Should we object to DNA being taken?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.independen...heir-dna-1826437.html

Should anyone object to their DNA being taken and kept on record?

There are a multitude of personal information kept on record,

Birth certificate
Medical records.
Dental records
Car & Driving details
Home address
Occupants in one's home
Military records
Criminal records
Etc Etc

So why all the rumpus over DNA, is the real reason because it upsets certain groups, just as "stop and search" did?

[another-view]

The only ones it upsets is those who have something to hide.

[daffy654]

I really don't care if my DNA is kept on file (not that i've ever been arrested),I have nothing to hide so nothing to fear.

[Gromit]

I don't mind my dentist having my dental records or my bank having my financial records, but I don't see why I would want the Police to have them.

I have nothing to hide, but it is personal information. If they asked for it, I would voluntarily offer access to the information, but I object to being forced to do this.

[anotheoldgit]

Gromit

At time it is quite useful for the police to have access to dental records.

Sometimes it is the only way possible of identifying a corpse.

[anotheoldgit]

Steve.5

What's your attitude when you purchase a TV, DVD recorder etc, and they ask for your name and address for the TV licensing authorities?

[sp1814]

There's an unseen problem with storing everyone's DNA on file.

Governments come and governments go. We would have to not only trust the current administration, but all future adminstrations with this sensitive information.

Do we have unquestioned trust? Do we know that Government computer systems are 100% unfallable? That data is never lost or misappropriated?

I absolutely agree that that 'certain groups' (paedophiles for instance) might have an issue with DNA being kept, but the rest of us also have legitimate reasons to be concerned.

[flip_flop]

I've got nothing to hide another-view, but it upsets me.

If somebody is convicted of a criminal offence then fair enough (and I'm not talking about straying over the speed limit - although some on this site believe this deserves the gullotine - "if you don't speed....." etc nasal whining ad infinitum), BUT if you are arrested and released without charge or found not guilty, then there is no justifiable reason for your DNA to be kept on a database.

[Gromit]

//At time it is quite useful for the police to have access to dental records.

Sometimes it is the only way possible of identifying a corpse.//

I can agree with that. They can even have some DNA when I am dead. Just don't force me to give private information if I don't want to while I am alive.

[ludwig]

We all know that any organisation that stores our sensitive data can't be trusted to look after it properly, least of all the government, so the less that is kept is generally better.
'nothing to hide, nothing to fear' is fine until such time as the police are breaking down your door in the middle of the night and arresting you for something you know nothing about because your computerised DNA record links you unquestionably to the crime.

[coccinelle]

Your DNA is linked with your offspring so it can be proven if you are the father or not of a certain person. A few months ago in France the law of taking immigrants' DNA to prove if the children they were bringing into the country were in fact their own, was put on standby. This is another problem DNA can bring.

[LoftyLottie]

I'm with Gromit on this. And I am totally fedup with 'If you've got nothing to hide, etc..............' I have nothing to hide at all!

[cazzz1975]

if you were on the other end lottie, as a victim of crime, would you feel happy that the criminal was allowed to walk the street freely able to reoffend because he has not been caught?

the use of your info would only be if something had happened, if you live an honest law abiding life you have little to worry about. I would be more relieved that it could potentially catch criminals.

[Oneeyedvic]

If you have nothing to hide....

Use of Anti Terror legislation:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7520598.stm To arrest BUT NOT CHARGE someone (falsely) accused of child trafficking
http://www.independen...ror-laws-1228149.html - one of several photographes arrested BUT NOT CHARGED under Anti Terror Laws
http://news.bbc.co.uk..._politics/4293502.stm Another famous case of the MISUSE of Anti Terror Laws.

All these people were innocent and did have something to fear.

Then we have Jean Charles Menezes - the police spokesman originally said that he was acting suspiciously, hurdled a barrier and was wearing a heavy jacket. These all proved to be false allegations. He was innocent but shot by the police who immediately tried to cover up their mistake.

Can't be bothered to provide links of the loss of data - but there have been many, many cases.

If you think that innocent people are not harmed by these laws, then you are mistaken.

If you think that the data is safe, then you are amazingly naive.

[Gromit]

cazzz1975


//if you were on the other end lottie, as a victim of crime, would you feel happy that the criminal was allowed to walk the street freely able to reoffend because he has not been caught? //

I am quite happy with the present situation. If the police have some DNA, they can ask the local community to give a DNA sample which will eliminate them from suspicion. The technique works successfully now, and was instrumental in the recent arrest of the 'Night Stalker'.

//Senior officers at Scotland Yard authorised a £100,000 operation recently to obtain DNA from a long list of suspects. Since the inquiry started more than 2,000 DNA samples have been taken. Information about the attacker has been gleaned from evidence left at only a small proportion of crime scenes but it has proved invaluable in narrowing down the list of suspects.

To shorten the list more, in 2004 officers were allowed to use a ground-breaking DNA technique, known as ancestral testing, that had never been used in Britain before.//

http://www.timesonlin...me/article6918038.ece

I prefer the present system instead of the 'presumed guilty until proven innocent' scenario which this database represents.

[LoftyLottie]

cazz - Gromit and OEV have answered your question much better than I can.

I feel very, very strongly about this .

[New Judge]

The issue here is not whether DNA should be taken and retained, but whose DNA is taken and retained.

As with fingerprints, most people (me included) see nothing wrong with taking the DNA of convicted criminals. However, when it comes to taking the DNA of those not convicted, or in many cases not even charged, with any offence I part company.

Many employers are now asking, as part of their job application process, “Have you had your DNA taken and retained by the police?” No further elucidation is sought (e.g. it was taken to eliminate me from enquiries; it was taken but I was not charged, etc.). They either have it or they do not. And if they do your prospects are jeopardised. In short, one is liable to be stigmatised and suffer discrimination.

The “nothing to hide” brigade are suffering a misunderstanding. They have everything to hide from a state machine that seeks to track survey and monitor every move individuals make and will misuse the information they hold for whatever ends they currently have in mind.

In the recent debate about how the government is going to change the current system of keeping all DNA details indefinitely (ruled illegal by the European Court) ministers keep talking about “reoffending” probabilities of people who have not offended in the first place. It demonstrates that they have in mind that people whose DNA has been taken are automatically offenders, but perhaps not quite guilty enough to secure a conviction..

Either everybody’s DNA should be taken at birth (neither practical nor desirable), or it should be restricted to those convicted of criminal offences serious enough to attract custody. Nobody else should be involved.