ChezGiven 0 Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Hysteria in this case being defined as 'shitting yourself over stuff you imagine might happen'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted March 12, 2009 Author 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. Do you agree with the DVLA selling of your details to pretty much anyone that wants them? 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. Because life isn't 100% free, why bother? A very strange argument. 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.... You can have law and order (although you're an idiot if you confuse law for justice) without having to have totalitarianism. And without a DNA database, amazingly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted March 12, 2009 Author Share Posted March 12, 2009 Hysteria in this case being defined as 'shitting yourself over stuff you imagine might happen'. Is happening. People said the same thing only a few years ago about innocent peoples DNA being retained (never mind innocent kids DNA) - "it'll never happen". What do you know, it happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 What happened? DNA data was retained? So? It wasnt exploited. Thats my point, its just data being held somewhere, in a file doing nothing to anyone. Come back when our healthcare premiums are allocated on whether you are wild-type KRAS and i'll agree there might be an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted March 12, 2009 Author Share Posted March 12, 2009 What happened? DNA data was retained? So? It wasnt exploited. Yet. The DVLA had a lot of data for a long time before it started selling it (mostly when the market and technology became available). Thats my point, its just data being held somewhere, in a file doing nothing to anyone. Come back when our healthcare premiums are allocated on whether you are wild-type KRAS and i'll agree there might be an issue. By which time it will be too late. So what's your point? Wait till it's too late then accept it (and hope someone makes a nice profit)? Again I can see why you would think that way (you always seem too), but most other people wouldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 23511 Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 What happened? DNA data was retained? So? It wasnt exploited. Thats my point, its just data being held somewhere, in a file doing nothing to anyone. Come back when our healthcare premiums are allocated on whether you are wild-type KRAS and i'll agree there might be an issue. That may be shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted though, which is why I think we need to act pre-emptively on matters such as this. I should clarify at the moment I'm not concerned, but only because people can see that there are genuine potential ethical problems involved, and I have faith at the moment these issues will be respected. But the situation of genotyping individuals needs to be constantly monitored or we could slip into a very unfair future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 What happened? DNA data was retained? So? It wasnt exploited. Thats my point, its just data being held somewhere, in a file doing nothing to anyone. Come back when our healthcare premiums are allocated on whether you are wild-type KRAS and i'll agree there might be an issue. That may be shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted though, which is why I think we need to act pre-emptively on matters such as this. I should clarify at the moment I'm not concerned, but only because people can see that there are genuine potential ethical problems involved, and I have faith at the moment these issues will be respected. But the situation of genotyping individuals needs to be constantly monitored or we could slip into a very unfair future. Which is why the MRC has taken on that role 3 years before the final human genome sequence was published in 2000. I have faith in these people too, genuine physicians and medical ethicists who understand the balance between public health needs and bio-ethical considerations. Any idea what the DVLA has got to do with this debate by the way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted March 12, 2009 Author Share Posted March 12, 2009 Which is why the MRC has taken on that role 3 years before the final human genome sequence was published in 2000. I have faith in these people too, genuine physicians and medical ethicists who understand the balance between public health needs and bio-ethical considerations. Any idea what the DVLA has got to do with this debate by the way? Because the DVLA run (and sell) a database (which was supposedly "confidential"), which has as much to do with the MRC or bio-ethicists as the current Government/Police DNA database directly does. Which is to say next to nothing at all, directly. The MRC does have some jurisdiction over research and medical DNA databases (such as the UK Biobank), and has already questioned the police forcing access to those databases and come down firmly against it and for full confidentiality (see below). The scientist in charge of setting up Britain's DNA databank, which will collect information on the lifestyle, health and genes of 500,000 people, said he will oppose any attempt by police or the courts to gain access to the data. In an exclusive interview with The Independent, Dr John Newton said strict confidentiality is essential if the UK Biobank project is to enjoy the public confidence it needs to succeed. Three years ago, police forced medical scientists in Edinburgh to hand over the confidential data of another research project to prosecute a volunteer in the study. ............... Dr Newton said the Medical Research Council and the Wellcome Trust are determined to demonstrate they will vigorously defend the confidentiality of the data collected by UK Biobank. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime...ity-537017.html However when talking about the police "forensic DNA database" (the one we are discussing here) interestingly bio-ethicists tend take Fop's view (we've been here before - the UN, the EU, everyone agrees with Fop in the end ) as we can see below: DNA of innocent people should not be kept by police Tue, 18 September 2007 DNA profiling is an increasingly valuable tool for detecting and prosecuting offenders, but more safeguards are needed to protect the liberty and privacy of the innocent, according to the Nuffield Council on Bioethics. One of the safeguards recommended by the Council is that the police should only be allowed to keep the DNA of people who are convicted of a crime. Currently, the police can permanently store DNA taken from people who have been arrested even if they are later found to be innocent. ”Innocent people are concerned about how their DNA might be used in future if it is kept on the National DNA Database without their consent,” said Professor Sir Bob Hepple QC, Chairman of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics. The exception would be people charged with serious violent or sexual offences, whose DNA could be kept for up to five years even if they are not convicted. These changes would bring the law in England, Wales and Northern Ireland into line with that in Scotland. The powers of the police in England and Wales to take DNA are wider than those in any other country. DNA can be taken, without consent, from any person arrested for a ‘recordable’ offence (mostly offences that can lead to a prison sentence). The DNA is then stored indefinitely on the National DNA Database. The Government has announced plans to expand these powers further, by allowing police to take and store DNA from those arrested for ‘non-recordable’ offences, such as littering and minor traffic offences. The Nuffield Council recommends that these proposals should be dropped. “After careful consideration, we do not think that this is justified at the current time,” said Professor Hepple. “We would like to see the police put more resources into the collection of DNA from crime scenes, rather than from individuals suspected of minor offences.” At present, fewer than 20% of crime scenes are forensically examined. Further recommendations made by the Council are outlined below. In each case, the Council weighed up whether the need to protect public safety was sufficient to justify interfering with innocent people’s liberty and privacy. Children Children are currently treated in the same way as adults when it comes to taking and storing their DNA. There are around 750,000 under-18s on the National DNA Database. The United Nations Convention on the Right of the Child requires that special attention be given to children in the legal system, including opportunities for rehabilitation. The Nuffield Council therefore recommends that there should be a presumption in favour of removing DNA taken from children from the Database, if requested, unless there is a good reason not to, for example, if they have committed a very serious offence. A population-wide DNA database? Some believe that taking the DNA of everyone at birth to build a population-wide forensic database would assist the police whilst also removing problems of discrimination. However, this would be hugely expensive and would have only a small impact on public safety. The intrusion of privacy incurred would therefore be disproportionate to any possible benefits to society. For these reasons, the Nuffield Council is against the establishment of a population-wide forensic DNA database at the current time. Familial searching When DNA collected at a crime scene does not match exactly any profile on the Database, it is possible to search for partial matches which would reveal genetic relatives of the person who left the DNA at the crime scene. Many possible relatives can be found, and the process may reveal previously unknown family relationships. The Council recommends that familial searching should not be used unless it is specifically justified in each case. Inferring ethnicity When DNA is collected from individuals, it is allocated by the arresting officers to one of seven broad ethnic groups. This information has been used in research and now forensic analysts can tell the police the likely ethnic group of a person whose DNA has been collected from a crime scene to narrow down the pool of suspects. However, the practice of assigning a ‘racial type’ to individuals is subjective and inconsistent, and genetic research does not support the idea that humans can be classified by appearance into a limited number of ‘races’. This practice may therefore be misleading. The Council recommends that ‘ethnic inferences’ should not be routinely sought, and they should be used with great caution. Volunteers Victims or witnesses may be asked by the police to volunteer DNA samples as part of a criminal investigation. The police may also ask volunteers to allow their DNA to be added permanently to the National DNA Database. If they agree, there is currently no option for it to be removed at a later date. The Nuffield Council recommends that volunteers should be able to have their DNA removed at any time without having to give a reason. DNA evidence in court DNA evidence is very influential in court, but it is accompanied by complicated statistical information that can be difficult for non-scientists to understand. The Council recommends that legal professionals should acquire a minimum understanding of statistics with regard to DNA evidence. Information should