Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
DNA database - good idea?
Options
Comments
-
Never.
I have no faith or trust in the complete b******* running this country. Imagine jackboot McDowell overseeing this or any of the current criminals?
In a fair law abiding government, I could see people considering it, but we are far from anything close to that. It's a matter of trust.0 -
I wouldn't agree with this idea at all, the argument that if you've done nothing wrong then you've nothing to worry about, is nonsense, as following this line of thought, you also shouldn't worry if the gardai forcibly acquire your fingerprints, listen in to your phone calls, read your post and email and put you under surveillance 24/7.I still don't understand people's paranoia about their personal details being on file with a law enforement agency. It's not like you could be framed by having synthesized dna placed in a crime scene by a cop or something!
Sure, its not like we have ever had any corrupt cops in this country that framed an innocent person for a crime ! As for synthesizing dna, I saw a tv report some time ago that said this was now possible.Laminations wrote: »http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/national-news/dna-database-moves-a-step-closer-2022160.html
'Those not charged or acquitted will have their samples removed either on application or, where no application is made, after the expiry of a fixed default period. A watchdog, headed by a senior judge, will oversee the system, under the proposals'.
Seems reasonable, I'm quite sure that I'll never be a suspect in a serious criminal investigation let alone commit a serious criminal offence, they don't just pluck suspects out of thin air so again it seems you have to qualify for inclusion on the database (even for the short term). And they'll still need other corroborating evidence for any trial I'd imagine.
No matter what you say, juries tend to slavishly accept dna evidence. As for the belief that the gardai don't "just pluck suspects out of thin air", it was reported that in the Phyllis Murphy case(she was murdered in Jan 1980), the gardai took blood samples from 635 people, from which the murderer was subsequently identified nearly 20 years later using dna evidence. So presumably, the gardai had strong evidence against all 635 of these people ?I think it's a great idea. It's not as if everyone in the country has to go out and submit samples, it's just people suspected of comitting a crime.
As mentioned already, 635 suspects(and probably more) for a single crime !
The other flaws in the idea are that the government have shown they aren't capable of maintaining confidentiality of the information given to them(there have been numerous cases of computers, laptops, storage media etc with confidential data going missing from state offices and being lost by their staff). Such a DNA database would be a licence to commit crime for foreign criminals as presumably foreign visitors/tourists wouldn't have to submit their DNA.
But perhaps the most compelling reason why it makes no sense, is that we don't have the prison space. Imagine if instead of 30-40% of thefts or burglaries being solved, it became 95% and the same with all manner of other crime apart from serious stuff like murder, where would all these extra prisoners go ? As usual we're putting the cart before the horse, if we're going to spend millions registering everybodys' dna to solve crime, why not ensure first, that we have somewhere to hold the potential thousands of extra prisoners(unless the plan is to catch them and let them go again).0 -
I wouldn't agree with this idea at all, the argument that if you've done nothing wrong then you've nothing to worry about, is nonsense, as following this line of thought, you also shouldn't worry if the gardai forcibly acquire your fingerprints, listen in to your phone calls, read your post and email and put you under surveillance 24/7.
Having your dna on file is nothing like reading your post and emails and listening to your phonecalls.
It is like giving over a set of your fingerprints, which really I can't understand why this would be a problem for people. I mean what can the Gardaí do with them that's so nasty and bad?0 -
Laminations wrote: »http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0119/dna.html
The civil liberties crowd are already all over this. I think its a great idea to help solve crimes in the future. Please don't use the inevitable camel's nose / slippery slope argument to suggest we will end up on this system and won't be able to have affairs or the like over fears our spouses would track us down via our tell tale DNA!!!
The way its set up you have to qualify yourself for inclusion by committing and being convicted of a serious crime.
With 70% recidivism I'd presume criminals commit quite a lot of the crimes, now they can leave a calling card
DNA Evidence Can Be Fabricated, Scientists Show
nytimes0 -
However you can tell genuine DNA from "farmed" DNA used to fake a crime scene by looking for particular things that only occur to DNA in the body and cannot be added by making DNA in a lab. Which is also noted in that article. Also to fake the DNA you need access to equipment only found in colleges and companies, this isn't something someone who isn't trained in biology can do and even if they do do it the DNA produced is different to DNA from a genuine sample.0 -
Advertisement
-
I still don't understand people's paranoia about their personal details being on file with a law enforement agency. It's not like you could be framed by having synthesized dna placed in a crime scene by a cop or something!
Would definitely agree with them taking DNA from convicted prisoners.
No no no. Although it is in principle a good idea, the fact that the government (any government, that is) would be in charge makes it a dangerous thing. The less power a government has over its people, the better off they will be.
Rather than finding ways to catch criminals, we should work towards eliminating the causes of crime; ie poverty.0 -
It is not unusual for police forces to take samples from all men in an area in the aftermath of a crime such as this, which they did voluntarily. Interesting that you cite this case in your argument against a DNA database. Without DNA evidence, a very sinister murderer would still be at large.No matter what you say, juries tend to slavishly accept dna evidence. As for the belief that the gardai don't "just pluck suspects out of thin air", it was reported that in the Phyllis Murphy case(she was murdered in Jan 1980), the gardai took blood samples from 635 people, from which the murderer was subsequently identified nearly 20 years later using dna evidence. So presumably, the gardai had strong evidence against all 635 of these people ?
