libuse, it can be a nonstory yet still worth discussing. The capability to catalog a population's DNA is pretty stunning. A person's opinion might even change suddenly if a family member were victim of a violent crime.

Incidentally, putting aside issues about cost and practicality, can someone give me a human rights argument against DNA archiving?

Yes - If you are arrested by a 'bent cop' just to harass you or in my case it is an unnecessary if not an illegal arrest you can go to the court and get a judgement in your favour. You will get money to compensate for what has happened. Everything will be done to 'put right' the mistake, intended or not EXCEPT that your DNA will be kept on file.

HR argument 2

Children who commit a crime have it 'wiped' at 18 if they have not been n trouble again. But their DNA is not wiped.

HR argument 3 - There is information on a database about me held without my permission. It is not there to help me in any way. Governments change and information can be used in ways it was never intended. Can you imagine what the Nazi's could have done with DNA? 'Ethnic cleansing' happens. It may not be happening in the UK we do not know what else it could be used for.

argument 4 - non HR

When a crime occurs the police do not just look for perfect matches with DNA but for near matches. One rapist has been court because his sister's DNA was on the database. The police used DNA from the scene, ran it though the database and then knocked on the sister's door asking for the names of male relatives. Now this is a rape case and you might think 'but they convicted a rapist' but personally I think it's poor policing. Families loose touch, children are adopted etc. Suppose the rapist had been adopted as a child but his parents stayed together and had other children (you may be thinking far fetched but this has happened in my family)the other children may not even know they had an older brother. The police arrive at the sister's house and then go on to interview her father and other brothers. They are all innocent. Just how much harm is caused to this family? Yes I know we are talking about a rape but these interviews will not undo the rape they will just cause distress to a family unrelated to the incident. SUppose then the rapist rapes again before he is caught - all the family now have their DNA on the database e so now the police come up with several near matches and so on.

When I arrive in the United States, I am photographed and my fingerprints are taken.

Are these destroyed when I leave? What is the real difference between that and keeping someone's DNA on file?

There is another elephant in the room. The reason the police want this is it does their job for them and increases the clear up rate.

It does work - witness the number of "cold cases" that are being cleared.

The judgement has to be if this is a benefit that justifies the infringement of privacy. I really don't know where I stand on this.

However it did prove that Hanratty did do it.

It's a difficult one.
Like you, I don't really know where I stand and sometimes wonder if our civil liberties are slowly being nibbled away.
It's like that philosophical thing with the horse's tail. I can't remember the philosopher, but he asked if you pull out hairs from the tail one at a time, at what point do you notice that there is less tail than there was when you started.
You could say that CCTV is an infringement of privacy too, but it is certainly a good tool in detecting crime.
There must also be many criminals shaking in their shoes, having thought for years that they wouldn't be caught.

You could say that CCTV is an infringement of privacy too, but it is certainly a good tool in detecting crime.>>>>>>>>>

It's actually pretty close to useless at detecting crime. It does seem to have a deterrent effect though.

I hear (rumour0 that the icelandic government sold the records to DNA experts or was it the mormons.


Now that should have stopped the guy who foiund America in 1000 from traveling

The basic argument for justifying this is that it helps prevent / clear up crime.

Using this logic you can justify ANYTHING as long as it (allegedly) prevents / clears up crime.

So would the people who think it's OK also want their fingerprints on file, how about a set of mugshots, why not electronically tag everybody, why not require people to get permission to leave the house, why not have cameras in the home, why not teach children to spy on their parents...

Apart from lowering the age to about 12, one would echo the old shepherd in "A winter's tale"

"I would there were no age between sixteen and
three-and-twenty, or that youth would sleep out the
rest; for there is nothing in the between but
getting wenches with child, wronging the ancientry,
stealing, fighting....

We could prevent most crime by locking up all males between the ages of 12 and 25.

>The famous in the US Duke Lacrosse gang rape case showed that DNA mix ups and screw ups can and do occur.<

IIRC, it was the DNA testing that showed that whoever the plaintiff had had sex with, it wasn't anyone on the lacrosse team.

Furthermore, the former prosecutor has been disbarred and found guilty of lying for withholding DNA evidence that would have cleared the defendants.

<found guilty of lying for withholding DNA evidence that would have cleared the defendants.>

this is exactly the type of authority that i was pointing out not to be trusted and why DNA testing may be manipulated by unscrupolous cops

the lacrosse players suffered so long because of DNA implications that were bogus

PatrickLondon - Are you finished with your tea?

<Any record system is subject to human failure; the bigger it is, the bigger the scope for errors. And the greater the running costs.>

Are you advocating NO record systems? Don't keep track of anything? Do you have any recommendations, or are just criticizing?

Could we all please note that Scots law already requires the destruction of DNA samples if the person is either not charged, or found not guilty. Why can't England do the same?

Thanks doonhamer. I was wondering about that. Most people don't know that the law in Scotland is not the same as the law in England and Wales.

<<< Sorry, its a non-story >>>

Unfortunately it isn't - Tony Blair has said in the past that a DNA database is a good idea and there's no reason to think Gordon thinks otherwise.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../24/ndna24.xml

Then you get various Chief Constables who have orgasms each time another reduction in personal privacy like this is suggested

I'm only surprised that a DNA swab isn't a requirement for a new passport.

I wonder if the Judge's statement was to encourage a debate as currently the UK adds some 30,000 DNA swabs to the database each MONTH

tell me - would you want audere to have your DNA? Nuff said.

I don't know how to work the machine. I get one of the young ones to do that.

I just hit suspects until they confess. Works every time.

Will someone please explain what is the downside to having your fingerprints or DNA in a datbase? What could anyone do with them? Could you answer without denouncing me or the question? I just want to know.

Q - <putting aside issues about cost and practicality, can someone give me a human rights argument against DNA archiving>

I'll repeat my argument on that i gave to flanneruk above - why i would not want my DNA in a base because i don't trust the system:

the fear of potential false positive matches - say i handle a $100 bill before a crook steals it

or just a mistake - DNA samples could be mixed up

The famous in the US Duke Lacrosse gang rape case showed that DNA mix ups and screw ups can and do occur.

Is that a good enough reason?

Not if you believe human error or human setting up someone is impossible and the match rates if done right over 100%

There's nothing that "they" (or is that "we" in my case?) can do with them to fit you up etc. (There are loads of ways you CAN be fitted up, but these aren't they)

The question is - do you want the state to have this information on you even though you have committed no crime?

I think it's iffy. And then there's the little known "List 99" which is every bit as sinister as it sounds...

*walks away whistling the theme from the Third Man*