Keeping DNA on Record

Welcome to UKHIppy2764@2x.png

UKHippy is a long running online community and of likeminded people exploring all interpretations on what it means to be living an alternative lifestyle -- we welcome discussions on everything related to sustainability, the environment, alternative spirituality, music, festivals, politics and more -- membership of this website is free but supported by the community.

  • It sucks if you ever wana do owt Illegal. I had mine taken 10 years ago for a minor offence in Soho. fkers let me go with a caution, finger prints and a swab, but the pigs just wanted to get off the streets out of the rain and thats what they told me too. I have no prob giving my DNA if its to eliminate me from their enquiries, to solve a child murder or sumat like that. But to be fair everyone born from now on should have their DND taken when you get a birth certificate.

  • I disagree with it on three grounds:


    * its an infringement on the person to be so subject to surveillance and policing all the time


    * it shows a paranoidally pesimistic govt which assumes, by default, that we are all potential criminals - and that is never something to be trusted


    * you cant police people into being decent - so its ultimately superfluous because its barking up the wrong tree as regards promoting decent society

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

  • Don't be silly....now your going beyond reasonable doubt.

    Your point's unclear. But I'll assume that you mean that such intrusive practices are justified only where there is reasonable assumption of criminal activity. Yet that the DNA database includes samples taken from entirely innocent people. So I'd say my point was entirely valid. If the only baseline for the legitimacy of such practices is their effectiveness, then any degree of surveillance can be justified, as it will lead to a reduction in crime. The silly argument is the trite old "if you've got nothing to hide...." nonsense - which ignores the fundamental human psychological need for privacy and freedom. And if all those arguments aren't enough.... you may feel that you have nothing to hide now, but that may not always be the case. Imagine what a gift a DNA database would have been to Hitler.

  • which ignores the fundamental human psychological need for privacy and freedom. And if all those arguments aren't enough.... you may feel that you have nothing to hide now, but that may not always be the case. Imagine what a gift a DNA database would have been to Hitler.



    Though I agree with the point that it does ignore the need for human privacy, and I also agree that in the wrong hands such databases would prove to be terrible.

    I also think that the fact that this database has proved to be helpful in catching some really violent re'offenders can not be agnored, so therefore I think there is a good aguement for both sides of the coin here.;)


  • I also think that the fact that this database has proved to be helpful in catching some really violent re'offenders can not be agnored, so therefore I think there is a good aguement for both sides of the coin here.;)

    Yeah, I don't think it's entirely straightforward. However, the fact that the database has been helpful isn't sufficient justification for its use. I mean all kinds of draconian measures would be equally helpful. If we were all fitted with microchips to track our movements, I imagine that would be immensely helpful in catching offenders!


    On balance, I do think that keeping the DNA of all innocent people on record indefinitely is over the top. A good compromise would be to permanently store the data of all convicted violent/sexual offenders, and to store the data of anyone suspected of such an offence for a limited time - say five years.

  • my main fear with DNA databases is not what might be done with them now, but whose hands they may fall into in the future.


    i've got nothing to hide and no-one after me and dont particularly fear the current government, but there's no way i'd trust anyone with my DNA. we all know how competent the government are at not losing data! not to mention the fact that there stored on computers which are just as liable to cock up as the governement.

    “Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover.” -Mark Twain

  • Yeah, I don't think it's entirely straightforward. However, the fact that the database has been helpful isn't sufficient justification for its use. I mean all kinds of draconian measures would be equally helpful. If we were all fitted with microchips to track our movements, I imagine that would be immensely helpful in catching offenders!



    We already carry around microchips which can be used to track our movements. They are called mobile phones! if it is switched on they can find you. Personally i think we should get rid of the info of all non-convicted people from this database. There may be an arguement for getting rid of details of convicted people after a certain period of time as well. Government data protection has been crap and having your info on this database is a lifetime stigma when you no longer have to detail old convictions after a few years in most cases.
    We live in the country with the most CCTVs per person in the world and noone appears to be particularly concerned about this.
    The police will use any dubious arguement to get more powers. On the news last night it was claimed the Steven Wright, the Ipswitch killer was only caught because of old DNA info from an assault. He was however a well known customer of all of these women and there was enough suspicion to get a new DNA sample from him. Cops also want to bang up muslims and other alledged terrorists for about 3 months on suspicion of being dangerous before bringing any charges against them.