Fixed.But perhaps the most bizarre compelling reason why it makes no sense, is that we don't have the prison space.
0 -
Just remind you all this thread is about the database for convicted criminals and suspects, not an all-Ireland database.
The government are not in charge. A judge is. And last I looked the judiciary are autonomous from the government, hence the voluntary pay cuts.
The prison space argument is bizarre. We cant solve any more crimes because of prison space? Again this database is for serious crime. Fine dodgers can always be made clean graffiti.
The taking of blood from those 635 men solved a murder. I would consider this an argument for taking dna. I'm sure the other 634 men have been able to live their lives perfectly well. There is a distinction between privacy over behaviour and privacy over identity. The latter is at risk here and only for a small minority.0 -
Please watch this video - it is worth it in relation to civil liberties
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU0lzm-dl50
Already in this thread we have seen the slippery slope
1) National database of all citizens via heel test
2) Nothing to hide, nothing to fear
DNA is NOT a magic bullet, it is a new science and already there have been cases where people have been wrongly convicted on DNA evidence.
There is a CSI syndrome, this is misleading
The holding of a suspects DNA on file is a violation of civil liberties, unless you have been convicted of a crime the state does not have the right to hold your DNA on file, we are innocent until proven guilty. Thats called Haebeus Corpus, we have had that right for a long time. Internment was a violation of that - and did not work.
Even if a person is aquited this law allows for the holding of DNA - Why??
This system - as it has in the UK - will lead to arrest to sample.
Gardai WILL arrest people to increase the sample database, this is done in some ways to intimidate, people like the Shell to Sea protestors.
One arguement is deterrent, well, criminals will soon learn to firebomb a house they have burgled, as they do with cars.
Saying that it will lead to solving - and the word was used here - heinous crimes is bull****. The sad fact of the matter is that the majority of sexual assaults are committed by people known to the victim, and yet there is something like only a 7% conviction rate of reported rapes - but the emotive arguement is used.
What is a safe match - that the sample should be 1 in a million, how about 1 in 20 - is that enough to secure a conviction? Where do you draw the line.
Taking DNA samples, one must take into account corruption, we have seen this in Donegal, the civil service also leaks personal details of citizens to papers, insurance companies and others. Its widespread and common
I worry more about contamination and incompetence. DNA collection is hard, it is technical, it needs to be precise.
In 2009 the Gardai wrote more than fifty traffic tickets to the most frequent driving offender in the country — Prawo Jazdy — which in Polish means "Driving License".
A DNA database is, as pointed out here, expensive - but it is also valuable tool for insurance and pharmaceutical companies.
And Ireland, because of the limited genetic range in some cases more valuable than the UK as a sample DNA base.
Why not sell the data for our medical benefit to cover the cost of the DNA database.
In the UK they intend to sell DNA data to the corporations.
Have safeguards been written into Irish legislation to prevent this?
Who will have access to our DNA information?
Have You had a relative - like a 2nd cousin - who has had a form of cancer, heart desise, Alzheimers, Kidney problems, Schitzophrenia, Depression, Cystic Fibrosis, Haemophelia?
A medical insurance company would like to know this.
Who else will have access to your personal file, police in this country, corporations, hackers or civil servants? How about county council employees, teachers - why not?
In Ireland one civil servant was recently asked to take early retirement on full pension to avoid ebarresment to the service - why - because she accessed files for a friend to check out a tennant, to see if they were on social welfare payments.
If DNA is handed over to other EU police forces, who can access it there?
We have a right to privacy, it is part of the European convention of human rights - set up for our protection.
Few things are more private than your DNA
Parts 5, 6 and 7 of Taking Liberties deals with DNA, Surveilence and ID cards
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O96l713NCWs&feature=related
Its got Boris
I was looking into this for the blog. In the course of research I was in contact with people involved with the steering comittee of the legislation, safeguards suggested were not built in to the new law.
If you were born during or after 1984 (ironic innit) your DNA is profiled in Dublin, You cannot have it removed, You cannot have access to it, You cannot ask questions about it.
The biggest question You have to ask is do You trust our politicians, I dont.
On a lighter note, Does Magna Carta mean nothing to You - Did she die in vain"0 -
Too long, too long. Can you summarize what is says?
It's right there in the abstract at the start of the link..
