DNA database 'breaches human rights'

[dong20]

Damn straight.

Jacqui Smith's response is as entirely predictable as usual - i.e. perfectly in keeping with her casual and proven disregard for protecting any and all forms of civil liberties.

She's not quite up there with the man 'with something of the night about him', but she has potential.

DNA database 'breaches human rights' - Yahoo! News UK

 

[ManlyBanisters]

I wondered if anyone was going to bring this up.

What most surprised me is quoted in the article you linked to - her response:

"DNA and fingerprinting is vital to the fight against crime, providing the police with more than 3,500 matches a month, and I am disappointed by the European Court of Human Rights' decision," Ms Smith said.

She's acting like the whole bloody thing is being taken away, whereas, in fact, only the records of the innocent are to be deleted - not the entire fucking system! Talk about trying to spin it.

And I agree - bloody right the records of the innocent should be removed from the database. Leaving them in there is the first step to having compulsory records from everyone one who lives in or passes through the UK. Guilty until proven innocent, anyone?

 

[dong20]

I wondered if anyone was going to bring this up.

What most surprised me is quoted in the article you linked to - her response:



She's acting like the whole bloody thing is being taken away, whereas, in fact, only the records of the innocent are to be deleted - not the entire fucking system! Talk about trying to spin it.

And I agree - bloody right the records of the innocent should be removed from the database. Leaving them in there is the first step to having compulsory records from everyone one who lives in or passes through the UK. Guilty until proven innocent, anyone?

I guess we're the only ones to care!

 

[ManlyBanisters]

Guess so.

Gis a sample then :wink:

 

[Drifterwood]

I guess we're the only ones to care!

Our Jock brothers have this thing called not proven, which is the only gray area for me.

Bath water and babies in inverse proportions. The policing types would have us (not themselves of course) tagged and monitored so they didn't have to do anything. I could say much more about this, but I won't.

Is no one else even interested enough to wonder what we are talking about?

 

[B_Nick8]

This is a frightening and heinous practice and it seems Ms. Smith would clearly have been more at home in the former Soviet Union. I'm just sorry she's missed her time, place and, apparently, calling.

 

[mitchymo]

I think this issue is a little complex.....there is every reason why the innocent should not have any records of their DNA on database, the thought that it may be taken advantage of is an 'out there' example to an extreme but then on the other hand if crimes can be reduced because of a DNA database then this can only be a good thing.....the way i see it is like this.....is my DNA on a national database going to cause me more harm than 'child victim no.2, 3 or 4' that would otherwise not exist if the offender was caught first time due to having his DNA on the database too.......i have to agree with jacqui smith on this....i think its ridiculous to argue that it is a breach of human rights when your effectively allowing people to commit crimes against others that COULD and CAN be prevented, what about the victims rights and the police should have the best possible resources to allow them to bring criminals to justice.

 

[surferboy]

big brother is watching

 

[ManlyBanisters]

I think this issue is a little complex.....there is every reason why the innocent should not have any records of their DNA on database, the thought that it may be taken advantage of is an 'out there' example to an extreme but then on the other hand if crimes can be reduced because of a DNA database then this can only be a good thing.....the way i see it is like this.....is my DNA on a national database going to cause me more harm than 'child victim no.2, 3 or 4' that would otherwise not exist if the offender was caught first time due to having his DNA on the database too.......i have to agree with jacqui smith on this....i think its ridiculous to argue that it is a breach of human rights when your effectively allowing people to commit crimes against others that COULD and CAN be prevented, what about the victims rights and the police should have the best possible resources to allow them to bring criminals to justice.

That is a poor argument. And is indeed the argument many people use for 'security measures' that invade people's privacy. 'If you are innocent you have nothing to fear - so let us take your DNA and install CCTV cameras outside your house and keep a list of all the books you borrow from the library, be able to see every page you access on the internet, be able to see every telephone number you dial, every text you send, every transaction on your debit and credit cards'. Do you really want the government to know all that? Most people don't even want their SOs / parents / best friends knowing everything - not because they are doing anything sneaky but because we are entitled to our fucking privacy!

surferboy's on the money here - it is just another step on the big brother ladder and IS a violation of human rights. I'm very proud of the European Court of Human Rights over this ruling.