also be made available to jury members about the capabilities and limitations of DNA evidence. Governance and ethical oversight The Council recommends that the regulation of forensic databases should be enshrined in law – currently regulation in this area is disjointed and patchy. The Council also suggests that an independent tribunal should be set up to oversee requests by individuals to remove their DNA from the National Database, and that safeguards should be put in place regarding access to the Database by international law enforcement agencies. These conclusions and recommendations have been published in a Report by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics called The Forensic Use of Bioinformation: Ethical Issues. The Report was prepared by a Working Group established in October 2006, which included members with expertise in law, genetics, philosophy and social science. To inform discussions, the Group held a public consultation and met with representatives from relevant organisations. For further information contact: Catherine Joynson Communications & External Affairs Manager Nuffield Council on Bioethics http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/go/ourwor...elease_443.html The Government basically ignored this, as it is still trying to ignore the later EU ruling. So I guess you must agree with the MRC, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, and the Fop now, eh Chezzy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazarus 0 Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-44...-espionage.html Five civil servants who help run the national DNA database have been suspended after being accused of industrial espionage. It is alleged they copied confidential information and used it to set up a rival database in competition with their employers, the Government's Forensic Science Service. More.... * Pension memos threat to Brown leadership * 200,000 asylum seekers to get amnesty * Pension memos threat to Brown leadership The FSS - which is suing the five men in the High Court - helps police investigate evidence from crimes and sells its services to commercial customers. It also maintains the controversial database containing DNA samples of almost four million people, the largest in the world. The men, all from the Birmingham area, are named on the writ as Azim Akhtar, his brother Zaheer Akhtar, Sultan Mahmood, Nisar Ahmed, and Athar Agha. It is alleged they set up a company and planned to compete against the FSS by providing similar services. The case will inevitably raise concerns about the vulnerability of genetic data, especially since the FSS was turned into a Government-owned company in 2005 as the first stage of privatisation. At the time Tony Blair faced a barrage of protest, with one Labour MP denouncing the scheme as 'a criminal's charter'. Civil rights groups have also been critical, arguing there are no real safeguards to prevent misuse of the DNA database. Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said the case involving the five men raised serious concerns. "This is hugely significant and should make every law-abiding person seriously worried. People are looking after these databases who have less and less of a public-service ethic,' she said. According to the High Court writ, the FSS began developing a website in 2005 called Iforensic.com targeting international law enforcement and private markets. It says although the plans were secret, they were known to the five defendants who had access to the DNA database. The writ alleges the men set up their own company, Iforensic Ltd - having appropriated the name from the FSS. "In order to facilitate the creation of a DNA database to be operated by Iforensic Limited...the defendants copied, retained and/or adapted software and/or other confidential information' belonging to the FSS, says the writ. The document adds it would not have been possible for the five men to create the software necessary to produce a DNA database without having had access to 'and copying and/or retaining copies of the software and/or the database.' IT specialist Azim Akhtar, 30, is alleged to have registered three internet domain names using the word Iforensic - and later, through a friend, tried to sell one of the names back to the FSS for 'an attractive price'. He and the four others worked in the FSS's Birmingham headquarters in the information systems division, which is responsible for developing and maintaining the DNA database. The FSS is seeking damages for infringement of copyright, breach of trust, breach of confidence and misuse of confidential information. It is also seeking injunctions to make the five change their company's name, return confidential information and transfer internet domain names to the service. According to the writ, the five set up Iforensic Ltd on September 29, 2006, to unlawfully exploit 'goodwill in the name' by extracting money from the FSS for the sale of the company name at an inflated price. They chose the name with a dishonest motive, to use it as an 'instrument of fraud', it is alleged. It adds they set up Iforensic Ltd to compete with the FSS to provide forensic goods services and products, including national DNA database services. Mr Akhtar, from Yardley, Birmingham, said: "We have never been accused of taking personal information about individuals from the DNA database. "What we are accused of is taking the database itself, not the information." He added it was never the intention to set up a firm to rival the FSS or the DNA database. Mr Akhtar went on: "The FSS said if we have registered the domain names using the iforensic word then we must be going to do the same business as them and thus must have taken the database system." He added the FSS was