Mark Thomas.

[Parky]

Until Tuesday I was one of 800,000 innocent people in the UK who had their DNA on the police database. Most of us had a swab sample taken on arrest and our identifiable cell clusters have languished on police files even if charges were dropped or we were found not guilty in court.

 

In 2003 I was arrested at a protest against the arms dealer BAE Systems and charged with causing £80 worth of damage to a bus. Leaving aside the irony that if any BAE Systems products only caused £80 of damage the purchasers would sue for a refund, seven months later I found myself on trial. After two days I was acquitted on the legal technicality of being innocent. More important, the court found there was no evidence for a crime having been committed in the first place. The experience left me frustrated, with only a 20-minute comedy routine to take away the pain of injustice.

 

Now before folk howl that I am a champagne anarchist happy to harp on about civil liberties while murderers run free, let me explain my objections. I have no problem with those found guilty of a serious criminal offence being on the database, especially those in prison - it seems small beer that the state holds a tiny amount of their DNA on file when the primary clump of their genes is being held at Her Majesty's pleasure. Likewise those who have served their time: being on the database is the price you pay for having, as the Sweeney would say, "previous". Neither do I object to the police taking my DNA in the first place - but once a person is proven innocent what right and reason do the police have to retain the DNA profile?

 

In December 2008 all this changed when the European court of human rights ruled that by retaining the DNA of the innocent, the UK government was in breach of Article 8 of the European convention, the right to family and private life. A spirit of optimism filled campaigners as Jacqui Smith had three months to comply with the ruling. However, the one thing we have learnt about Labour home secretaries and civil liberties is that they don't much like liberty. Or civility. Three months passed and nothing changed. So with my lawyer I sent a letter before claim to the Met commissioner, essentially threatening to issue judicial review proceedings unless my DNA was removed."

 

 

 

No innocent people should be kept on the dna database. Well done Mark. 

 

 

 

Video here

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/19/dna-database-comment

 

[ikri]

They'll never actually remove anyone's DNA from the database.  The far easier option is to add a field to the database to flag it as non-searchable or somesuch.

 

Plus it'll be great PR for the government when they find someone with the innocent flag set on the database guilty of a crime, they'll be able to say see, we were right all along.

[Mowen]

Good lad marky.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Completely agree, it should be illegal for the state to hold DNA on any innocent person without their consent.

 

I would say that even the DNA of convicted criminals should be removed from the database if they don't reoffend for a number of years.

[Parky]

Completely agree, it should be illegal for the state to hold DNA on any innocent person without their consent.

 

I would say that even the DNA of convicted criminals should be removed from the database if they don't reoffend for a number of years.

 

Tricky, but see where you're coming from. 

[relámpago blanco]

The thing is I don't see why you'd be bothered about them having your DNA unless you are going to commit a crime.  It'll probably be better for innocent people tbh, instead of being arrested then them taking your DNA if you are suspected of a crime you can be ruled out.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

The thing is I don't see why you'd be bothered about them having your DNA unless you are going to commit a crime.  It'll probably be better for innocent people tbh, instead of being arrested then them taking your DNA if you are suspected of a crime you can be ruled out.

 

That argument just doesn't stack up TBH. Just a few counter points for starters, but there are loads:

 

For a start, your DNA is in this database for ever. The current government might be fairly benign, and you might believe they will only use it for noble purposes. But what about future governments, with other views and policies?

 

I'm innocent until proven guilty, nobody has to prove I didn't commit a crime.

 

If I'm accused of a crime I didn't commit, I would be very happy to provide a temporary DNA sample to clear my name. Then it should be deleted.

 

The relationship between government and citizens should be a clear one - they are there to serve us. We don't answer to them in all aspects of our lives. Until we are convicted of a crime we should have to need to answer to law enforcement agencies.

[80]

The thing is I don't see why you'd be bothered about them having your DNA unless you are going to commit a crime.  It'll probably be better for innocent people tbh, instead of being arrested then them taking your DNA if you are suspected of a crime you can be ruled out.

For a start, your DNA is in this database for ever. The current government might be fairly benign, and you might believe they will only use it for noble purposes. But what about future governments, with other views and policies?

 

Who would've thought we'd see old men manhandled out of crowds by thugs and accused of being terrorists just for disagreeing with someone?

[AyeDubbleYoo]

The thing is I don't see why you'd be bothered about them having your DNA unless you are going to commit a crime.  It'll probably be better for innocent people tbh, instead of being arrested then them taking your DNA if you are suspected of a crime you can be ruled out.