[FONT=Myriad Roman, Arial, Helvetica, Sans-serif;]Abstract: [/FONT]
[FONT=Myriad Roman, Arial, Helvetica, Sans-serif;] In this short essay, written for a symposium in the San Diego Law Review, Professor Daniel Solove examines the nothing to hide argument. When asked about government surveillance and data mining, many people respond by declaring: "I've got nothing to hide." According to the nothing to hide argument, there is no threat to privacy unless the government uncovers unlawful activity, in which case a person has no legitimate justification to claim that it remain private. The nothing to hide argument and its variants are quite prevalent, and thus are worth addressing. In this essay, Solove critiques the nothing to hide argument and exposes its faulty underpinnings. [/FONT]0 -
Advertisement
-
Please watch this video - it is worth it in relation to this thread
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU0lzm-dl50
Already in this thread we have seen the slippery slope
1) National database of all citizens via heel test
2) Nothing to hide, nothing to fear
I started this thread with a plea against using the slippery slope fallacious argumentDNA is NOT a magic bullet, it is a new science and already there have been cases where people have been wrongly convicted on DNA evidence.
We have a CSI complex, this is misleading
Its misleading to suggest we have a CSI complex. There are already cases where people have been wrongly convicted on inaccurate eye witness testimony. DNA afaik is not sufficient to result in conviction.The holding of a suspects DNA on file is a violation of civil liberties, unless you have been convicted of a crime the state does not have the right to hold your DNA on file, we are innocent until proven guilty.
Guilty of what? what are you guilty of if the gardai have tour DNA? guilty of being a suspect in a previous investigation?? well they keep the identities of previous suspects, this is just a marker of identity.Even if a person is aquited this law allows for the holding of DNA - Why??
Marker of identity, not behaviour. Should they burn all files involved in previous investigations??This system - as it has in the UK - will lead to arrest to sample.
Gardai WILL arrest people to increase the sample database, this is done in some ways to intimidate, people like the Shell to Sea protestors.
Would Shell to Sea be regarded as serious crime??Saying that it will lead to solving - and the word was used here - heinous crimes is bull****. The sad fact of the matter is that the majority of sexual assaults are committed by people known to the victim, but the emotive arguement is used.
Arguing the database may not help solve rape crimes (which I disagree) does not negate its use for other serious crimesWhat is a safe match - that the sample should be 1 in a million, how about 1 in 20 - is that enough to secure a conviction? Where do you draw the line.
In the early days of the use of genetic fingerprinting as criminal evidence, juries were often swayed by spurious statistical arguments by defense lawyers along these lines: given a match that had a 1 in 5 million probability of occurring by chance, the lawyer would argue that this meant that in a country of say 60 million people there were 12 people who would also match the profile. This was then translated to a 1 in 12 chance of the suspect being the guilty one. This argument is not sound unless the suspect was drawn at random from the population of the country. In fact, a jury should consider how likely it is that an individual matching the genetic profile would also have been a suspect in the case for other reasons. Another spurious statistical argument is based on the false assumption that a 1 in 5 million probability of a match automatically translates into a 1 in 5 million probability of innocence and is known as the prosecutor's fallacy.Taking DNA samples, one must take into account corruption, we have seen this in Donegal.
I worry about contamination, incompetence. In 2009 the Gardai wrote and presenting more than fifty traffic tickets to the most frequent driving offender in the country — Prawo Jazdy — which in Polish means "Driving License".
One must account for corruption when considering everything. This is not specific to a DNA database. Do you wipe every glass you pick up out of paranoia that the corrupt gardai get your fingerprints and frame you??A DNA database is, as pointed out here, expensive - but it is also valuable to insurance and pharmaceutical companies.
In the UK they intend to sell DNA data to the corporations.
Have safeguards been written into Irish legislation to prevent this?
Why not sell the data for ou medical benefit to cover the cost of the DNA database.
Selling the data is not proposed. When it is I will voice my oppositionWho will have access to our DNA information?
Have You had a relative who has had cancer, heart desise, Alzheimers, Kidney problems, Schitzophrenia, Depression, Cystic Fibrosis?
Who else will have access to your personal file, police in this country, corporations, hackers or civil servants? How about county council employees, teachers - why not?
In Ireland one civil servant was recently asked to take early retirement on full pension to avoid ebarresment to the service - why - because she accessed files for a friend to check out a tennant, to see if they were on social welfare payments.
This is a hide your money under the pillow argument. DNA is only a marker of identification. I'd be more worried about google collating my search history and seeling it to ad agenciesIf DNA is handed over to other EU police forces, who can access it there?
We have a right to privacy, it is part of the European convention of human rights - set up for our protection.
Few things are more private than your DNA
The biggest question is do you trust our politicians, I dont.
Politicians are not involved, its the gardai, courts and the judges, and if you dont trust all of those people then you have bigger problems than this DNA database0 -
MackDeToaster wrote: »It's right there in the abstract at the start of the link..
Abstract: In this short essay, written for a symposium in the San Diego Law Review, Professor Daniel Solove examines the nothing to hide argument. When asked about government surveillance and data mining, many people respond by declaring: "I've got nothing to hide." According to the nothing to hide argument, there is no threat to privacy unless the government uncovers unlawful activity, in which case a person has no legitimate justification to claim that it remain private. The nothing to hide argument and its variants are quite prevalent, and thus are worth addressing. In this essay, Solove critiques the nothing to hide argument and exposes its faulty underpinnings.
