Giant database plan 'Orwellian'

[Douggy B 0]

My mate was pulled up because of the DNA database.

 

He used to work in a school and was arrested as they thought he had burgled it - he hadn't worked there for six months.

 

They had actually found his DNA on a cigarette!

 

 

Why did they take his DNA to compare it to the ciggie?

They must have already had it.

So he will have had previous then? Which would tell me that he was worthy of being pulled in and ruled out.

 

Dumbass naivetee kicks in.

 

So everyone on the database has previous?

 

I have never done anything wrong there for I am on no database. I believe if you are required to provide it but you are innocent the sample is destroyed.

And you have the gall to pull others up for their spelling. Almost as bad as 'present company accepted'.

 

Grow up Alex. There's a serious debate going on here.

 

Anyway I was distracted as I was posting, hence why things went a bit pear shaped.

Edited October 16, 2008 by Danny B

[Guest alex]

My mate was pulled up because of the DNA database.

 

He used to work in a school and was arrested as they thought he had burgled it - he hadn't worked there for six months.

 

They had actually found his DNA on a cigarette!

 

 

Why did they take his DNA to compare it to the ciggie?

They must have already had it.

So he will have had previous then? Which would tell me that he was worthy of being pulled in and ruled out.

 

Dumbass naivetee kicks in.

 

So everyone on the database has previous?

 

I have never done anything wrong there for I am on no database. I believe if you are required to provide it but you are innocent the sample is destroyed.

And you have the gall to pull others up for their spelling. Almost as bad as 'present company accepted'.

 

Grow up Alex. There's a serious debate going on here.

 

Anyway I was distracted as I was posting, hence why things went a bit pair shaped.

Diddums. 'Pear' btw.

[triggy99 0]

My mate was pulled up because of the DNA database.

 

He used to work in a school and was arrested as they thought he had burgled it - he hadn't worked there for six months.

 

They had actually found his DNA on a cigarette!

 

 

Why did they take his DNA to compare it to the ciggie?

They must have already had it.

So he will have had previous then? Which would tell me that he was worthy of being pulled in and ruled out.

 

Dumbass naivetee kicks in.

 

So everyone on the database has previous?

 

I have never done anything wrong there for I am on no database. I believe if you are required to provide it but you are innocent the sample is destroyed.

And you have the gall to pull others up for their spelling. Almost as bad as 'present company accepted'.

 

Grow up Alex. There's a serious debate going on here.

 

Anyway I was distracted as I was posting, hence why things went a bit pair shaped.

Diddums. 'Pear' btw.

 

grow up alex

[Guest alex]

[Douggy B 0]

It doesn't take long for the bleeding heart lefties to run out of ideas at start picking on things that really don't matter.

 

Anyway, bothered, I'm a numbers man.

[snakehips 0]

I think it was only yesterday that some duffer in the news was saying they were currently monitoring a terrorist threat/plot.

 

A cynic might say that yesterday's warning was well timed.

 

 

[Park Life 70]

My mate was pulled up because of the DNA database.

 

He used to work in a school and was arrested as they thought he had burgled it - he hadn't worked there for six months.

 

They had actually found his DNA on a cigarette!

 

 

Why did they take his DNA to compare it to the ciggie?

They must have already had it.

So he will have had previous then? Which would tell me that he was worthy of being pulled in and ruled out.

 

Dumbass naivetee kicks in.

 

So everyone on the database has previous?

 

I have never done anything wrong therefore I am on no database. I believe if you are required to provide it but you are innocent the sample is destroyed.

 

They are taking samples from even people doing 'producers' (driving documents), they are taking samples from any environment from where a crime is committed (pre-case, pre accusation, pre-legal), this means anyone in the building. They keep these samples (there is a time limit) but I don't believe they will destroy them at all....Why would they? DNA type data will soon be taken at airports to get through terminals (meant to be destroyed after 24hrs) again I don't believe they will. It is clear many 100's of thousands are already on a dna database who have NOT committed or have been accused of any crime.

