Fop 1 Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 Baby's DNA was held on database The police DNA database is thought to be the biggest in the world A baby had its details held on the controversial DNA police database, Jacqui Smith has confirmed. The home secretary said the youngest person to have a DNA profile held on the database was less than a year old and the oldest was over 90. It is understood the sample would have been taken to eliminate the baby's DNA from a crime scene. Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne said it was "ludicrous" to have stored the DNA profile. He said: "It is illegal, immoral and ineffective to keep the DNA of a baby on a national police database as if they had committed some felony. "The sooner the home secretary implements the European Court's ruling that our DNA database contravenes the right to privacy, the better." The strength of the DNA database can only be safeguarded if it has the confidence and trust of the public Home Office spokesman In December the European Court of Human Rights ruled the UK should not indefinitely retain the DNA and fingerprint records of people who were not convicted of a crime. Following that ruling, Ms Smith announced changes to the way the database operated - and said the government would take "immediate steps" to remove the DNA profiles of children under 10 from the database. The baby's profile is understood to have been taken before the changes were announced. Since then DNA profiles of children under 10, taken with consent for "elimination purposes" - to compare with samples taken at crime scenes - are deleted, the government says. A Home Office spokesman said: "The use of DNA in investigations is one of the breakthroughs for modern policing. The strength of the DNA database can only be safeguarded if it has the confidence and trust of the public. "That is why the home secretary made clear in December that the government would take immediate steps to remove children under 10 from the DNA database. All necessary steps have been taken to fulfil this." He added there would be a Forensics White Paper this year setting out further proposals "demonstrating a proportionate and fair approach to the use of forensics". Nearly a million people with no criminal record have their details held on the database - which holds 4.5 million profiles and is thought to be the largest in the world. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7933753.stm Looks like they'd already got started on their birth to death DNA database. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 31237 Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 Arrest them before they become criminals I say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 7193 Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 Im not really arsed. I never plan on committing a crime bad enough that they have to take DNA samples tbh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted March 9, 2009 Author Share Posted March 9, 2009 Im not really arsed. I never plan on committing a crime bad enough that they have to take DNA samples tbh That's one of the major issues you don't have to. What do you think they baby did? Arrest them before they become criminals I say. Lord Ewerk before the next election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 Fuckwitery is always highest in these threads for some reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom 14020 Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 Yeah I mean it doesn't matter about your rights till you need them (oh and by then they will be gone) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 7193 Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 Im not really arsed. I never plan on committing a crime bad enough that they have to take DNA samples tbh That's one of the major issues you don't have to. What do you think they baby did? Arrest them before they become criminals I say. Lord Ewerk before the next election. What I mean is, If my DNA were ever to be put onto a database i dont plan on giving the police an excuse to use it. The database is there to feed in evidence from murders, rapes, robberies etc. They arent going to be swabbing crisp packets youve dropped on the street. I dont see why law abiding people would have an issue with having their DNA kept by the police. If it means they are more likely to catch the next twat that breaks into my house or the next bloke trying to bomb the tube then all the better i say Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 Im not really arsed. I never plan on committing a crime bad enough that they have to take DNA samples tbh That's one of the major issues you don't have to. What do you think they baby did? Arrest them before they become criminals I say. Lord Ewerk before the next election. What I mean is, If my DNA were ever to be put onto a database i dont plan on giving the police an excuse to use it. The database is there to feed in evidence from murders, rapes, robberies etc. They arent going to be swabbing crisp packets youve dropped on the street. I dont see why law abiding people would have an issue with having their DNA kept by the police. If it means they are more likely to catch the next twat that breaks into my house or the next bloke trying to bomb the tube then all the better i say Miurphy's Law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted March 10, 2009 Author Share Posted March 10, 2009 Im not really arsed. I never plan on committing a crime bad enough that they have to take DNA samples tbh That's one of the major issues you don't have to. What do you think they baby did? Arrest them before they become criminals I say. Lord Ewerk before the next election. What I mean is, If my DNA were ever