For a start, your DNA is in this database for ever. The current government might be fairly benign, and you might believe they will only use it for noble purposes. But what about future governments, with other views and policies?

 

Who would've thought we'd see old men manhandled out of crowds by thugs and accused of being terrorists just for disagreeing with someone?

 

Or we'd see a Labour government propose compulsory ID cards for the whole population, in peace time?

 

People need to remember that governments and parties are temporary, but the civil service machine is permanent.

[SEMTEX]

I dont care about ID cards, DNA database etc.

 

I've no grand worries about the government becoming an evil super power, so it's all good. Whatever.

[relámpago blanco]

The thing is I don't see why you'd be bothered about them having your DNA unless you are going to commit a crime.  It'll probably be better for innocent people tbh, instead of being arrested then them taking your DNA if you are suspected of a crime you can be ruled out.

 

That argument just doesn't stack up TBH. Just a few counter points for starters, but there are loads:

 

For a start, your DNA is in this database for ever. The current government might be fairly benign, and you might believe they will only use it for noble purposes. But what about future governments, with other views and policies?

 

I'm innocent until proven guilty, nobody has to prove I didn't commit a crime.

 

If I'm accused of a crime I didn't commit, I would be very happy to provide a temporary DNA sample to clear my name. Then it should be deleted.

 

The relationship between government and citizens should be a clear one - they are there to serve us. We don't answer to them in all aspects of our lives. Until we are convicted of a crime we should have to need to answer to law enforcement agencies.

What do you think they are going to do with your DNA?  Clone you?

[Chrissy Bee]

Do they really store the DNA samples of everyone in the database? Reports on the internet and in the media seem to support this, but is this actually true or a misunderstanding of the terminology involved?

 

I find it a bit hard to believe that they bother to keep them when they can store the fingerprint information in a computer database - it would be quite expensive and difficult to manage 4,000,000 samples. Has the government ever explicitly said this?

[ikri]

Do they really store the DNA samples of everyone in the database? Reports on the internet and in the media seem to support this, but is this actually true or a misunderstanding of the terminology involved?

 

I find it a bit hard to believe that they bother to keep them when they can store the fingerprint information in a computer database - it would be quite expensive and difficult to manage 4,000,000 samples. Has the government ever explicitly said this?

 

Storage & processing is dirt cheap now though.  It's a non-issue for a sufficiently motivated IT department to create a storage array over 1 petabyte in size (1048576 gigabytes) given enough money to waste.

 

Yahoo claim to have a 1 petabyte database already.

 

For comparison, the human genome is a little over 3 gigabytes in size and whilst it would have cost a small fortune to store that amount of information a few years ago nowadays that's the sort of storage capacity you'll find in cheap USB keys & phone SD cards.

 

4,000,000 DNA samples in a government database is nothing.

[Parky]

The thing is I don't see why you'd be bothered about them having your DNA unless you are going to commit a crime.  It'll probably be better for innocent people tbh, instead of being arrested then them taking your DNA if you are suspected of a crime you can be ruled out.

For a start, your DNA is in this database for ever. The current government might be fairly benign, and you might believe they will only use it for noble purposes. But what about future governments, with other views and policies?

 

Who would've thought we'd see old men manhandled out of crowds by thugs and accused of being terrorists just for disagreeing with someone?

 

 

That was some shameful shit.

[Parky]

Do they really store the DNA samples of everyone in the database? Reports on the internet and in the media seem to support this, but is this actually true or a misunderstanding of the terminology involved?

 

I find it a bit hard to believe that they bother to keep them when they can store the fingerprint information in a computer database - it would be quite expensive and difficult to manage 4,000,000 samples. Has the government ever explicitly said this?

 

There's money in them thar databases ay.

[Mowen]

I dont care about ID cards, DNA database etc.

 

I've no grand worries about the government becoming an evil super power, so it's all good. Whatever.

 

Even if you don't mind the moral implications, surely you can't be happy with the billions wasted on essentially pointless schemes?

[Chrissy Bee]

Do they really store the DNA samples of everyone in the database? Reports on the internet and in the media seem to support this, but is this actually true or a misunderstanding of the terminology involved?

 

I find it a bit hard to believe that they bother to keep them when they can store the fingerprint information in a computer database - it would be quite expensive and difficult to manage 4,000,000 samples. Has the government ever explicitly said this?

 

Storage & processing is dirt cheap now though. It's a non-issue for a sufficiently motivated IT department to create a storage array over 1 petabyte in size (1048576 gigabytes) given enough money to waste.

