple of years ago.

Re:WAIVE NOTHING..EVER..EVER!!

[Hal_Porter]

From the tone of his post I'd say very frequently.

Re:WAIVE NOTHING..EVER..EVER!!

[cerberusss]

You've got a couple of weird points and I'd like to reply since you normally have very good posts.

I can only begin to guess at what a horrible job it must be most of the time.

Well, they like their job. What a strange thing to assume they hate their job, and you feel like offering them some relief of their horrible job.

And if you make it hard for them to do their job then the only people left doing the job are the ones who don't take your sort of shit lightly.

Are you sure you're making it harder? He already touched the hood. He still wants to talk to you for some reason you don't know. What is your reason for talking to the officer?

Re:WAIVE NOTHING..EVER..EVER!!

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

He already touched the hood. He still wants to talk to you for some reason you don't know.

EXACTLY my thoughts. Either the cop was fishing or he was time-wasting. That story really does nothing to bolster his argument. It's like saying, "I walked by a snake once and it didn't bite me, so clearly there is no need to worry about snake bites."

Re:WAIVE NOTHING..EVER..EVER!!

[squizzar]

I think that some judgement is necessary. The UK police are driven entirely by targets (rather than the interest of the community) which means that they are desperate for arrests. If you are arrested for something then being a reasonable person, 'helping them out', 'making it easier for yourself' etc. (e.g. answering questions or making statements in the absence of legal counsel) is a way of them shoring up their case against you without some pesky lawyer stopping you from incriminating yourself.

Contrast this with people who have regular dealings with the police, and know the system and how to minimise what the police can do to them. In an ideal world some common sense would be used (and apparently was once) and someone who has otherwise been an upstanding member of the community would not have the book thrown at them by the police, whilst someone who was a regular trouble maker would have a more determined effort to seek prosecution made. This is not the case, and if you are cooperative etc. that just means that you are making it easier for them to add a couple of other charges.

Obviously if you have done nothing wrong (as the poster above) then help them out because they know a waste of time when they see it, and they've got those damn targets to meet. But if you have done something, then it really is in your best interests to make sure that you only get prosecuted for what you have actually done, not for what you somehow admitted to when you were helpfully answering questions. It's like the difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance. One is legal and nigh on encouraged, the other isn't. Like tax, if a prosecution is inevitable, that doesn't mean you're going to go out and look for as much of it as possible does it?

It is a shame that this is the state of affairs, but the police are not around to use common sense these days. I have friends who are police officers, who have been told that 'we've solved enough rape cases this month, we need to catch up on shoplifters'. Because that's what the community they would serve wants - numbers that add up - not for perhaps some violent sexual assailant to be jailed, but for some kids who stole some sweets to be put through the grinder.

Re:WAIVE NOTHING..EVER..EVER!!

[fred911]

Have a think about which dark corner of society would benefit if everyone starts being hostile towards the police.

  I didn't say to be hostile. Be extra, extra polite but don't waive your rights. Don't answer questions, don't authorize searches, don't listen to their threats, ask if you are under arrest or are being detained.

  Respond with "Good day Officer" or "Officer unfortunately I am unable to assist you further without my counsel, thank you for understanding."

Re:WAIVE NOTHING..EVER..EVER!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure there are cops who are crooks, or just jerks, but if you presume that they all are then you are no better than your make-believe stereotypical policeman.

If you don't assume that all cops are crooks, then you leave yourself vulnerable to those who are. It's not a nice situation, but that's the way it is. The solution is for cops to get rid of the crooks from amongst their midst, and start earning back our trust.

Re:WAIVE NOTHING..EVER..EVER!!

[xous]

Once burned twice shy. Operating on the assumption that cops are out to screw you might let a few criminals run free to be caught buy I feel my freedom is worth such a risk. Should we do away with warrants, trials, and human rights simply because it's the most expedient method of insuring "criminals" are behind bars? I think not.

"Hopefully if you ever need the assistance of the police, you won't run into one that you've pissed off along the way."

You make it sound like they are doing this out of some sort of benevolence. We pay for our police service via our taxes. If they get pissy and refuse to do their job because we exercise our rights they should be fired if not imprisoned.

Re:WAIVE NOTHING..EVER..EVER!!

[L4t3r4lu5]

You weren't under caution. Everything changes after you're read your rights.

Re:WAIVE NOTHING..EVER..EVER!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hopefully if you ever need the assistance of the police, you won't run into one that you've pissed off along the way.

I would never seek the assistance of the police. In doing so, you allow yourself to become a criminal instead of a victim.

I site for reference a ton of cases reported and unreported of people defending their homes from burglary, vandalism, threat, etc. calling the police, and being arrested themselves rather than the perpetrators.
Never call the police, never help the police, never speak to them. They are the enemy. They do their "job" to get a paycheque, which has nothing to do with keeping you safe, contrary to what you may be lead to believe.

Re:WAIVE NOTHING..EVER..EVER!!

[internewt]

All you need to be is a minority in the "wrong place" and you will get unnecessary and unwelcome police attention.

And minority doesn't just mean black and in a white area, it can mean that you fit any criteria that the police think is unusual for the area - like age of car you're driving, length of hair, style of dress....

Re:WAIVE NOTHING..EVER..EVER!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't need counsel. Consul come here and sit. Fine dog you are.

Re:WAIVE NOTHING..EVER..EVER!!

[Anonymous Coward]

If the police knocked on your door informing you of a grass fire, saying your car vaguely matched the description and wanted a DNA sample, would you have given it to them? You are not guilty, what are you afraid of?

Re:WAIVE NOTHING..EVER..EVER!!

[izomiac]

The only time the police have an easy job is in a police state.

So, in other words, unless you want to live in a police state you should aid the police. Obviously police are a necessary element of society that has to work. If the populace doesn't cooperate then their job becomes impossible, and thus a police state is necessary.

We live in the society we make. Altruism, such as helping someone being victimized, is rarely beneficial for the person who choses to help. Talking to the police is a big risk, but it has a good chance of helping their investigation. 80% of the US population will never be arrested, but most will be the victim of a crime at some point. If you want to be selfish and gain the benefit of having police without helping them then that's your choice. Being selfish works, but it's hardly honorable.

Re:WAIVE NOTHING..EVER..EVER!!