making IT redundancies and 'we plan to set up a company to offer the services the FSS will be looking to outsource." The FSS said it could not comment because of the investigation. The Home Office insisted there was no question information held on the database had been 'compromised'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazarus 0 Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/156...e-mistakes.html Civil liberties campaigners and MPs have raised doubts about the national DNA database after the Home Office confirmed it contained more than 500,000 false or wrongly recorded names. * Have your say: Do you have concerns about the DNA database? Suspects arrested over any imprisonable offence, including rape and murder, can have their DNA held even if they are not charged or are acquitted. Related Articles * Killer convicted of dog walker murder after 13 years following discovery of tiny speck of blood * Liberal Democrats proposed scrapping ministerial veto on FOI * Profiles of 40,000 innocent children on DNA database * Police retain DNA of 'petty crime suspects' * A million bank customers' details sold on eBay for £35 * Gordon Brown wins crucial 42 day vote thanks to Ulster MPs The database, the biggest in the world, contains about four million names. But it has been dogged by problems. Statistics released by the Home Office show it contains around 550,000 files with wrong or misspelt names. Lynne Featherstone, a Liberal Democrat frontbencher, told The Daily Telegraph that she wanted a full parliamentary inquiry into the "shocking" number of errors. "What lies behind these statistics? Is it the police just accept the 'say-so' of those whose DNA they are taking and don't check their names and addresses?" she said. "While the use of DNA can obviously be vital in solving crimes, anything that raises questions about the credibility of the base is not acceptable." It is understood that some of the errors have been caused by people deliberately giving someone else's name - or names of people who do not exist. The database, which police are determined to expand, also contains spelling errors and other inaccuracies. Another source of concern to opponents, shown in the figures, is that the system has the DNA profiles of about 150,000 children, many of whom were arrested by police but found to be innocent. Shami Chakrabarti, the director of civil rights group Liberty, said the disclosure raised questions about police plans to expand the database to include information about those suspected of far less serious offences, such as dropping litter or dodging rail fares. "It is bad enough that we have a DNA database stuffed with innocents not charged with any offence, containing too many children and too great a percentage of ethnic minorities," she said. "Now it turns out we don't know the accuracy of the data. How many Postman Pats and Donald Ducks have entries on a system worthy of the Keystone Cops?" Ministers accept the system is suffering teething problems but insist it is vital in solving crimes, some of which have remained open for decades. In a case in November 2005, a 50-year-old builder was found guilty of a murder and rape that he committed in Essex 28 years ago. He was stopped for drink- driving in 2004 and his DNA matched a sample taken from the original crime scene. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazarus 0 Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 http://archive.thisiswiltshire.co.uk/2000/8/15/238098.html Invalid Raymond Easton has been offered £2,000 compensation by police after he was arrested for a burglary he did not commit. Parkinson's disease sufferer Mr Easton was arrested on the basis of DNA evidence which later proved false. He says the amount is an insult and has instructed his solicitor to ask for at least £500 more. He said: It is not the amount, it is the principle of the thing and what they are offering is not enough for what I have gone through. Mr Easton, 49, of Pound Lane, Pinehurst, was arrested last year by Swindon Police for a burglary which he was supposed to have committed 200 miles away in Bolton. Despite not being able to dress or bath himself and being unable to walk more than 10 yards unassisted, Mr Easton was arrested in April and charged with a burglary during which electrical equipment worth £440 was taken. Police matched the DNA found at the crime scene to Mr Easton's, which was on file from a domestic incident four years ago that resulted in a caution. He was told the chances of it being wrong were one in 37 million. Despite this evidence against him, Mr Easton was adamant that on the day the burglary was committed he was at home, looking after his unwell 16-year-old daughter Xaena. After being arrested by Swindon police on behalf of Greater Manchester police he was kept in a cell from 9am to 4pm. Mr Easton's solicitor demanded another DNA test, which was more accurate than the first and led to the case being dropped. A spokesman for Greater Manchester Police would only confirm the force does have a compensation claim being made against it and is waiting to hear from Mr Easton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazarus 0 Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news/...nvolved-5417-1/ In what may sound as a typical open-and-shut case, a clear DNA match was made between semen from a serious sexual assault// and a blood sample from a known criminal. However, the criminal in question was in jail when the assault took place. Forensic scientists had already matched the crime sample to the DNA profile of another person who was their prime suspect. It was only after careful detective work that it was discovered that the jailed man had received bone marrow from the suspect many years earlier. Further