 

They are taking samples in schools (masquerading as projects/public awareness) drives.

 

Everyone with a driving license will soon have to have dna data on it on a chip (have they comitted any crime??).

 

Lastly people reporting crimes or being a witness to a crime are being asked to go on it to discount them. What crime have they comitted?

Edited October 16, 2008 by Park Life

[Guest alex]

It doesn't take long for the bleeding heart lefties to run out of ideas at start picking on things that really don't matter.

 

Anyway, bothered, I'm a numbers man.

Wow, that was grown-up. Civil liberties don't matter as well? If you say so.

[Park Life 70]

The Government's DNA retention policy combined with increasingly sophisticated statistical techniques means that eventually most citizens in the UK will be linked to data stored on the police's DNA database, according to a privacy law expert.

 

The outcome of an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) that challenges the UK's DNA retention policy will not limit the ultimate reach of the DNA database, only the speed of its compilation, says Dr Chris Pounder of Pinsent Masons.

 

Under last year's Police and Justice Act, the police are allowed to retain DNA data on those arrested even if those arrested are not convicted of or even charged with any crime. Data derived from these samples are then added to the National DNA Database.

 

Michael Marper's case before the ECHR could change this law. Marper was accused of harassment by his partner. He was arrested and DNA samples were taken. The charges were dropped when he reconciled with his partner, but police refused to destroy his DNA samples and related data.

 

Marper exhausted his appeals through the English courts and then complained to the ECHR that the retention of his DNA is a breach of his rights to privacy under the European Convention on Human Rights. Earlier this year the ECHR decided that there was enough of importance in the case that it will hear it.

 

"The court finds that serious questions of fact and law arise, the determination of which should depend on an examination of the merits," said the ECHR in January. "The application cannot be regarded as manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of the convention. No other grounds for declaring it inadmissible have been established."

 

The ECHR has previously ruled in favour of the police's right to retain DNA, but that case involved a man who had been convicted of a crime. A Dutch bank robber, Mr Van der Velden, argued that police had failed to respect his private life by storing his DNA profile. The ECHR said that this interference with his privacy was proportionate.

 

The Marper case tests the legality of storing the DNA of people who have not been convicted of a crime. But its outcome is largely redundant because of the emergence of statistical techniques which match DNA on the database to relatives, according to Dr Pounder, a privacy law specialist at Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind OUT-LAW.COM. These techniques use the genetic fact that an individual's DNA sample is related to the DNA of close family members.

 

"A national DNA database of the future is likely to span 80 per cent to 100 per cent of the population. The only question is when this will occur," said Pounder.

 

Home Office statistics state that 33 per cent of men and 10 per cent of women under the age of 35 have a criminal record not related to motoring offences. However, DNA data of those convicted of a crime are never deleted, even when the individual who has provided the sample has died.

 

"This means that the maximum DNA database coverage of the UK population would inevitably reach 20-25 per cent if current criminal trends remain constant," said Pounder. "Hence the value to the police of statistical methods which aim to identify suspects whose DNA details are not on the database from those whose details are stored on the database."

 

Pounder anticipates that statistical techniques will develop and become more sophisticated. "In future, a DNA profile of someone arrested could be statistically linked to more and more relatives like parents, siblings, uncles, aunts, cousins, many of whom will not have been arrested," he said.

 

"In that way, the DNA database, even though it contains data relating to criminals, will span most of the UK population," Pounder said. "If you are ever related to someone with a criminal record, your DNA will have the potential to be linked to that individual's police records."

[Park Life 70]

One in eight samples from criminals in DNA database filed under innocent names in Government blunder

Last updated at 13:00 27 February 2008

 

Comments (36)

Add to My Stories

Thousands of DNA samples taken from criminals have been filed under the names of innocent people, it was revealed yesterday.

 

There are 550,000 false, misspelt or incorrect names on the Government's vast DNA database, which contains more than 4million samples.