Why are you mixing this database up with surveillance?
and mixing up activity with identity??0 -
The abstract says nothing about the critique Solove supposedly has to offer. The purpose of an abstract is to give a synopsis of what the main article is saying. I'm inclined to think if he had a solid coherent argument, he would have taken the trouble to at least mention it in the abstract.MackDeToaster wrote: »It's right there in the abstract at the start of the link..
[FONT=Myriad Roman, Arial, Helvetica, Sans-serif;]Abstract: [/FONT]
[FONT=Myriad Roman, Arial, Helvetica, Sans-serif;] In this short essay, written for a symposium in the San Diego Law Review, Professor Daniel Solove examines the nothing to hide argument. When asked about government surveillance and data mining, many people respond by declaring: "I've got nothing to hide." According to the nothing to hide argument, there is no threat to privacy unless the government uncovers unlawful activity, in which case a person has no legitimate justification to claim that it remain private. The nothing to hide argument and its variants are quite prevalent, and thus are worth addressing. In this essay, Solove critiques the nothing to hide argument and exposes its faulty underpinnings. [/FONT]0 -
Laminations wrote: »I started this thread with a plea against using the slippery slope fallacious argument
Yes, but that did not stop people suggesting a National Data Base, with samples taken from birth.
Civil liberties are not a fallacious arguement - if you propose DNA profiling, you have to deal with these basic rights, e.g privacy, presumption of innocence, due process.Laminations wrote: »Its misleading to suggest we have a CSI complex. There are already cases where people have been wrongly convicted on inaccurate eye witness testimony. DNA afaik is not sufficient to result in conviction.
Not everyone has a workable knowledge of DNA as evidence, the use of the word DNA fingerprint is misleading. But popular culture shows DNA as this magic system that solves all mysteries
There are charlatans today who offer genetic therapy through stemcell injection to people who are intelligent and well off, I saw this snakeoil in Rotterdam, then heard a BBC Radio 4 documentary on te same company - and lodged a complaint. The clinic was shut down - but intelligent people fell for the pseudo science. BioSciences are huge, and there is a great deal of misunderstanding.
Ask yourself this, how many people in Ireland understand the complexities of a DNA profile, in paticular reference to percentage matches from a limited sample?Laminations wrote: »Guilty of what? what are you guilty of if the gardai have tour DNA? guilty of being a suspect in a previous investigation?? well they keep the identities of previous suspects, this is just a marker of identity.
Thats borderline slander, why do you suggest the Gardai have a DNA sample from me or that I have been questioned in regard to any crime, and being questioned is in no way an indication of guilt.
That sort of muck throwing arguement is beneath someone as obviously articulate and intelligent as you, it is the nothing to fear, nothing to hide arguement.Laminations wrote: »Marker of identity, not behaviour. Should they burn all files involved in previous investigations??
If someone has been cleared as a suspect, or aquitted, what right does the state have to hold their details on file?
There are also limitations on bringing previous convictions or behaviour in evidence in a criminal court case in Ireland, this is a problem that I think should be addressedLaminations wrote: »Would Shell to Sea be regarded as serious crime??
Well, considering the arrests, the inprisonments, the use of Garda resources and the deployment of the Naval Service, Yes obviously.
Sand Martins are protected, so to stop them nesting Shell put down fine mesh ground nets - i.e. - no birds nesting during the EPA inspection that year, therefore no environmental issue.
Protesters ripped up some nets.
They could be charged with trespass, and criminal damage.
Everyone involved with the protest could be picked up, arrested as a suspect, have DNA samples taken using 'reasonable force' and be kept on file for 2 years - longer on application - and never be charged with any crime.Laminations wrote: »Arguing the database may not help solve rape crimes (which I disagree) does not negate its use for other serious crimes
And yet this arguement is still used freely when advocating a Database
I am not going to get into a statistical arguement about this, but prosecuters are as adept at presenting statisitics as defenders are.
Lets just say there are statistics, damn statistics, and lies.Laminations wrote: »One must account for corruption when considering everything. This is not specific to a DNA database. Do you wipe every glass you pick up out of paranoia that the corrupt gardai get your fingerprints and frame you??
Again, this is poor form, suggesting that people who are aware of and concerned about hard won civil liberties are paranoid or delusional.
We cannot ever say that it would not happen here, because without sufficient safeguards there will always be abuse.
Again, that sort of muck throwing arguement is unbecoming
Incompetence in collection or presentation as opposed to corruption is a bigger worry.
Corruption within the Guards is less of a worry than corruption in the civil service, where there are a lot of examples of data being handed over to private companies, what makes you think DNA will be any different?
http://www.digitalrights.ie/2007/07/16/welfare-records-leaked-to-insurers/Laminations wrote: »Selling the data is not proposed. When it is I will voice my opposition
So build in safeguards now.
Do you really trust FF or FG to raise extra money for the state without raising taxs'?
If this goes through as is, and the sale of the data is raised - the sounds of horses bolting and gates slamming fill the air.
As for the minor parties we have seen the abject failure of the Greens - would Labour do any better?
In my opinion the state is currently being run by a largley dynastic and inept group, and FF/FG are two cheeks of the one arse.