[pbhj]

Britain is rapidly approaching a police state if it isn't already there, which is precisely why I left a couple of years ago.

Absolute nonsense. But then you wouldn't know that if you don't live there.

Re:WAIVE NOTHING..EVER..EVER!!

[sgtrock]

You 'site' a 'ton of cases' and yet can't be bothered to cite a single one by URL. Yeah, some solid evidence there. The plural of unsupported allegation is not data.

I've known a few cops and a couple DAs in my time. Generally, they're decent people who happen to deal with the scum of society day in and day out. This inevitably leads to seeing all people through a very cynical lens. It can also lead to abuse of power pretty quickly if they feel that they aren't being held accountable. In those places and times where the legislative bodies and court systems have let them have free rein, they become the enemy that you describe. However, this is the exception, not the rule.

You want a solution? Somebody here on Slashdot has a great .sig that addresses this quite well:

"Soap, ballot, jury, bullet. Please use in that order."

Get it?

Re:WAIVE NOTHING..EVER..EVER!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Where'd you go? I am looking to leave the Netherlands but can't seem to find countries that aren't going down the same police-state road anymore...

Re:WAIVE NOTHING..EVER..EVER!!

[geminidomino]

We live in the society we make. Altruism, such as helping someone being victimized, is rarely beneficial for the person who choses to help. Talking to the police is a big risk, but it has a good chance of helping their investigation. 80% of the US population will never be arrested, but most will be the victim of a crime at some point. If you want to be selfish and gain the benefit of having police without helping them then that's your choice. Being selfish works, but it's hardly honorable.

For that philosophy to work requires one to naively count on the altruism of the police. Even if your end-result is accurate, and the police can't do their jobs, that's the environment they've created. The Tragedy of the Commons doesn't cease to be valid because the people in questions are the government, and public good-will is a limited resource.

Re:WAIVE NOTHING..EVER..EVER!!

[Anonymous Coward]

The policeman was in such a rush to do his job that he stopped to talk to someone he didn't think was involved, and had a friendly chat? Must've been real important to find this vehicle similar to yours.

If you think fred's text was prickish, then you must be infuriated by the everyday behavior of people everywhere.

Re:WAIVE NOTHING..EVER..EVER!!

[Hal_Porter]

You'll never take me alive, Copper!

BLAM!

Re:WAIVE NOTHING..EVER..EVER!!

[http]

Bullshit on your bullshit. I do not want to make their job hard. I want to make it as hard as possible to investigate me, because if I haven't done what they're looking into, investigating me is the opposite of their job.
If the police are investigating me as a suspect, they're wasting my tax dollars and yours, because I didn't do it. It's a matter of fiscal responsibility to my fellow citizens. If I'm a witness, one poorly chosen word can let them think my fuzzy description of a flurry of activity is really a bumbled alibi, leading to more wasted resources. If I didn't do it and I didn't see anything to do with it, talking to me is something they should do on their lunch break.
Nobody's saying be hostile to the police. Just recognize that if you're an honest citizen, talking to them is usually wasteful, and if you're a suspect, talking to them without a lawyer present is sure to find you trouble. As has been noted elsewhere in this thread, in their eyes, suspects are Fair Game, and there's no real way to know if you're a suspect or not. They're totally willing and able to say, "You're not a suspect" to a suspect.

Re:WAIVE NOTHING..EVER..EVER!!

[jamesh]

I don't think he was in a particular rush. The car had long since left the scene and probably wasn't local. I think maybe he was just bored. Some people read Slashdot while doing there job, others talk to people.

Re:WAIVE NOTHING..EVER..EVER!!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Hopefully if you ever need the assistance of the police, you won't run into one that you've pissed off along the way."

That statement is very damning for your case. If the police displayed the professionalism that you claim, then why would pissing them off make any difference?

Re:WAIVE NOTHING..EVER..EVER!!

[randyleepublic]

Double Bullshit. The police have only themselves to blame for how hard their jobs are to do. They are the one special interest group who could swing a big hammer at the legislature over all the ridiculous laws, but they haven't and they won't. They are mostly the bullies who are just sane enough to see how to get away with it. The TV show about the serial murderer cop was much truer than you realize.

Re:WAIVE NOTHING..EVER..EVER!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Have a think about which dark corner of society would benefit if everyone starts being hostile towards the police.

Insisting that your rights be respected is hardly the equivalent of being hostile.

You are exaggerating.

We had a policeman knock on our door a while back. ... We chatted for a while and he left.

What we're discussing here is what to do when you are taken away by the police.

You are discussing something else, entirely.

Nobody has suggested being hostile or even rude towards the police. Nobody has suggested doing something illegal or otherwise strange in any way. I have no idea why you're arguing like anybody did so.

Read and understand before replying, next time.

Have a nice day.

Re:WAIVE NOTHING..EVER..EVER!!

[Anonymous Coward]

>and walked away with no consequences

One of them was recently promoted actually...

European Court Ruling

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this not relevant

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7764069.stm

?

Quote from the link:

The judges ruled the retention of the men's DNA "failed to strike a fair balance between
the competing public and private interests," and that the UK government "had overstepped
any acceptable margin of appreciation in this regard". The court also ruled "the retention in
question constituted a disproportionate interference with the applicants' right to respect for
private life and could not be regarded as necessary in a democratic society".

I'm sure there has been other similar cases as well.

I think the coppers are bluffing. Push them and see what happens.

Re:European Court Ruling

[FluffyWithTeeth]

This is a ruling which has been completely ignored by UK authorities, so no. It isn't relevant.

It should be, but apparently legal obligations don't mean anything if you're the government.

Re:European Court Ruling

[Anonymous Cowpat]

What needs to happen now is for everyone who can get legal aid to do it to launch a suit against the relevant police force quoting a) that ruling from the ECHR and b) the section of the Human Rights act which requires British courts to obey rulings from the ECHR. With a few thousand of those battering at the doors things might get changed. If that doesn't work, a few thousand fresh complaints at the ECHR which are completely open & shut against the government are in order. Sadly, the taxpayer will have to foot the bill for our politicos incompetence.

Animal House

[Weaselmancer]

A line from National Lampoon's Animal House came to my mind first thing:

"You can't spend your whole life worrying about your mistakes! You fucked up... you trusted us!"

I mean really - how could this guy possibly have expected them do drop something as useful* as a DNA fingerprint?