to be put onto a database i dont plan on giving the police an excuse to use it. The database is there to feed in evidence from murders, rapes, robberies etc. They arent going to be swabbing crisp packets youve dropped on the street. I dont see why law abiding people would have an issue with having their DNA kept by the police. If it means they are more likely to catch the next twat that breaks into my house or the next bloke trying to bomb the tube then all the better i say And you may end up being a suspect in something you had nothing to do with, DNA evidence isn't necessarily reliable, especially when you're talking about new low copy techniques and partial matches - see the McCann case as an example. But it would still put you in a situation where you had to prove your innocence. Also I suppose you'd be ok with being finger printed every 5 years too just in case? Although the DNA database has even more sinister applications, as the more and more we understand about our own DNA the more and more effective information that database holds about you. Think the DVLA is as dodgy as fuck for selling off all your details for a few quid? Just wait till they can sell off all you are, or refuse you that job/insurance/mortgage because you're prone to something or other, or your girlfriend dumps you because she doesn't want to have kids with someone carrying a hereditary disease etc. etc. It has to be a basic human right to have control over your own DNA and to not be generally monitored by it (the EU agree and have deemed the UK database illegal - not just for under 10's as our Government are trying to pretend it meant, but for everyone that hasn't been convicted of a crime). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meenzer 15742 Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Don't take this as some kind of precedent, but I couldn't agree more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 31237 Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 In theory I disagree with DNA details being held on a database for people who haven't been convicted of a crime but in reality it can make the police's job a whole lot easier and therefore make us a little bit safer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted March 10, 2009 Author Share Posted March 10, 2009 (edited) In theory I disagree with DNA details being held on a database for people who haven't been convicted of a crime but in reality it can make the police's job a whole lot easier An issue which can hide all manner of abuses, the same justification can be used to allow spying on anyone at any time, forced use of lie detectors, or even torture (makes the police's job VERY easy ). But that doesn't make any of it right. and therefore make us a little bit safer. And that not is just not correct, although it's a bogeyman Government's love to use to get dodgy things through (much like "Lord" Mandelson himself ). Edited March 10, 2009 by Fop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted March 10, 2009 Author Share Posted March 10, 2009 Im not really arsed. I never plan on committing a crime bad enough that they have to take DNA samples tbh That's one of the major issues you don't have to. What do you think they baby did? maybe it was ginger The "Final Solution of the Ginger question". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayatollah Hermione 14094 Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 This baby could have been a terrorist in training. Only right we get him down on record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 31237 Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 In theory I disagree with DNA details being held on a database for people who haven't been convicted of a crime but in reality it can make the police's job a whole lot easier An issue which can hide all manner of abuses, the same justification can be used to allow spying on anyone at any time, forced use of lie detectors, or even torture (makes the police's job VERY easy ). But that doesn't make any of it right. There's a big difference in holding DNA and what you suggested, they're not comparable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted March 10, 2009 Author Share Posted March 10, 2009 In theory I disagree with DNA details being held on a database for people who haven't been convicted of a crime but in reality it can make the police's job a whole lot easier An issue which can hide all manner of abuses, the same justification can be used to allow spying on anyone at any time, forced use of lie detectors, or even torture (makes the police's job VERY easy ). But that doesn't make any of it right. There's a big difference in holding DNA and what you suggested, they're not comparable. They are completely comparable, the spying one is even already used as such. Lie detectors as such are on the cards, and British intelligence is currently complicit in torture, although they stay far enough away for plausible deniability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 31237 Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 In theory I disagree with DNA details being held on a database for people who haven't been convicted of a crime but in reality it can make the police's job a whole lot easier An issue which can hide all manner of abuses, the same justification can be used to allow spying on anyone at any time, forced use of lie detectors, or even torture (makes the police's job VERY easy ). But that doesn't make any of it right. There's a big difference in holding DNA and what you suggested, they're not comparable. They are completely comparable, the spying one is even already used as such. Lie detectors as such are on the cards, and British intelligence is currently complicit in torture, although they stay far enough away for plausible deniability. So the DNA issue is comparable to torture? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted March 10, 2009 Author Share Posted March 10, 2009 In theory I disagree with DNA details being held on a database for people who haven't been convicted of a crime but in reality it can make the police's job a whole lot easier An issue which can hide all manner of abuses, the same justification can be used to allow spying on anyone at any time, forced use of lie detectors, or even torture (makes the police's job VERY easy ). But that doesn't make any of it right. There's a big difference in holding DNA and what you suggested, they're not comparable. They are completely comparable, the spying one is even already used as such. Lie detectors as such are on the cards, and British intelligence is currently complicit in torture, although they stay far enough away for plausible deniability. So the DNA issue is comparable to torture? In the sense that the justification used is the same, yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 In theory I disagree with DNA details being held on a database for people who haven't been convicted of a crime but in reality it can make the police's job a whole lot easier An issue which can hide all manner of abuses, the same justification can be used to allow spying on anyone at any time, forced use of lie detectors, or even torture (makes the police's job VERY easy ). But that doesn't make any of it right. and therefore make us a little bit safer. And that not is just not correct, although it's a bogeyman Government's love to use to get dodgy things through (much like "Lord" Mandelson himself ). The dark Lord. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted March 12, 2009 Author Share Posted March 12, 2009 In theory I disagree with DNA details being held on a database for people who haven't been convicted of a crime but in reality it can make the police's job a whole lot easier An issue which can hide all manner of abuses, the same justification can be used to allow spying on anyone at any time, forced use of lie detectors, or even torture (makes the police's job VERY easy ). But that doesn't make any of it right. and therefore make us a little bit safer. And that not is just not correct, although it's a bogeyman Government's love to use to get dodgy things through (much like "Lord" Mandelson himself ). The dark Lord. He's not a proper Dark Lord, more of a Dark Lord's Chamberlain (which is why Brown brought him back). It is amazing how he gets back into power despite all the proven corruption cases against him and that current he is one of the most powerful Government figures in the UK........ and he is totally and utterly unelected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 DNA is just data, nothing more. We keep a birth record of all babies, we should stick their DNA in there too imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 22054 Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 DNA is just data, nothing more. We keep a birth record of all babies, we should stick their DNA in there too imo. It's data only in the sense that all information is data though. It can be used for a hell of a lot more than identifying individuals, and in the future who knows what it could be used for. For once I agree with Fop that there are real issues here, although I'm not going to get hysterical over it either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted March 12, 2009 Author Share Posted March 12, 2009 DNA is just data, nothing more. We keep a birth record of all babies, we should stick their DNA in there too imo. Not surprised, you clearly smell a profit out of it. But just because something can make a profit doesn't make it right (although I realise you have great difficult with that concept). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Not convinced. When i see an example of it being abused to make profit or for some dastardly end then i'll agree with yous. Since when have we been free anyway? Since we got the vote a hundred or so years ago? We've always been subjugated (to God, to an overlord) in some form or another. People want life to be ordered, people dont like meaningless violence, injusice, crime etc, so they dont want anarchy. In that case, dont expect freedom.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted March 12, 2009 Author Share Posted March 12, 2009 DNA is just data, nothing more. We keep a birth record of all babies, we should stick their DNA in there too imo. It's data only in the sense that all information is data though. It can be used for a hell of a lot more than identifying individuals, and in the future who knows what it could be used for. For once I agree with Fop that there are real issues here, although I'm not going to get hysterical over it either. Who is hysterical? It will eventually be able to give us a likelihood of disease risks (refused for health or even house hold insurance because your cancer risk, heart disease risk or mental health risk is too high). It will likely be able to give us sexuality probability (keep getting refused for that job, but don't know why). It will be able to tell us who is related, or not related, to who (even if the people in question don't know themselves - probably better ways to break such news to a child or partner than some civil service letter). It will basically be able to give someone with access to it a vast amount of information about you, probably more than being able to spy on you 24/7 for a year. It's a privacy issue the likes of which humanity has never seen before. No need to get hysterical, but every reason to be very, very concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now