DNA is more than just a marker of identification. If your concerned about google collating your search history and selling it to ad agencies - would you not have equal concern about your genetic profile being sold to a medical insurance company?
Actuary tables show that people can have a genetic pre-disposition to certain illnesses, this can be fast tracked primarily through generations by application of simple mathemathical models - but also, to a lesser extent, through a limited personal profile.Laminations wrote: »Politicians are not involved, its the gardai, courts and the judges, and if you dont trust all of those people then you have bigger problems than this DNA database
Politicians are, of course, involved as they formulate the laws enforced by police and courts, and I feel the cronyism and corruption of many politicians, not to mention the total disregard of public opinion we have seen in recent times,
Real safeguards need to be built in limiting this legislation in terms of application and access needs to be built in now.
If we are to bring in this legislation lets ensure that
1) DNA samples are not kept for citizens who are not subject to a criminal investigation or who are aquitted
2) That DNA samples cannot be accessed or used by anyone other than designated persons within the criminal justice system.
3) That DNA profiles cannot be accessed or used without a warrant and primafacia evidence in unrelated investigations. The government and law forces need to justify their actions in relation to the citizen.
4) DNA may never be sold to anyone or - without due control and limitation on use - be given to extraterritorial authorities.0 -
Also to fake the DNA you need access to equipment only found in colleges and companies, this isn't something someone who isn't trained in biology can do and even if they do do it the DNA produced is different to DNA from a genuine sample.
How many students do we have doing biology in this country with access to labs, say in just the Smurfitt institute alone in TCD?0 -
Thats borderline slander, why do you suggest the Gardai have a DNA sample from me or that I have been questioned in regard to any crime, and being questioned is in no way an indication of guilt.
That sort of muck throwing arguement is beneath someone as obviously articulate and intelligent as you, it is the nothing to fear, nothing to hide arguement.
Are you serious? What muck throwing? Look at what I said in my post and note the word 'IF'.
'...being questioned is in no way an indication of guilt' as you say, so how is a recond of any questioning, and how is a DNA record? Its a marker of identity, like a name or a photo or a fingerprint. You are purposely confusing privacy of behaviour/activity and privacy of identity.
I'm always very reluctant to just shake my head and walk away from an argument but I'm getting very close to it here.
I'll quickly deal with the basic rights you mention at the start of your post e.g privacy, presumption of innocence, due process.
Storing DNA does not affect any of these, please state how it does.
....well I said it would be quick0 -
-
Laminations wrote: »
I'll quickly deal with the basic rights you mention at the start of your post e.g privacy, presumption of innocence, due process.
Storing DNA does not affect any of these, please state how it does.
....well I said it would be quick
Are you serious ? Storing DNA does not affect presumption of innocence ? So, why store it then, if not on the very presumption that someone will perform a criminal act in the future ? You are either guilty, or you are innocent - which one is it ?
Neither is DNA simply like a photo, or a marker of identity, it contains far more sensitive information, such as how people are related, susceptibility to diseases and so on, all of which would be of commercial interest to various companies such as health insurance etc.
I don't object to using well-managed DNA in the justice system, for example storing the DNA of convicted criminals, but the retention of intimate material and the unique personal information extracted from it, in the case that you may offend in the future is completely unreasonable.
The idea of permanently retaining the DNA information of a person, regardless of whether they were ever charged with or convicted of any criminal offence, let alone sampling everybody's DNA at birth, is completely outrageous.
Note that the European Court of Justice has already slammed the UK for these sort of practices.
Once again, I'll say I'm not objecting the use of DNA properly, but the fact is that there is a slippery slope, as has been amply demonstrated in the UK and elsewhere, where, for example, police have been actively arresting people on any pretence, just to get their DNA to put in the database.
There are over 5 million people on the database there, over 1 million of whom have never been convicted of a crime, and yet police forces such as Durham have and said that people who have been arrested and have had DNA taken, but who have had no charges laid against them, could find that arrest having "having serious implications for example on future job applications". So innocent til proven guilty eh ? Nothing to hide, nothing to fear ?
In an infallible world maybe what you say could be accepted, but politicians, police, and databases have all demonstrated themselves to be fallible, if not actually corrupt, over and over again. Are you saying you completely trust our politicians ? Can you demonstrate that there is not a slippery slope ? Such a thing is impossible, and in the light that it has been shown to happen over and over, then this is what I must accept will come to be.0 -
Of course storing DNA affects Habeus Corpus - it is stored for crimes that a person might commit in future as well as crimes, or alledged crimes, committed in the past.
The legislation being proposed is not a well managed DNA system.
There are not clear enough safeguards.
The storing, and of more concern, the sharing, distribution or sale of any persons DNA profile is an invasion of privacy, not to mention loss of data, and access by persons for their own reasons.
If you were born in or after 1984 your DNA, without your consent, has already been accessed by commercial companies.
There are few things more intimate than those strands that are in so many of your cells.
Your DNA is a result of your biological parents, and is what you pass on to your offspring.