* useful in this context means "everyone is a suspect which makes my job easier as a cop"

Re:Animal House

[digitalchinky]

I think what the parent is actually saying, in slightly more diplomatic terms is "if everyone has their DNA on file, then I don't have to get off my fat donut eating arse cheeks and do any actual detective work, I can just click a few buttons and send someone directly to jail - or two people with identical DNA, who really cares"

Re:Animal House

[Random5]

Well better to be safe than sorry, you can never be sure which identical twin really committed the crime!

Re:Animal House

[Myopic]

Totally agreed. Especially in an unfree country such as the UK, I wouldn't expect the police to respect any promise. Even in free countries like the USA, I wouldn't do that. It's perfectly reasonable to give your DNA to the police for testing in connection to a crime, right after they show your lawyer a court order compelling it.

Re:Animal House

[Thud457]

Now that they have your DNA, they can make copies of it and frame your ass for a crime you didn't commit! It's technically possible now, and just going to get easier, cheaper and quicker. So much easier than actually, you know, like, solving crimes.

Re:Animal House

[Uncle Rummy]

Or create an army of your clones and send them to rob a few banks, then kill each other off, thus framing you for multiple counts of bank robbery, murder and violation of human cloning proscription.

Boy, are you in trouble, buddy.

Re:Animal House

[sexconker]

Now that they have your DNA, they can make copies of it and frame your ass for a crime you didn't commit! It's technically possible now, and just going to get easier, cheaper and quicker. So much easier than actually, you know, like, solving crimes.

HA! You think they want to solve crimes.

Re:Animal House

[BrokenHalo]

Now that they have your DNA, they can make copies of it and frame your ass for a crime you didn't commit! It's technically possible now...

It's not just technically possible, it is literally and very easily possible. It isn't exactly the sort of thing one can conveniently do in a kitchen, but current PCR (polymerase chain reaction) equipment is no longer the sort of machinery one would find in the most rarefied and expensively equipped labs.

Re:Animal House

[Alphathon]

Just out of interest, how is the USA free, but the UK not? Are you meaning things like freedom of speech which are compromised (to a point) by things like the illegality of incitement of racial hatred? Regardless, I think in practice the USA and UK are about the same for freedom, even if in theory they are not.

Re:Animal House

[Myopic]

Yes. Freedom zero, the right to life, which means the personal capacity for lethal force -- ie, guns. And freedom one, expression. Obviously, like all places, UK has good and bad points, but without those basic freedoms I don't think it can be fairly described as free. Also, come on, still with the royalty? Really? Just sayin'.

its on record till your 100th birthday

[blackest_k]

Unfortunately the Police are under no obligation to remove the DNA from the database until your 100th birthday I've read through the regulations they work under. In the appendix there are form letters for the chief constable to tell you that your dna can not be removed, there is no example of a letter saying it can.

In the UK the police retain records of everyone even if you have never been arrested or charged with anything it is enough to be associated with someone with a criminal record for this to be recorded on your record. I believe they refer to these as non arrestable offenses. I say your record but its the polices record of you. Over time the Police are not forced to share what they have on you with other agencies but everything is kept on record for their use and they do have the option of clearing your record once you reach the age of 100.

Of course your Dna will not only identify you but close matches may suggest a brother or a son or other close relative may be worth investigating. There is no political will from either of the main parties to curb the current legislation they have both contributed to it. So you either live with it or leave and hope that there is no worldwide database created in your lifetime.

Rule number one where ever you are don't get involved with the Police if you can possibly avoid it.

http://www.genewatch.org/sub-539482
http://www.runnymedetrust.org/events-conferences/econferences/ethnic-profiling-in-uk-law-enforcement/the-report/the-national-dna-database/the-national-dna-database-2.html

The second link spells it out for you using big letters and crayon, yes you are on record and for all practical meanings of for the rest of your life.

The European Court of Human Rights

In December 2008, in the case of S. and Marper v. the UK, the Grand Chamber of European Court of Human Rights reached a unanimous judgment that the blanket retention of innocent people's DNA and fingerprints by the UK Government contravenes Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to privacy).

At the time of writing, the Government has yet to implement a response to the judgment. Its initial proposals to retain DNA records from innocent people for 6 or 12 years, depending on the offence for which they were arrested, were widely criticised. They have been replaced with an alternative 6 year retention time for innocent adults (3 years for under-16s), in the Crime and Security Bill 2009/10. However, both opposition parties regard these proposals as unacceptable.. The Government has also made a welcome proposal to destroy the original DNA samples (biological samples), which are currently stored by the commercial laboratories which analyse them, and which contain unlimited genetic information which is not needed for identification purposes.

I guess that this judgment may change things but currently there is no change and it will remain that way until compelled to change. note the opposition fighting against the change it can be viewed as because the proposals are still draconian or more cynically to block any change in the current status quo.

Unless legislation does go through and so far it hasn't then any plea to the chief constable to get the dna record removed due to exceptional circumstances will fall on deaf ears because after all being innocent of any crime is hardly exceptional in that database.

Re:its on record till your 100th birthday

[L4t3r4lu5]

Coming up very soon is the third time Europe will ask the UK government what they have done to remedy this situation. The first two times they have been found wanting. This third time will result in very heavy fines and possibly criminal trial for people in positions of responsibility, in the European Court of Justice.

Re:its on record till your 100th birthday

[augustw]

Unfortunately the Police are under no obligation to remove the DNA from the database until your 100th birthday I've read through the regulations they work under. In the appendix there are form letters for the chief constable to tell you that your dna can not be removed, there is no example of a letter saying it can.

Only in England & Wales; this is NOT he case in Scotland, where sampled DNA is removed from the database at the end of the relevant enquiry.

Scotland and England have different legal systems, criminal law, and police powers, and rules of evidence.

Re:its on record till your 100th birthday

[julesh]

Section 64 PACE 1984.

Note particularly paras 3, 3AA and 3AB. The net effect is that they can retain the DNA, but can't use it in any new investigations.

Re:its on record till your 100th birthday

[blackest_k]

samples may be retained after they have fulfilled the purposes for which they were taken but shall not be used by any person except for purposes related to the prevention or detection of crime, the investigation of an offence [F4 , the conduct of a prosecution or the identification of a deceased person or of the person from whom a body part came

actually the above quote seems to show you are wrong about that. If they think your dna can be useful in identifying a crime or your body then they can and will use it.