 

That means one in every eight records is thought to be inaccurate.

 

The news comes as two Britons who were cleared of crimes have launched a landmark human rights challenge to have their DNA samples destroyed.

 

Michael Marper, 45, and a teenager identified only as "S" are seeking a ruling in Strasbourg that keeping their DNA profiles and fingerprints on record is a breach of their human rights.

[Park Life 70]

Kevin Reynolds was arrested early in the investigation of the murder of Sally Anne Bowman because the police trawled the National DNA Database and his profile matched DNA at the scene. [There appears to be some confusion over this order of events, which I have discovered since writing this article - see David Mery's comments below.]

He had been arrested some time before for something trivial (I forget what) and cleared being drunk and disorderly, later acquitted, but of course his DNA profile wasn’t deleted.

They put him on two identity parades, both of which he ‘passed’ one where the witness identified someone else, the other where the witness refused to identify anyone, so police were slowed down. But of course they had kept him in a cell for 36 hours, interrogated him, and searched his father’s house for two days to the extent of ripping up floorboards.

Months later the police found Mark Dixie, again as a result of his DNA being on the database, and he was subsequently convicted of murder.

Now, the only news media that mentions Kevin Reynolds, as far as I can tell, is this week’s issue of Private Eye, 1205, and I mention him here because I think it’s bizarre that in a ‘national debate’ about enrolling everyone on a National DNA Database there is no discussion of false positives, like Mr Reynolds.

Perhaps even more bizarre is someone like Detective Superintendent Stuart Cundy saying, “If there was a DNA register we would have known who killed Sally Anne that day”, because there was a DNA register and his team arrested the wrong man as a result!

Edited October 16, 2008 by Park Life

[Park Life 70]

Now fuck off!

[Guest alex]

His only previous was drunk and disorderly IIRC BTW

 

A criminal type is a criminal type IYAM.

Missed this

Is it just a shitty wind-up? Or have you, personally, never been drunk and disorderly in your life?

[zico martin 84]

...

Home Office statistics state that 33 per cent of men and 10 per cent of women under the age of 35 have a criminal record not related to motoring offences. However, DNA data of those convicted of a crime are never deleted, even when the individual who has provided the sample has died.

 

....

 

 

that cant be right shirley?

[Douggy B 0]

His only previous was drunk and disorderly IIRC BTW

 

A criminal type is a criminal type IYAM.

Missed this

Is it just a shitty wind-up? Or have you, personally, never been drunk and disorderly in your life?

 

No.

[Guest alex]

His only previous was drunk and disorderly IIRC BTW

 

A criminal type is a criminal type IYAM.

Missed this

Is it just a shitty wind-up? Or have you, personally, never been drunk and disorderly in your life?

 

No.

You're one crazy guy Danny.

[Douggy B 0]

Is the odd innocent chief being incovenienced worth all the old unsolved cases they have managed to turn over with this technology?

 

I would say so.

[Douggy B 0]

His only previous was drunk and disorderly IIRC BTW

 

A criminal type is a criminal type IYAM.

Missed this

Is it just a shitty wind-up? Or have you, personally, never been drunk and disorderly in your life?

 

No.

You're one crazy guy Danny.

 

Just able to go out for a drink and enjoy myself rather than be a moron and cause trouble thats all.

[Park Life 70]

Is the odd innocent chief being incovenienced worth all the old unsolved cases they have managed to turn over with this technology?

 

I would say so.

 

 

Are you George Bush? This is chimp level simplicity.

 

There are huge issues of privacy and state interference at stake.

 

If we ever meet I'm ganna leave your dna at the scene of my next crime.

[Fop 1]

My mate was pulled up because of the DNA database.

 

He used to work in a school and was arrested as they thought he had burgled it - he hadn't worked there for six months.

 

They had actually found his DNA on a cigarette!

 

 

Why did they take his DNA to compare it to the ciggie?