It shows pre-dispositon to physical illness subject to environmental factors, and the more we look into it, the more we can find out or imply.0 -
MackDeToaster wrote: »
Neither is DNA simply like a photo, or a marker of identity, it contains far more sensitive information, such as how people are related, susceptibility to diseases and so on, all of which would be of commercial interest to various companies such as health insurance etc.
I don't object to using well-managed DNA in the justice system, for example storing the DNA of convicted criminals, but the retention of intimate material and the unique personal information extracted from it, in the case that you may offend in the future is completely unreasonable.
The idea of permanently retaining the DNA information of a person, regardless of whether they were ever charged with or convicted of any criminal offence, let alone sampling everybody's DNA at birth, is completely outrageous.
Note that the European Court of Justice has already slammed the UK for these sort of practices.
Once again, I'll say I'm not objecting the use of DNA properly, but the fact is that there is a slippery slope, as has been amply demonstrated in the UK and elsewhere, where, for example, police have been actively arresting people on any pretence, just to get their DNA to put in the database.
There are over 5 million people on the database there, over 1 million of whom have never been convicted of a crime, and yet police forces such as Durham have and said that people who have been arrested and have had DNA taken, but who have had no charges laid against them, could find that arrest having "having serious implications for example on future job applications". So innocent til proven guilty eh ? Nothing to hide, nothing to fear ?
In an infallible world maybe what you say could be accepted, but politicians, police, and databases have all demonstrated themselves to be fallible, if not actually corrupt, over and over again. Are you saying you completely trust our politicians ? Can you demonstrate that there is not a slippery slope ? Such a thing is impossible, and in the light that it has been shown to happen over and over, then this is what I must accept will come to be.
It is a whole seperate argument about whether the gardai have just cause to arrest you - an arrest whether they take your DNA or not can have serious implications on future job applications. Also I am in no way condoning the sale of this information to health companies, like the way I wouldn't condone the sale of PPS numbers to illegal workers. I understand it is sensitive data, so is all data related to identity (due to identity theft) and therefore all personal data is open to abuse.MackDeToaster wrote: »The idea of permanently retaining the DNA information of a person, regardless of whether they were ever charged with or convicted of any criminal offence...(edited this bit out because its not my argument)... is completely outrageous.
Remove the word DNA there and see how silly that sentence sounds. So gardai should keep no record of previous suspects? They should have no information as to whether they are constantly arresting the same person as a suspect in related investigations for example?? Again just because they have a record that you were a suspect does not make you guilty of anything.
Also the article you quoted earlier related to covert surveillance of activity. Not at all the same thing.MackDeToaster wrote: »Once again, I'll say I'm not objecting the use of DNA properly
And I'm not suggesting the improper use of it so we agree. Its like counter arguing that you don't object to the proper use of financial information, as if to suggest that my argument for the formation of a bank is the same as me saying financial information should all be posted on the web. Of course my argument inherently presumes the proper use of the information.0 -
Advertisement
-
Of course storing DNA affects Habeus Corpus - it is stored for crimes that a person might commit in future as well as crimes, or alledged crimes, committed in the past.
Thats like saying if I remember your name it affects Habeus Corpus because in the future you may commit a crime and I can link your face to you name. The DNA would also be used to rule out suspects and therefore prove innocence/remove guilt....help solve crime0 -
Well you could make the same argument about any information the state stores on us. Granted, it is not stored for that purpose but police will make use of databases like the electoral register or car owner records, if it can help solve a crime. And AFAIK, the only purpose of registration plates on a car is to enable police to deal with various car associated wrong doing.MackDeToaster wrote: »Are you serious ? Storing DNA does not affect presumption of innocence ? So, why store it then, if not on the very presumption that someone will perform a criminal act in the future ? You are either guilty, or you are innocent - which one is it ?
The benefit of maintaining a DNA database is fairly simply. Some dangerous people who would otherwise be roaming the streets, presenting a possible threat, will be convicted. There are plenty of examples of murderers who would have gotten away were it not for a policy of retaining DNA. (I can recall the Irish student who was murdered in Germany about 20 years ago. Her murderer was only caught after having being arrested and a DNA sample taken after a bar brawl). I haven't yet seen here a convincing argument against other than some vague notions that it would be possible to abuse it. Well of course it would. Just as it abuse is possible in other areas. A rogue police officer can always tamper with other kinds of evidence.
Can't somebody make an argument, in their own words? Without referring to videos that don't mention DNA (!) or long winded articles?0 -
Are you kidding?How many students do we have doing biology in this country with access to labs, say in just the Smurfitt institute alone in TCD?
Firstly, it's easy to tell if the DNA is fake.
To overcome that, you would need to be capable of fabricating false DNA, then secretly accessing the DNA database, sneaking in and replacing a sample and replacing its information on the official record.
As good as the facilities in the Smurfitt are, and I did some time there myself, it's hardly CSI meets X Files.
It would be much easier to place someones fingerprints at a scene, don't you think? And they're often already on record.0 -
Can't somebody make an argument, in their own words? Without referring to videos that don't mention DNA (!) or long winded articles?