enquiries among family and friends of the two men revealed that not only were the convict and suspect brothers, but the inmate had received a bone marrow transplant from his brother. As a result, his blood was populated with cells bearing his brother's DNA profile. Abirami Chidambaram, from the Alaska State Scientific Crime Detection Laboratory in Anchorage asserts that as forensic DNA databases grow and more people undergo bone marrow transplants, the risk of a miscarriage of justice increases. Until recently, bone marrow transplants involved destroying the patient's own bone marrow. In such cases their blood will contain the DNA profile of the donor alone. But some treatments in recent years, such as therapies to treat sickle cell disease, retain some of the patient's original bone marrow, so their blood can contain a mixed DNA profile. Mixed profiles can also occur when DNA is collected from swabs taken from the inside of the cheek, rather than blood samples. This practice is already standard in the UK and is increasingly being used by US police. The report, which appears in the October issue of New Scientist magazine, describes that cheek cells of a bone marrow recipient will contain mostly their own DNA, but can become contaminated with the donor's DNA over time. So it is important to check both blood and cheek samples to be sure of spotting a transplant recipient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted March 12, 2009 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. Bilderberger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 People will have to once again fight for their rights, it's a cycle and it will be repeated.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 7560 Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 and rightly so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted March 13, 2009 Author Share Posted March 13, 2009 People will have to once again fight for their rights, it's a cycle and it will be repeated.... Until Chessy sells them for a tidy profit anyway (flying in the face of the MRC, Nuffield council for Bioethics, the EU and Fop). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 I keep thinking of Tom's Diner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted March 13, 2009 Author Share Posted March 13, 2009 I keep thinking of Tom's Diner. That comes later, you can't remix it until you've completed the set. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 People will have to once again fight for their rights, it's a cycle and it will be repeated.... Until Chessy sells them for a tidy profit anyway (flying in the face of the MRC, Nuffield council for Bioethics, the EU and Fop). You're strange. I bring up the MRC's role in protecting the public interest from exploitation as a counter-weight to your exaggerated concerns and somehow thats played back to me as some sort of argument against some undefined position i'm meant to be adopting. Glad to have been of service to you anyway making you aware of the relevant organisations. FYI, i reviewed research proposals for the Wellcome Trust between 1999 and 2003 on a voluntary basis, one of which was about maximising the public health benefits from the database. None of these concerns are new. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted March 16, 2009 Author Share Posted March 16, 2009 People will have to once again fight for their rights, it's a cycle and it will be repeated.... Until Chessy sells them for a tidy profit anyway (flying in the face of the MRC, Nuffield council for Bioethics, the EU and Fop). You're strange. I bring up the MRC's role in protecting the public interest from exploitation as a counter-weight to your exaggerated concerns and somehow thats played back to me as some sort of argument against some undefined position i'm meant to be adopting. Glad to have been of service to you anyway making you aware of the relevant organisations. FYI, i reviewed research proposals for the Wellcome Trust between 1999 and 2003 on a voluntary basis, one of which was about maximising the public health benefits from the database. None of these concerns are new. A simple "sorry Fop I was utterly wrong" would have done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 People will have to once again fight for their rights, it's a cycle and it will be repeated.... Until Chessy sells them for a tidy profit anyway (flying in the face of the MRC, Nuffield council for Bioethics, the EU and Fop). You're strange. I bring up the MRC's role in protecting the public interest from exploitation as a counter-weight to your exaggerated concerns and somehow thats played back to me as some sort of argument against some undefined position i'm meant to be adopting. Glad to have been of service to you anyway making you aware of the relevant organisations. FYI, i reviewed research proposals for the Wellcome Trust between 1999 and 2003 on a voluntary basis, one of which was about maximising the public health benefits from the database. None of these concerns are new. A simple "sorry Fop I was utterly wrong" would have done. The baby was guilty anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted March 16, 2009 Author Share Posted March 16, 2009 Pre-crime - safeguarding tomorrow, by destroying liberty today™ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Reminds me of the time Parky saw V for Vendetta. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 'For everyone lost in the endlessly multiplicating realities of the modern world, remember: Philip K. Dick got there first' Terry Gilliam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Reminds me of the time Parky saw V for Vendetta. Good memory fella. 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