USA has illegal search and seizure the UK doesn't and Scotland is on a different legal basis to the rest of the UK as has been said.

Re:its on record till your 100th birthday

[Cederic]

More insidious, is that although the police wont share their record of you with you, they will share it with a prospective partner that wants to know if you'll harm their children.

This means that ex-partner can make a clearly false accusation of rape, abuse or child abuse against you, the police realise she's full of shit and never pursue it, then a subsequent relationship break up because the police were obliged to reveal an accusation against you, that you weren't even aware of.

Currently only available in certain areas, but being rolled out across the country. And I fucking hate it.

Voluntarily, huh?

[MasterPatricko]

I invited two policemen into my home and voluntarily gave them a DNA and fingerprint sample

There's support groups for this kind of thing, don't keep it hidden all your life.

you guys should have rtfa this time. It was good.

[delvsional]

According to tfa:

One of my parents' neighbours was found in a cupboard with a ~2 foot barbecue skewer stabbed through his chest. He'd been there for three days and was close to death.

but the police eventually ruled:

that he had accidentally stabbed himself with the skewer, and the investigation was closed.

Jesus, did he shoot himself in the head twice too? How in the hell do you accidentally stab yourself in the chest with a 2 foot barbecue skewer and then stuff yourself into a cupboard?

On another note, they asked "We can destroy your samples after the investigation, or we can keep them on the database so we can use them again in future." and you said "pretty much", that kind of leaves it open to interpretation doesn't it?

How can someone be so stupid...

[mxh83]

.. and then come here and post on slashdot? It's like telling a stranger- Here's my bank account and credit card details, along with all my passwords. I trust you completely. Another thing one must never do is give out personal passwords (like email, facebook) to a spouse. No good can ever come of it.

Re:How can someone be so stupid...

[Anonymous Coward]

The best part is -- check out his domain, easily identified by it being HIS FULL NAME. wow. It must be quite the world of sunshine and rainbows in which this fellow resides.

Re:How can someone be so stupid...

[redalien]

Or check the front page, it's got my phone number on it. I'm operating 'on don't be a dick'. True, people might take advantage of that, but they haven't so far. I'd rather act in good faith and then go after people who abuse that trust than be a paranoid loonie.

Yes, it's more work for me. Yes, it might be unpleasant at times, but I think it's the best choice overall.

It's unfortunate, but

[VShael]

the police, the government, the powers that be in the UK have proven themselves time and time again to be completely untrustworthy.

Equally unfortunate is the British propensity to grit their teeth and bear it, (because they love to complain about something) rather than do something constructive to change their situation while they still can.

Re:It's unfortunate, but

[Cederic]

I'm curious, what would you propose we do?

Keep it legal.

Here are some of the things already tried:
- appeal to the European Court of Human Rights (UK Gov't lost, but has ignored the ruling)
- media publicity (UK Gov't criticised heavily)
- writing to Members of Parliament (still no new legislation being debated)
- writing to the police (interesting mix of responses from the police, but they still lobby the Gov't to retain all DNA)

The only thing that hasn't happened since the DNA database really started to grow is an election, and that'll happen before June. Unfortunately at the election certain issues such as war in Iraq/Afghanistan, the economy, immigration, the economy, Europe, schools, the economy, healthcare, taxes and the economy are going to be factors in who people vote for, in addition to the DNA database.

DON'T TALK TO THE POLICE

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, I'm not British, so I don't know if the have something equivalent to the 5th amendment, but DON'T TALK TO THE POLICE once they start questions about you or what you were doing or anything like that. Don't justify yourself, don't argue with them, don't try to be their friends. Just STFU. And giving them DNA/fingerprints is like telling them your life story - it's not a good idea ever, voluntarily.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

Re:DON'T TALK TO THE POLICE

[Raumkraut]

You do not have to say anything unless you wish to do so, but I must warn you that if you fail to mention any fact which you rely on in your defence in court, your failure to take this opportunity to mention it may be treated in court as supporting any relevant evidence against you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning#England_and_Wales

Re:DON'T TALK TO THE POLICE

[shilly]

Ironic when you consider the part that the author of that particularly vile erosion of our liberty had to play in instigating a criminal war, and the wild unlikelihood of ever seeing him being questioned by the police for his part in the killing of hundreds of thousands.

Re:DON'T TALK TO THE POLICE

[Anonymous Cowpat]

IANAL, but my interpretation of it is that silence will only be effective if it's complete. The jury may make 'reasonable inferrences' from refusal to answer questions, and there's a lot less inference that can be made from a tape which only has a police officer asking questions on it than one where the defendant suddenly gums up incase they same something incriminating. Your lawyer can point out that you follow the obvious advice which follows from the statement by that great statesman Cardinal Richelieu; "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.".
Also, never enter the witness box, a defendant volunteering to be cross-examined is collecting just enough rope to hang themselves with.

Re:DON'T TALK TO THE POLICE

[Anonymous Cowpat]

sorry, that one is from the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. Although the current rabble can be blamed for not having repealed that section during the 13 years that they've had

Why to never talk to the police...

[Anonymous Coward]

Never talk to the police. Important link follows:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

Don't give a Sample

[missileman]

How the hell could it "help with a murder investigation" to provide them with a sample of your DNA?

Presuming you are innocent, you are simply opening yourself up to a false positive match, either now or in sometime in the future.

You have everything to lose, and nothing whatsoever to gain.

In the case of a degraded DNA sample, it's possible to have the statical odds of you being a match for a sample in the range of 100,000 to 1. That doesn't seem so bad unless you consider that there might be 1,000,000 records on file. Statistically that's 10 database hits, and if you are the lucky one cold hit, combined with the apparent belief that juries find scientific evidence infallible, you could easily be convicted. It *has* happened before that the only evidence that links a suspect to a crime is a cold database hit.

Just don't give them a sample without a court order, ever.

 

Re:Don't give a Sample

[Anonymous Coward]

How the hell could it "help with a murder investigation" to provide them with a sample of your DNA?

Easy, the murder just hasn't happened yet.

Re:Don't give a Sample

[Stray7Xi]

How the hell could it "help with a murder investigation" to provide them with a sample of your DNA?