Presumption of innocence. And privacy is also included as part of that as these things are intertwined. Are you a citizen who is entitled to privacy, i.e. a citizen who has the right to go about and live your life without having databases built containing detailed and intimate information about you, on the presumption that you will commit a crime ? As I have already asked, are you innocent or not, is anyone going to answer this ?
Reversing that principle is throwing out centuries of enlightenment values, akin to returning us to the days of when we were serfs under monarchs who hold absolute sway.
I'm starting to wonder have many here have ever read or studied any history, and how many can understand how this could be used as another instrument of repression and control. Just because it might not be used today or tomorrow, or the year after, doesn't mean it might not be one day.
Do you not think DNA would have been useful to the Bolsheviks in identifying and murdering the Romanovs ? By the Hutus in identifying and killing Tutsis ? At risk of godwinning the thread, by Nazis identifying Jews ? For the purposes of ethnic cleansing in former Yugoslavia ?
Do you think a change of disguise or identity in the Soviet Union would have helped save you from the NKVD or the KGB when they took a dna swab and discovered you were the son or parents of a 'dissident' ?
History has shown these things will be used, and just because you currently don't have anything to hide, or to fear, doesn't mean that things might change very rapidly, and then you might not be so happy about readily giving up your DNA. Re that quote I posted, giving up just one tiny bit of liberty for the feeling of safety is plainly stupid and shortsighted.
Once again, taking DNA of criminals, no great problem, taking and storing the DNA of innocents, not good.0 -
As I have said, the main worry on a DNA database is its commercial value, its abuse by civil servants for personal gain or personal reasons and its potential to insurance companies and others who you have not given permission for toaccess very personal and private data.
Our social welfare records are being abused, on a regular and covered up basis and a national DNA database will also be abused without proper safeguards.
How long will it take for a laptop or external hard-drive of disc to be lost or 'go missing'
Coverup and self enrichment is not new, part of the reason that the enquiry into the bank scandal will be delayed is the civil service are happy enough that the politicians are taking the heat, but will it emerge that senior CS were tight with Anglo et al?
There are well founded grounds to be concerned about arrest to sample, as happens in the UK.
Increased arrests will become part of the public record, and could affect job prospects.
Quite simply, the Government and civil service cannot deal with floods, snow, the economy, conviction rates of rapists or election machines, we cant trust them with something as sensitive as a DNA database.
We will end up with an expensive, half arsed system open to abuse and not fit for purpose.0 -
This is what the pieces of information (STRs) look likeAs I have said, the main worry on a DNA database is its commercial value, its abuse by civil servants for personal gain or personal reasons and its potential to insurance companies and others who you have not given permission for toaccess very personal and private data.
ctaacgatag atagatagat agatagatag atagatagat agatagatag atagacagat
Can you explain what commerical value that has?
How could that be absued for personal gain?
What do you mean social welfare records absuses are being covered up? From the inside?Our social welfare records are being abused, on a regular and covered up basis and a national DNA database will also be abused without proper safeguards.
If that's your defense, why not extend it to fingerprinting and other forms of health, dental or criminal records which might also be stored in such ways?How long will it take for a laptop or external hard-drive of disc to be lost or 'go missing'
Who said anything about the DNA record going public?Increased arrests will become part of the public record, and could affect job prospects.
Furthermore, arrests already can effect job prospects if an employer asks you to make disclosure.0 -
You present the idea of a DNA database as is somehow crossing the Rubicon but I don't see how that is the case at all. There is already truck loads of personal data collected on me which could be abused. Even something vital like an electoral register could be useful to a despot in the future. Surely it's a trade off between liberty and security/practicality? If you take the view of liberty above all, then it logically follows that nobody should be permitted to collect or retain data on anybody. All CCTV security or traffic cameras would have to go. Even something like my medical records shouldn't be kept because like all data, it could potentially be abused. Modern society couldn't function if you adopted such an approach. You need to make the case that a DNA database goes too far, not that it compromises liberty, which to some extent, it does. And I don't see how it does go too far.MackDeToaster wrote: »Presumption of innocence. And privacy is also included as part of that as these things are intertwined. Are you a citizen who is entitled to privacy, i.e. a citizen who has the right to go about and live your life without having databases built containing detailed and intimate information about you, on the presumption that you will commit a crime ? As I have already asked, are you innocent or not, is anyone going to answer this ?
As for your question as to whether I am innocent or not? I really don't know where you are going with this. If I use my broadband connection to break the law in some way , the Gardai can and will obtain my identity from my provider. Does this state of affairs somehow imply that I am not innocent?0 -
Data when coupled with a name and location gives a profile.
How commercial companies intend to use that - ask them, but they want to buy it.
An insurance companies job is to make money, to maximise profit why take a gamble on someone who has a 30% chance of a sickness or - more importantly - that their children may be sick.