 

Yahoo claim to have a 1 petabyte database already.

 

For comparison, the human genome is a little over 3 gigabytes in size and whilst it would have cost a small fortune to store that amount of information a few years ago nowadays that's the sort of storage capacity you'll find in cheap USB keys & phone SD cards.

 

4,000,000 DNA samples in a government database is nothing.

 

I wasn't talking about IT databases, I meant physical samples of DNA. The DNA fingerprint they'll store in the database is of course perfectly manageable in a small room (in fact I'd be surprised if it couldn't fit on my PC's hard disks if I deleted all of the porn), 4,000,000 swabs are rather less so.

 

You should also probably realise that they don't actually sequence and store the entire 3gb genome of every criminal! that still would be a bloody ridiculous and pointless waste of time. DNA fingerprinting is just done with samples of DNA, they stick it in the machine with some enzyme and look at how it moves in an electrophoresis machine - everyone's DNA has a unique result in the machine but it is not a direct recording of DNA at all. I very much doubt you can tell anything else about a person from this fingerprint.

[Gash]

tbh, i dont see the problem, i dont intend on doing anything bad so they can have my DNA just will never have any use for it.

[Mowen]

tbh, i dont see the problem, i dont intend on doing anything bad so they can have my DNA just will never have any use for it.

 

Classic head in the sand point of view.

[Gash]

How is it?

Why care?

[Mowen]

How is it?

Why care?

 

Head in the sand because you're looking at it from a very narrow viewpoint and failing to understand the extra implications. Look at Ian W's post for a very small sample of reasons why.

 

Like I said earlier, even if you aren't interested in the moral viewpoints, how can you be happy with a system that wastes taxpayers money with no benefit to society?

[Parky]

How is it?

Why care?

 

It's a classic slippery slope is why.

 

Why would they keep data of innocent people anyway....Surely a waste of time and money. It makes you wonder or maybe it doesn't.

[ikri]

Do they really store the DNA samples of everyone in the database? Reports on the internet and in the media seem to support this, but is this actually true or a misunderstanding of the terminology involved?

 

I find it a bit hard to believe that they bother to keep them when they can store the fingerprint information in a computer database - it would be quite expensive and difficult to manage 4,000,000 samples. Has the government ever explicitly said this?

 

Storage & processing is dirt cheap now though.  It's a non-issue for a sufficiently motivated IT department to create a storage array over 1 petabyte in size (1048576 gigabytes) given enough money to waste.

 

Yahoo claim to have a 1 petabyte database already.

 

For comparison, the human genome is a little over 3 gigabytes in size and whilst it would have cost a small fortune to store that amount of information a few years ago nowadays that's the sort of storage capacity you'll find in cheap USB keys & phone SD cards.

 

4,000,000 DNA samples in a government database is nothing.

 

I wasn't talking about IT databases, I meant physical samples of DNA. The DNA fingerprint they'll store in the database is of course perfectly manageable in a small room (in fact I'd be surprised if it couldn't fit on my PC's hard disks if I deleted all of the porn), 4,000,000 swabs are rather less so.

 

You should also probably realise that they don't actually sequence and store the entire 3gb genome of every criminal! that still would be a bloody ridiculous and pointless waste of time. DNA fingerprinting is just done with samples of DNA, they stick it in the machine with some enzyme and look at how it moves in an electrophoresis machine - everyone's DNA has a unique result in the machine but it is not a direct recording of DNA at all. I very much doubt you can tell anything else about a person from this fingerprint.

 

I wasn't suggesting that they currently hold the entire genome.  Give it time though.

 

I seriously doubt that they hold the physical samples either, once they've got a digital map of the DNA they'll probably discard the original physical sample, they can always go back to someone for a new sample should the need arise.  As long as someone's not working at a nuclear power station or outside the earth's orbit their DNA isn't likely to change.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Yep, they won't keep the original samples.

 

Any conviction based on it would have to be confirmed by a retest I imagine, a bit like they do with drug tests in sport.

[SEMTEX]

I dont care about ID cards, DNA database etc.

 

I've no grand worries about the government becoming an evil super power, so it's all good. Whatever.

 

Even if you don't mind the moral implications, surely you can't be happy with the billions wasted on essentially pointless schemes?

 

Well, I really don't care too much to be honest. Mainly due to my expectation of government. I don't expect anything to be done well, or with any modicum of common sense. Disillusioned tbh.