If it happened in your home and your DNA is contaminating the crime scene. They have multiple samples of DNA and would like to eliminate some. I wouldn't want to trust the police with my DNA either, but if my wife was murdered in our bed (while I had an airtight alibi), it'd be a hard problem but I'd want a lawyer first.

Re:Don't give a Sample

[Cederic]

Just don't give them a sample without a court order, ever.

No court order needed. They just need to arrest you.

Yeah, I think that's fucked up too.

ref no

[Anonymous Coward]

And when you do genuinely need the police's help. They just give you a reference number!

Re:ref no

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh I know the thing. My stalking ex-gf called the police with the mention I had a druglab in my studio.

Ofcourse, the guys seemed excited to roll up a druglap and were a bit surpriced to meet me... Some geeky guy preparing for giving a presentation at a university.

I did let them inside, waiving my rights unknowingly and had some shrooms and confessed possession "it's for own use, and sometimes helps me find insight. I have nothing to hide for you guys, but a druglab, you must be joking...". After confiscation, the cops had to do "internet research" to validate they were actually shrooms but all they had was a printout of feable dried up mushrooms. Pathetic really. They hoped they could roll up a druglab or something, as they kept asking me where I got them, but seemed dissapointed they came from the Netherlands so they couldn't get some action busting evil dealers or whatever.
After my statement, they asked me "why would she tell us you'd have a druglab?" (after searching the entire premise of my landlord, motivating the search with a mention "I smell weed, do you too, colleague?" to which he commenced searching, ofcourse I live in a student block, and by the mention "if you find anything it wont be mine, as it's public property and all the students have access to this", they stopped searching.)

So, after I mentioned I'm being furiously stalked, showed about 700 textmessage (while 30 received during my interrogation because she wanted to get a reaction of her brilliant act) they told me to file a complaint.

so I did, they never could do anything, yet each confrontation I was painted off as the "agressor", because in stalking-cases it's more often males and she used to be an attractive young girl who can magically draw tears to her own command. Ofcourse that helps in charming two "heros", right?

Result: 5 phonenumbers later, moving, and having nearly everyone harrest that's remotely connected to me, the police hasn't done anything. Had a fine of 300 because of "possession of illegal substances" and she walks free, still terrorizing me whenever she finds a way to reach to me, and has been doing so for over 3 years straight.

tl;dr: don't trust police, they wont do anything, only monitor and register "events", but wont help you.

British police

[dugeen]

One good thing about the New Labour gleichshaltung is that British people have largely lost the trust in the police that they used to have. The way the police have behaved over DNA, and over the Stockwell killing, and the way they've treated anti-war demonstrators, have all had their effect. As Joe Orton pointed out, it's a far healthier society when people have a proper wariness of the police.

Re:British police

[Faluzeer]

Hmmm

I don't believe the blame can be (entirely) placed on the Labour Government, I did not trust the police before Labour came to power. There are numerous examples of the police abusing their powers under previous governments.

Re:British police

[I confirm I'm not a]

This is what killed my trust in the English police: an old-Etonian Earl and ITN (Britain's independent TV news agency) condemning the disproportionate actions of the police against women and children.

I don't trust New Labour to prevent atrocities like this, but this particular one took place under the Conservatives. And it wasn't an isolated incident.

Back on topic, I believe "UK police" here really means "English and Welsh police": I *believe* one of the few things the Scottish "polis" get right is that they don't retain DNA evidence unlawfully. Or at least they haven't been caught yet.

Re:British police

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right on the money.

Under Thatcher, it was common practice to harass anyone who resembled a 'hippy'. If you had dreadlocks, attended festivals and wore scruffy clothes; you expected the police to come crashing through your window at night. I can't express strongly enough how often and intensely they were 'attacked' by the police. They'd be repeatedly harassed and then accused of being unfit parents for bringing them up in such a dangerous environment where the police keep scaring them at night.

Unfortunately, these cases weren't reported in the media. Read the included article and you'll instantly see the police's mindset and understand why it wasn't reported. Hippies were a national threat.

The Battle of Beanfield.
A video of the Battle of Beanfield. (contains disturbing scenes).

Re:British police

[Anonymous Cowpat]

no, but they did give someone a ticket for blowing his nose while his vehicle was stopped in a traffic jam.

Re:British police

[augustw]

And he appealed the ticket, and the case was then dropped. The same cop who ticketed the nose blower had given a man a fixed penalty fine for littering the week before - when he dropped a ten pound note!

Re:British police

[I confirm I'm not a]

I'd be interested to know which Scottish force that was. My experience is with the largest (and one of the UK's largest) force - Strathclyde. I don't trust them at all, but I gather Lothian & Borders are just as bad. (For the non-Scots, the bulk of Scotland live in "the Central Belt", an area served by two forces - Strathclyde in Glasgow and the West, and Lothian & Borders covering Edinburgh and the East).

By contrast, I've heard good things about Dumfries & Galloway: the UK's smallest force, and also the force who held the largest investigation (their area covered Lockerbie, and they investigated the Pan Am bombing).

One good thing about the English police is civilian review: complaints against Scottish police officers are investigated by Scottish police officers.

Re:British police

[Anonymous Cowpat]

his lawyer appealed the ticket, the prosecution refused to drop the case, they were ridiculed in the national press and THEN they dropped it. So far, afaik, the officer who issued the ticket (a) still has his job (b) still has his liberty (c) has not been ordered to pay any compensation.

What if he'd just buckled and paid? We can see now that the man committed no offence, if he'd buckled then he'd have a criminal record, the government would be up by whatever the amount of the ticket was, and the officer would have another resolved crime for his statistics.

Monty Python

[caywen]

Pity - Monty Python would have had a field day with this.

Of course you were under suspicion!

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

In 2008 I invited two policemen into my home and voluntarily gave them a DNA and fingerprint sample to help with a murder investigation, as they'd promised it would only be used for that investigation. I was never under any suspicion...

Of course you were under suspicion - they just didn't have enough evidence to get a warrant to force you to give up your DNA so they bamboozled you into doing it voluntarily. Of course they kept it on file, they were suspicous enough of you to request a DNA sample thus you are under permanent suspicion for the rest of your life and probably a ways beyond.

What you did was the equivalent of getting pulled over by a cop and when he looks in your car window and doesn't see anything to justify a search , instead of letting you go on your way, he asks you if he can go ahead and search your car anyway and you said yes.