  • So what do people think about this..

    Is it a breach of people's human rights or a useful tool in catching offenders, as was the case of the murder of Sally Anne Bowman?


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




    I think it is really important to clarify exactly what this judgement is about.

    It has no impact whatsoever on the case of Sally Anne Bowman.

    Mark Dixie was "caught" after being arrested for being involved in a pub brawl...his DNA was taken following his arrest and this was found to match the DNA samples that were held on record and led to his conviction for the rape and murder of Sally Anne Bowman.

    The judgement in no way prevents the police from sampling the DNA from anybody arrested for anything, it simply means that the DNA taken from individuals who have not been convicted cannot be kept indefinately.

    Atomiks suggestion, that the DNA of those suspected of violent or sexual offences but not convicted is kept for a certain amount of time is exactly what this ruling is about. That is already what happens across the rest of Europe.

    Keeping the DNA of people who have not been convicted of anything indefinately should not be something that any one living in a so called democracy can possibly approve of .

    'I disapprove of what you say, but I will
    defend to the death your right to say it'
    Evelyn Beatrice Hall, The Friends Of Voltaire, 1906.

  • ps the fact that the home secretary finds this judgement "dissapoining" is the most disturbing part...

    'I disapprove of what you say, but I will
    defend to the death your right to say it'
    Evelyn Beatrice Hall, The Friends Of Voltaire, 1906.

  • What about those who are convicted of minor offences? I was convicted of aggravated trespass for my part in an anti nuke demo, and as such, I don't think it's fair that my DNA will be on there alongside the DNA of rapists and murderers etc. Does this new ruling go far enough?

    Quote


    the fact that the home secretary finds this judgement "dissapoining" is the most disturbing part...


    I've never hated a politician as much as I hate Jacqui Smith. I'm pretty much a pacifist, but she makes me want to go all V for Vendetta... :angel:

  • if you've got nothing to hide then i dont see whats wrong with it and if u do have somthing to hide you'll just have to wear somthing on your fingers that doesnt show your prints

  • if you've got nothing to hide then i dont see whats wrong with it and if u do have somthing to hide you'll just have to wear somthing on your fingers that doesnt show your prints


    Have you noticed what has become illegal since 1980?


    If not, take a look at:
    * The Criminal Justice Act (1994) - criminalising the road protests, airport protests and peaceful hunt sabotage
    * SOCPA 2005 - protesting withing a KM of Parlaiment
    * Form 696 - the info you have to provide to legally perform music in london
    * The Immigration and Citizenship Bill - ID must be shown on demand


    Eventually, the majority of folks will have "something to hide" as far as "what is illegal" is concerned...

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

  • yep, for instance say you commit a crime covered in an unjust law, or the law is more interested in anti government politics than it is is chasing murderers:whistle: i am not saying that this is the case but take a look around the world and say that it doesn't happen. a database is there for life not just during one high media-case, and don't forget the terrorist laws that can proscribe an organisation illegal. the home secretary could proscribe UK hippy an illegal organisation deciding that all hippys are terrorists. you would have to go and report anyone you know thats a member to the police or you would be guilty of a crime, never mind a potential 10 years imprisonment if you wore a promotional t-shirt. the problem is these laws are put in place and then not used for awhile, but they are still their if the government decide at anytime that they need to use them. apparently the current threat from eco terrorists is through the roof according to the media and the terrorist police that investigate the stats, how would you feel for instance if earth first became proscribed and anyone ever associated was arrested?

  • if you've got nothing to hide then i dont see whats wrong with it

    Do you actually bother to read threads before you post? :rolleyes:


    People have a need for privacy. If you've got nothing to hide, then why not let the government install cameras in all our homes? And record every word we say? And I'm sure all our Jewish friends will have "nothing to hide" if a fascist government ever comes to power and gets its hands on the database.