They must have already had it.

So he will have had previous then? Which would tell me that he was worthy of being pulled in and ruled out.

 

That's exactly the point. You don't need to have a conviction, or even a charge against you for your DNA to be stored (although you did once upon a time).

[Fop 1]

My mate was pulled up because of the DNA database.

 

He used to work in a school and was arrested as they thought he had burgled it - he hadn't worked there for six months.

 

They had actually found his DNA on a cigarette!

 

 

Why did they take his DNA to compare it to the ciggie?

They must have already had it.

So he will have had previous then? Which would tell me that he was worthy of being pulled in and ruled out.

 

Dumbass naivetee kicks in.

 

So everyone on the database has previous?

 

I have never done anything wrong therefore I am on no database. I believe if you are required to provide it but you are innocent the sample is destroyed.

 

 

Again nope, not any more, they changed it - that's WHY we now have 4,450,000 of the UK population on it and increasing daily. And it is WHY you have to be so vigilant.

[Fop 1]

If we ever meet I'm ganna leave your dna at the scene of my next crime.

 

 

 

That is going to be the next big thing though. It's going to make prior fit ups and wrongful convictions seem like the good old days.

 

 

 

 

 

 

...

Home Office statistics state that 33 per cent of men and 10 per cent of women under the age of 35 have a criminal record not related to motoring offences. However, DNA data of those convicted of a crime are never deleted, even when the individual who has provided the sample has died.

 

....

 

 

that cant be right shirley?

 

It helps them effectively widen the database, if you have a closish blood relation on the database (for whatever reason), then in many ways you're already on it too.

 

The only way they'll start deleting stuff like that when they make it mandatory to register your DNA (which if things don't change will be within 20 years), they are already effectively starting it by taking and retaining kids DNA (even children under 10 who have done nothing wrong at all).

 

Plus the whole thing adds another layer of potential nastiness the more we decode our DNA, not only will they know WHO you are, but likely every biological thing about you as well - didn't get that job? Maybe you were screened and found "not suitable".

 

The only way to stop this shit is stop it early and it may already be too late.

[Fop 1]

Is the odd innocent chief being incovenienced worth all the old unsolved cases they have managed to turn over with this technology?

 

I would say so.

 

Being totally unjustly criminalised? Being monitored? Having the most private and complete record of "you" held for any one with access to study?

 

From your background I'd have thought you'd have understood the danger in that.

[Park Life 70]

If we ever meet I'm ganna leave your dna at the scene of my next crime.

 

 

 

That is going to be the next big thing though. It's going to make prior fit ups and wrongful convictions seem like the good old days.

 

 

 

 

 

 

...

Home Office statistics state that 33 per cent of men and 10 per cent of women under the age of 35 have a criminal record not related to motoring offences. However, DNA data of those convicted of a crime are never deleted, even when the individual who has provided the sample has died.

 

....

 

 

that cant be right shirley?

 

It helps them effectively widen the database, if you have a closish blood relation on the database (for whatever reason), then in many ways you're already on it too.

 

The only way they'll start deleting stuff like that when they make it mandatory to register your DNA (which if things don't change will be within 20 years), they are already effectively starting it by taking and retaining kids DNA (even children under 10 who have done nothing wrong at all).

 

Plus the whole thing adds another layer of potential nastiness the more we decode our DNA, not only will they know WHO you are, but likely every biological thing about you as well - didn't get that job? Maybe you were screened and found "not suitable".

 

The only way to stop this shit is stop it early and it may already be too late.

 

 

I'm ganna take a Thor type hammer to it. If I can find it...

[Park Life 70]

Is the odd innocent chief being incovenienced worth all the old unsolved cases they have managed to turn over with this technology?

 

I would say so.

 

Being totally unjustly criminalised? Being monitored? Having the most private and complete record of "you" held for any one with access to study?

 

From your background I'd have thought you'd have understood the danger in that.

 

 

He doesn't understand it.