Re:Of course you were under suspicion!

[L4t3r4lu5]

Indeed. "Is this your cassette? Music from the radio you say? Come with me, I want your fingerprints."

Unless you're under caution / they have a warrant, your best response is "I'm afraid I can't help you with that, officer. I hope you have better luck elsewhere. Have a nice day!"

UK Police are driven by targets

[Aceticon]

C'mon, this is the UK police we're talking about: nowadays they're driven by targets that come from the politicians and directly influence their bonuses and career prospects.

Targets have been set by the highest level of government to collect and keep as many DNA samples as possible for the DNA Database, so Bonuses and Promotions are at stake here. They don't give a damn about the citizens they are supposed to serve except as means to reach their targets, so they would tell you whatever you wanted to hear to get another point on their DNA samples target.

Count yourself lucky though: people's lifes have been ruined when they got "Cautions" (an admission of guilt, which requires no court involvement and goes into the Criminal Record) for being drunken and rowdy or for (lightly) discipling their own kids.

I've lived in 3 European countries by now and this is the only one where I don't trust the police (which is kinda sad since I'm from Portugal, a country where people look up to the UK as a better place)

Not that I blame the lowly copper: at the core of the current rot are the power hungry politicians and money driven high-level officers.

I guess that people are getting what they deserve around here: the British electorate keeps voting on the same two sets of visibly lying, deceitfull, sleazy and two-faced politicians (or not voting at all) - these guys are so exceptionally untrustworthy (at least compared with Dutch and Portuguese politicians) that they are caught cheating and lying so often it's not fun anymore.

Re:UK Police are driven by targets

[Anonymous Coward]

"the British electorate keeps voting on the same two sets of visibly lying, deceitfull, sleazy and two-faced politicians"

and when I ask people why, they tell me "I don't like either party but a vote for anyone else is wasted"... it's like whenever election time comes around the entire country has an intellectual enema.

Re:UK Police are driven by targets

[Anonymous Coward]

Dutch politicians are absolutely NOT trustworthy, I have no idea where you got the idea they are. I know what I'm talking about: I'm Dutch by birth and habitat and have always had a keen interest in politics. They lie, cheat, deceive, misrepresent, twist, turn, ignore, steal, rape, pillage and whatever else you can imagine as much as any other politician. They have no moral fiber or backbone. The only thing of interest to them is the results in the next elections. Promises made are null and void within minutes of them being made. They are repulsive and sickening. I have always been an advocate of corporal punishment for misbehaving politicians, but somehow they don't deem it necessary. Yet, in their own words: "why object if you have nothing to hide?"

I might be biased by the brainless electoral propaganda that has been spewed over us the past month, where the shape and colour of the mouth is more important than the words that come out of it.

Re:UK Police are driven by targets

[Anonymous Cowpat]

Do you point out that unless the candidate that they vote for wins by a majority of one, their vote is wasted anyway?

voluntarily gave them a DNA and fingerprint sample

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would you do that? You know that you didn't do it, don't you? You could save them the price of analyzing your DNA by not giving a sample, and apparently there are other benefits of not participating in mass screenings...

Don't Talk To The Police

[rhook]

Seriously, nothing good ever comes from talking to the police or giving them anything that they don't have a warrant or court order for. Police are also allowed to lie, however if you lie to them you're guilty of a crime.

TFA: "What if I want to commit a serious crime?"

[evilandi]

TFA: "Me: ... What if I want to commit a serious crime in the future?"

And he wonders why the police want to keep tabs on him?

It doesn't matter for a different reason

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't matter for a different reason: if the majority are decent and honest, why do they close ranks and defend the corrupt minority? They're not being part of the solution, they're part of the problem.

Re:It doesn't matter for a different reason

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably because they're very likely to be forced to work together with the minority anyway and know that if they don't, it will make their jobs even harder. And perhaps there is a group sort of between the decent and honest cops and the assholes and the decent and honest ones know that if they break rank, the in-betweens will side with those who don't break it.

Re:It doesn't matter for a different reason

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably because they're very likely to be forced to work together with the minority anyway and know that if they don't, it will make their jobs even harder. And perhaps there is a group sort of between the decent and honest cops and the assholes and the decent and honest ones know that if they break rank, the in-betweens will side with those who don't break it.

There is, and they're more guilty than the actively corrupt ones. I can respect a guy, if not like him, for putting a gun to my face and robbing me. I don't respect the shifty eye guy with him not saying or doing anything to help either of us.

For a LOTR analogy, the in-betweens are the police equivalent of Wormtongue. They don't have the decency to stand up for what's right, nor the balls to go "The Shield" in a useful way.

Re:It doesn't matter for a different reason

[fredklein]

Probably because they're very likely to be forced to work together with the minority anyway and know that if they don't, it will make their jobs even harder.

If they stood up and reported (and testified against) the bad cops and got them kicked off the force, they wouldn't have to work together with them. AND they wouldn't have to face moral challenges daily. AND the public would treat them better, resulting in less stress. AND....

And perhaps there is a group sort of between the decent and honest cops and the assholes and the decent and honest ones know that if they break rank, the in-betweens will side with those who don't break it.

As someone else said "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem".

Where have you been?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where has the original OP [b]been[/b]? Stories about the "DNA Database" have been plastered all over the news and related sites such as The Register (UK) for months. Here's some examples;

[url]http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/04/dna_pioneer_lambasts_database/[/url]
[quote]"Currently, everybody arrested in England and Wales has to provide a DNA sample, and the government has been heavily criticised for retaining profiles of people not charged or found innocent. The European Court of Human Rights ruled against the policy of indefinite retention in late 2008."[/quote]

[url]http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/21/dna_pnc/[/url]

[quote]Police will continue to retain the personal details of everyone they arrest, despite a human rights ruling meaning the DNA profiles they are linked to must be deleted."[/quote]

You can't be [b]that[/b] bothered about his DNA retention, after all you gave it up voluntarily without even being a suspect and without knowing the laws or what the police would do with it!

Heh

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you believe the cops? Just because they are cops?

England is not the same as UK

[augustw]

The headline is incorrect: it's not UK police, it's English Police who hold onto DNA. DNA samples, and profiles, are routinely destroyed at the end of the relevant enquiry in Scotland, which is a quite distinct legal jurisdiction from England.

