News1 min ago
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Loosehead. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
There's thousands of government databases currently up and running. A few high profile ones have proved flawed. There's databases on everything from company information to vehicle licencing to tax information. Most of them work fine.
Being that I'm not a criminal and have no intention of becoming one any time in the foreseeable future I'd have no objection to being on a DNA database.
Being that I'm not a criminal and have no intention of becoming one any time in the foreseeable future I'd have no objection to being on a DNA database.
I say no, but I have no moral, legal, or philosophical reason for doing so: my reason is much more simplistic. Before DNA, fingerprints were all the rage. The experts said that it was impossible for two people in the entire world to have exactly the same fingerprints. Has everyone, both past and present, in the world been fingerprinted and and had their prints compared with all other prints. The same with DNA, how can the 'experts' claim that it is impossible for two people to have the same pattern WHEN EVERYONE HAS NOT BEEN TESTED AND COMPARED!!??
Twenty20 A few high profile ones have proved flawed...... Most of them work fine.
Passports: http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2006/11 /14/219863/passport-it-troubles-bode-ill-for-i d-cards.htm
Probation service:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/04/26/home_o ffice_computer_system_slammed/
NHS:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-233 95551-details/Government+branded+%27a+joke%27+ over+wasting+%C2%A31bn+installing+new+computer +systems/article.do
Farmers:
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/ViewArticle.asp x?SectionID=2155&ArticleID=1390617
Customs & Excise:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/19/hmrc_n i/
Benefits system:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5315280 .stm
Still - I am sure your DNA data will be perfectly safe
Passports: http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2006/11 /14/219863/passport-it-troubles-bode-ill-for-i d-cards.htm
Probation service:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/04/26/home_o ffice_computer_system_slammed/
NHS:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-233 95551-details/Government+branded+%27a+joke%27+ over+wasting+%C2%A31bn+installing+new+computer +systems/article.do
Farmers:
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/ViewArticle.asp x?SectionID=2155&ArticleID=1390617
Customs & Excise:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/19/hmrc_n i/
Benefits system:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5315280 .stm
Still - I am sure your DNA data will be perfectly safe
Well thanks everyone, my own thoughts:
I tend to agree with those that don't trust the authorities to "scope creep" the uses of the Database. I also think there is a tendency for people to take DNA as proof positive of guilt in things like sex crimes etc. If your DNA is present then that only proves you where there it doesn't prove you did it. There are many cases where a persons DNA could be present quite inocently. Then there is the ease with which someone could be framed maliciously, in the end the presence of DNA would be neither here nor there.
On balance I just don't trust the governement with this kind of power.
I tend to agree with those that don't trust the authorities to "scope creep" the uses of the Database. I also think there is a tendency for people to take DNA as proof positive of guilt in things like sex crimes etc. If your DNA is present then that only proves you where there it doesn't prove you did it. There are many cases where a persons DNA could be present quite inocently. Then there is the ease with which someone could be framed maliciously, in the end the presence of DNA would be neither here nor there.
On balance I just don't trust the governement with this kind of power.
Many people including the innocent have no objection to having their DNA stored. In fact they should allow people to voluntary have their DNA collected and added to the database. Also from new born babies, immigrants and people having dental or medical treatment. Then the smaller non contributing majority can be suspects in any unsolved crime.
Thanks, chompu, I feel more comfortable with the situation now. Statistically speaking, the odds are only 3 billion to one that some other geezer has the same DNA as mine. I'd still hate to be quivering in the dock whilst the judge is saying "Statistically speaking, stewey, in theory the odds are that there's a very good chance that you might have done this dirty deed; we tend to think......off with your head!"
I've never seen odds as low as a million to one given in court for DNA profiling. Maybe for comparison of blood groups. A genetic scientist would tell you that your DNA is unique unless you are one of identical twins.
Interesting point in the general discussion. Since 2001 when the law was changed, 200,000 records have been added to the database of people who were suspects but not convicted of a crime. This is what prompted the judges' comments. This group has resulted in 8,000 matches and a clear up of 14,000 crimes, including murders and rapes. A conclusive arguement, in my opinion, for a national database. Figures from Home Office site.
Interesting point in the general discussion. Since 2001 when the law was changed, 200,000 records have been added to the database of people who were suspects but not convicted of a crime. This is what prompted the judges' comments. This group has resulted in 8,000 matches and a clear up of 14,000 crimes, including murders and rapes. A conclusive arguement, in my opinion, for a national database. Figures from Home Office site.