Yes, there have been several instances of civil servants abusing their access to data, and yes, it has been covered up to maintain the percieved non-corrupt status
On more than one occasion
Fingerprints do not give an indication of gender, race, health issues (unless you are an amputee or a lepper perhaps)
And we have seen in recent times when fingerprints that were meant to be destroyed, were used in an investigation - that has predudiced the case, and using legal aid at the expense of the tax payer, the guy is going to get off - becuase the rules were bent.
If the guards - as the police have done in the UK - increase arest and detention to build a database, then the chances of being arrested on spurious grounds are increased, i.e. being associated with the Shell protests.
The pressure will be on to increase arrests for profile, especially of young males.
As well as that your DNA or someone you know will already have had their DNA accessed at least 4 times without their consent, and that was legal.
There has been the potential to access it illegally - we dont know how many times, illegally on an uncontrolled basis since 2007.
We should spend the money on keeping offenders in jail, the X case rapist was released, given a taxi licence and re-offended despite the fact he was known to the police.0 -
No they do not. Firstly, you are envisaging some complex conspiracy. Secondly, there is no reason for them to want coding patterns, it's literally a sequence of lettering that would have no meaning to them for any commerical purpose.Data when coupled with a name and location gives a profile.
How commercial companies intend to use that - ask them, but they want to buy it.
It is literally like fingerprints.
Has nothing to do with a DNA database. We are talking about genetic markers, which is just like any other type of finger print. They do not tell you anything about disease or general health. Blood samples are not necessary here. You are talking out of your hat.An insurance companies job is to make money, to maximise profit why take a gamble on someone who has a 30% chance of a sickness or - more importantly - that their children may be sick.
No, not several, you've given the example of one civil servant who abused his access to data.
So should we abolish fingerprints and other personal data information as well then?
Good reason to allow the storage of fingerprints then too, isn't it.And we have seen in recent times when fingerprints that were meant to be destroyed, were used in an investigation - that has predudiced the case, and using legal aid at the expense of the tax payer, the guy is going to get off - becuase the rules were bent.
Lets not get onto the Shell issue. And I would have no problem with people like that contributing to the database since it often appears to be the same people causing the problems. Also I would I have a problem doing so myself and don't see why anyone should have a problem.If the guards - as the police have done in the UK - increase arest and detention to build a database, then the chances of being arrested on spurious grounds are increased, i.e. being associated with the Shell protests.
That reasarch looks like it is for things like associating medical conditions with lines of genetic patterns and seems to me like valuable research. I would research like that was promoted as opposed to being latched onto by the civil liberties crowd as conspiratorial propaganda.As well as that your DNA or someone you know will already have had their DNA accessed at least 4 times without their consent, and that was legal.There has been the potential to access it illegally - we dont know how many times, illegally on an uncontrolled basis since 2007.0 -
Advertisement
-
I am not suggesting a conspiracy theory, I am suggesting that our systems are so open to abuse and corruption that those will occur.
Lets leave targeted sales by corrupt Gardai and civil servants out of it and assume they are all perfect.
Incompetence through loss, compounded by a lack of transparency. Under Irish law, there is no express obligation for a company that has lost customer data to notify anyone - neither the customer nor the Data Protection Commissioner.
Two computer servers containing the records of almost 1m patients were stolen from the Children’s University hospital in Temple Street in 2007 and have never been recovered
In 2009 alone
The HSE admitted that it had lost an unencrypted laptop containing sensitive information, including particular social work case notes on nine families.
The Data Protection Commissioner learned of the incident from the media.
Bord Gáis lost an unencrypted laptop with account details - including bank and credit card information - on 75,000 customers, exposing them to ID theft.
Bank of Ireland, which lost personal data on more than 30,000 life assurance customers;
the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General, lost information on 380,000 social welfare recipients;
Airtricity which posted the financial details of 1,200 customers on its website for six weeks.
Organisations try to cover up data breaches to save face and the first you will know of it is when you discover that your fraudulent alter ego has enjoyed a spending spree on your credit card or run up huge debts in your name or you are refused health cover, a mortgage or life insurance, by then, it’s too late.
A genetic sample can be used to develop a full profile, as well as markers.
We already have a system where every person born in the state since 1984, their address, their DNA profile etc are on file, this is linked to a PPS number. This data has already been stolen. How long woild it take before this database was merged with the criminal database.
The Guards have as far as I could ascertain already made one attempt to access the Temple Street files.
With Shell, You have a right to protest - and sampling? The guards could not sync the camera times during those protests, it would be interesting to see how they did with mass sampling. If there was a protest in Dublin that stopped traffic people could be arrested in relation to causing an obstruction, even non-involved people in the area.
We have laws that permit the storage of data, these laws have been broken, and the recent case may lead to several cases at great expense.
Every investigation linked to the guard who bent the rules will have to be examined, there is not enough oversight.
There are no explicit provisions dealing with provisions for access, sale and use of the data.
The holding of DNA profiles, or fingerprints of people arrested or questioned, who are never charged, convicted or are aquitted is simply a violation of privacy and the presumption of innocence. The UK database has already been found at fault by the EU courts.
The only people who should have profiles held are those arrested and charged while investigations were ongoing and those convicted of crimes with a set time frame.0
Advertisement