Re:England is not the same as UK

[L4t3r4lu5]

+6 Informative. I've made this same mistake above in my comments.

Editors: Do your job and edit.

Re:England is not the same as UK

[Totenglocke]

DNA samples, and profiles, are routinely destroyed at the end of the relevant enquiry in Scotland

Or at least that's what the public are told.

Yes, you get to avoid 40% tax

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, you get to avoid 40% tax. If you're rich enough you get to avoid ALL taxes!

Re:Yes, you get to avoid 40% tax

[Anonymous Coward]

It's sad if you think £38k/year is rich.

ACAB

[Anonymous Coward]

D'uh

Fun facts on public transportation in the UK

[tlambert]

You are in a tiny, densely populated country. The state of Wisconsin is almost the same size as the entire U.K., and only has a population of 5,363,675. In that same area, the U.K. has 60,441,457 people, give or take. For non-water land, the UK is 241,590 sq km. The U.S. is 9,161,923 sq km. That's about 38 times the size of the U.K., and only about 4.9 times as high a population (U.S.: 295,734,134), or in plain terms, the U.K. has about 7.76 times the population density of the U.S..

Some U.S. urban areas have very good public transportation; Washington D.C., Seattle, New York. But in general, except on the coasts where population is very dense (50% of all Americans live within 50 miles of a coast), there's no way public transportation, other than long distance, limited routes, makes any economic sense in the U.S..

-- Terry

Re:Fun facts on public transportation in the UK

[xaxa]

It wasn't really a serious comment, but:
* UK: 90% urbanisation.
* US: 82% urbanization.
Also, you say yourself that everyone lives on the coasts -- note that New Jersey and Rhode Island have higher densities than England, and Connecticut and Massachusetts higher than the UK.

Public transportation is more than long distance routes.

Many (most?) Americans seem to either not have a local bus service, or wouldn't dare to use it, or wouldn't want to be seen using it. The exception is American children, who can go to and from school.
Yet buses are really useful for people that can't drive (the young and very old, the 'poor', the disabled) to be able to get around. When other people use them too there will be less congestion and less demand for parking, which benefits everyone.
(By 'poor' I mean people that don't have enough money that they don't have to consider the cost of owning and using a car.)
For example, round here teenagers either walk, use local buses/trams/trains, or bug their parents. Do American teenagers only have the last option?

Anyway, the GP was discussing relocating. The difference in how American and British people organise their country's transport/land use is definitely something to consider when deciding whether to move.

You're lucky

[Vinegar Joe]

"In 2008 I invited two policemen into my home and voluntarily gave them a DNA and fingerprint sample to help with a murder investigation, as they'd promised it would only be used for that investigation."

If the cops had been screening for stupidity you'd be in a lot of trouble.

It's worse than that - Wales isn't England either

[feepcreature]

it's not UK police, it's English Police

If we're being picky, it should probably be all the police forces in England and Wales. There are quite a few of them.

Actually it's even worse than THAT

[feepcreature]

And if we're being even pickier, we should probably mention the law and practice of the Police Service of Northern Ireland in retaining DNA (I don't know what it is, but suspect it matches the situation in England, policing and justice not being devolved yet).

That's without considering what the law and police practice might be in other related "British" jurisdictions like the Channel Islands, Isle of Man, Gibralter, and various overseas territories.

It's complicated. And mostly it's wrong.

Never voluntarily cooperate with police/government

[WCMI92]

This is a sterling example as to why. You never deal with them without an attorney, and you never give up anything like a DNA sample consensually.

For the life of me I never have understood why people have willingly accepted a system where it is a crime for a citizen to lie to the government, but the government lying to citizens is accepted as routine.

This sort of behavior not only discourages co-operation with the police, it pretty much MANDATES it. This is why police associations themselves should be against this sort of thing, in the end it's going to make their jobs even harder.

Re:you guys should have rtfa this time. It was goo

[NCG_Mike]

Sounds like "accidentally cut off his head whilst combing his hair". I think that was a Black Adder line...

Once the feds are alligned, i have no prob

[hesaigo999ca]

Once all the feds are properly sanctioned and set up to run a sort of shared interglobal database where everyone is fingerprinted, dna, and maybe sent their main form of id (passport?) I will let them have my info. Once we move to a global scale system that is properly monitored and controlled (by who, don't know) I will be able to trust my credentials with them, but when you have some stupid desk clerk in some small town sheriff dept. or city precinct, that has his own agenda, or they have some plans in using the info they have for ??? I wonder.

The difference between the 2 will be money, loads of it. The small precinct is needing money, the 500 billion dollar global project wont be. Who would be tempted to sell your info to someone...?
Who might mishandle the info in such a way as to screw up or make mistakes.
Trust me, the big project with all world leaders having their eyes watching, would have to be pretty rock solid, where as some
desk clerk that smudges your info because he dropped some coffee by mistake, well, you figure out the rest, ey!

Thank Goodness for the 5th Amendment in the US

[ChemGeek4501]

Professor James Duane at Regents Law School has a very interesting video regarding the U.S. 5th Amendment and the right not to incriminate oneself. It's on Google Video, "Don't Talk to Police" by James Duane. The URL is pretty lengthy to cut/paste here - but I recommend it highly.

Re:Thank Goodness for the 5th Amendment in the US

[ishobo]

That is not going to help when they collect your DNA. In California, they must collect your DNA if you are an adult and have been arrested for a felony. It goes into the state's DNA bank, where they keep it forever and share it with the feds. The law allows people to have their DNA profile removed from the database and destroyed if they have been found innocent or released without charges; it is not an automatic procedure, it requires the person to initiate a lengthy process leading to a court order.

http://ag.ca.gov/bfs/pdf/69IB_121508.pdf
If the adult is arrested for a crime that could be charged as a felony or misdemeanor (i.e., it is a wobbler offense), the arrest is considered to be a felony arrest for the purposes of determining qualification for collection under Penal Code section 296.

http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/aclu-lawsuit-challenges-california-s-mandatory-dna-collection-arrest
In March 2009, Lily Haskell attended a peace rally in San Francisco and was arrested. She was not charged with a crime and was quickly released, but not before being required to provide a DNA sample.

"When your DNA is taken after an arrest at a political demonstration, it can have a silencing effect on political action," said Haskell. "Now my genetic information is stored indefinitely in a government database, simply because I was exercising my right to speak out."

Re:you guys should have rtfa this time. It was goo

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless I miss my guess, I'd say that the fellow being "close to death" when they found him means that he was actually still alive. In other words, they asked him what happened...

Though the circumstances are still quite suspicious I verily agree.

Mission Creep

[M-RES]

This is your classic case of mission creep.

The Police are no longer law enforcement officers, they're revenue collection agents - fact.

Re:Mission Creep

[geekoid]

Instead of just making statements and declaring them fact, you actual have some sort of argument backing your statement?

Oh wait, that would require thinking and research. After reading your history of replies, I seriously doubt you ARE capable of rational thought, or even considering other facts that might show you are wrong.

Re:Never voluntarily cooperate with police/governm

[redalien]

I don't have a problem with cooperating with the police in the slightest. I do, however, really dislike the imbalance in the relationship that you describe. I'm looking at this as my responsibility to publicise these events in the hope that it will go a small way towards adding to the mounting public hatred of the DNA database and the tactics the police use.

Re:you guys should have rtfa this time. It was goo

[redalien]

They did ask him, multiple times. He always turned his head away and wouldn't answer. For obvious reasons I'm not going to go into further speculation and hearsay about what went on, though.

OMG! Say it ain't So!

[geminidomino]

Cops lie! Film at 11.

In other news, the sun rises in the east, all operating systems suck, and a popular household baby food contains rat poison. Tune in after "House, M.D." to find out which one!

Tax Rate Not just Income Taxes

[random coward]

Your tax rate isn't just income tax rate. By the time you add VAT, property taxes(either directly paid, or indirectly via rent), automobile registration fees, etc. I'm sure that 40% is closer to 60%.

Looks like it started out ok, but then.. WTF?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Policeman 1: We can destroy your samples after the investigation, or we can keep them on the database so we can use them again in future.

Me: What’s in it for me?

This is an absolutely perfect way to frame the conversation, and I mean that in the widest scope possible. We're not just talking about DNA here; this is how every single interaction with government should go.

But then something went horribly wrong. The government agents didn't answer that question, and then

So, that nice bit of banter out of the way, they took my samples and left.

WTF? At this point, the government is acting in bad faith toward its citizen (you), you know this is happening, and apparently you accepted. After that, details like them failing to destroy the DNA seem so unimportant and trivial. Didn't you pretty much expect them to be the Bad Guys? Wasn't the premise of the transaction that they did not need to have any sort of good will or treat you with any respect? How can you get upset with them about breaking a promise, after that?

We can't reasonably have policies down at the detail levels, of government acting in the interests of citizens, if the premise of government power isn't that everything it does is supposed to have serving the public as its rationale. The government should always have a damn good, painfully obvious and satisfying answer to the question, "What's in it for me?" That's not something you can gloss over. Any time they don't have an answer to that, citizens need to do something about that. I don't just mean say no to their request for DNA (but of course you should do that). I mean that something ought to be set in motion so that the cops never ask anyone for their DNA again. Your MP should be working on that, right now. Forget the DNA; your government needs a fundamentally new mission for the cops.

But anyway, you consented to evil government. That's not just a cynical prejudice against government, but something that was demonstrated with undeniable proof to you, right there in that room on that day, when there was no answer to the "What's in it for me?" question. That was long before they broke their word and kept the DNA. That they kept the DNA is pretty much irrelevant. You have much bigger problems than that.

No it isn't. It's remarkably similar to the USA.

[evilandi]

The United States has many states which can have slightly different laws. Each state is made up of counties which often have separate police forces.

The United Kingdom has many kingdoms which can have slightly different laws. Each kingdom is made up of counties which often have separate police forces.

I fail to see what USians find so hard to grasp.

(Okay, so actually we have only two kingdoms plus one principality and one territory, and historically those are technically made up of smaller tribal kingdoms, but the basic modern formation of the United Kingdom really isn't so far removed from the United States. It all went wrong after King Ozric of Mercia, mark my words...)

Police will say anything

[Anonymous Coward]

Police are allowed to lie to you and in the US and, contrary to popular TV programming, don't always have to immediately read you your miranda rights (in fact will hold off doing so as long as possible). This was in the UK, but the lesson is, if it's not criminally prosecutable for the police to lie in your country, they will lie to you. Do not speak to the police, do not aid them in any way. If they have a warrant (in the US, obviously) to search your property, object anyway, the warrant may later become invalid, but if you've invited them in because of it the search will stand.

Never believe what they say they are looking for. The police in many countries are responsible for more abuse to the average citizen than most of the "criminals" they chase.

I wonder

[geekoid]

Why is having them retain DNA a bad thing?

They can't use it to follow you. It in no way implies and admission of guilt, and in the US it may not be used if it is considered self incrimenation. Of course that does not apply to DNA left at the scene, only to the use of DNA you voluntarily gave.

They aren't searching your property for a crime. In fact they can't use it of itself to show you committed a crime.

In fact, I don't see how the arguments for privacy, and illegal search and seizure even apply to having DNA on file.

Is there even a chilling effect on freedoms? I can't think of anything I have not done because my fingerprints are on a file.

Please try to maintain some semblance of rational when replying.

Re:I wonder

[Cederic]

1. False positives.

2. Unnecessary intrusion into privacy.

3. You can't trust them.

4. Presumption of innocence

Sorry, I've only thought of four compelling reasons in the first 30 seconds.

Compulsory DNA

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not just get everyone's DNA at birth and be done with? If it results in one less murder per year then it is worth doing. Why would anyone except a criminal worry about the police having their DNA?

Re:you guys should have rtfa this time. It was goo

[Anonymous Cowpat]

Blackadder III, Episode 1.

Also, "accidentally brutally stabbed himself in the stomach while shaving"

why you never talk to cops

[bohobourgie]

yeah we don't talk to cops over on this side of the pond: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik&feature=player_embedded#

ahem...

[jDeepbeep]

If i'd had behaved like a prick like you suggest what would it have gained me?

Exercising your rights does *not* make one a prick.

Re:ahem...

[jamesh]

Exercising your rights does *not* make one a prick.

True, but being a prick does make you a prick, even if it is within your rights to do so.