 

[No_Strings]

I don't mind trading some of my freedom for security.
Boo, hiss!

 

[Rikter8]

We just shoot em over here.

 

[mitchymo]

That is a poor argument. And is indeed the argument many people use for 'security measures' that invade people's privacy. 'If you are innocent you have nothing to fear - so let us take your DNA and install CCTV cameras outside your house and keep a list of all the books you borrow from the library, be able to see every page you access on the internet, be able to see every telephone number you dial, every text you send, every transaction on your debit and credit cards'. Do you really want the government to know all that? Most people don't even want their SOs / parents / best friends knowing everything - not because they are doing anything sneaky but because we are entitled to our fucking privacy!

surferboy's on the money here - it is just another step on the big brother ladder and IS a violation of human rights. I'm very proud of the European Court of Human Rights over this ruling.

My argument is not at all poor and certainly no more so than your take on the issue....paranoia seems to be at the heart of your argument....how on earth would you possibly cope should you ever become a celebrity.

The government cannot take away your most intimate privacy, its simply impracticable to be totalitarian in this respect....i mean come on....how many people would it take to monitor everyone 24/7 and would they want to knowing someone would be monitoring them.

I think you need to accept that some percieved invasions of human rights are for the best in order to promote a secure society. nobody is trying to control what you do just to make it safer for you to do it.

 

[marleyisalegend]

Ha ha! I live in America, I don't have to worry about my government hassling me or spying on me.

Oh, wait.....

 

[B_Nick4444]

simply move the data from a criminal registry to a non-criminal registry

quite fanciful to consider merely having the data on file to constitute a breach of human rights

rather nonsensical, in fact

 

[ManlyBanisters]

*snip*

I think you need to accept that some percieved invasions of human rights are for the best in order to promote a secure society. nobody is trying to control what you do just to make it safer for you to do it.

I most certainly do not need to accept that.

And there is nothing paranoid about my argument either. It is sad to see that so many people have accepted that innocent people should give up basic rights, like privacy, because the government tells them it protects the greater good.

 

[dong20]

And there is nothing paranoid about my argument either. It is sad to see that so many people have accepted that innocent people should give up basic rights, like privacy, because the government tells them it protects the greater good.

I agree.

There's a number of issues around this, none of which appear to have been mentioned so far; not the least of which is data security and access control. Legislation is mooted that would allow wide ranging information sharing between Government departments and, by extension (PPI etc) the private sector.

The record of Government when it comes to data security is lamentable, the thought of DNA information falling into the wrong hands isn't a heart warming one. It would be valuable commodity, in the hands of medical insurance underwriters, for example.

Not to mention it's one more step on the veritable slippery slope. A decision to trade privacy for security is only an informed one when one has a measure of control over the process and the limits of loss.

Carry on ...

 

[B_Nick4444]

A decision to trade privacy for security is only an informed one when one has a measure of control over the process

this should go without saying, and should be assumed over any data governments maintain, especially that of the citizenry

another sound reason for maintaining the data would be for research purposes at a statistical level

it becomes more difficult to argue if specific, individual identifying information is not protected; in that situation, the Op's concerns are validated

 

[dong20]

this should go without saying, and should be assumed over any data governments maintain, especially that of the citizenry

Yes, but that consideration seems somewhat absent from the posts thus far. It should not be assumed.

another sound reason for maintaining the data would be for research purposes at a statistical level

With informed consent for its use being given, or witheld being the prerogative of the owner of the information, not the end user.

it becomes more difficult to argue if specific, individual identifying information is not protected; in that situation, the Op's concerns are validated

Yes, and of course in this case, it doesn't get much more personal than DNA, does it?

 

[mitchymo]

I most certainly do not need to accept that.

And there is nothing paranoid about my argument either. It is sad to see that so many people have accepted that innocent people should give up basic rights, like privacy, because the government tells them it protects the greater good.

It is pretty evident from your response that you are a rebel.....you have little or no faith in authority and that no other response would be expected of you to say that it is a breach of your rights.

I on the other hand am not a rebel or a conformist and can clearly recognise by pondering the issue that it is in this case for the greater good.

For a start, the european parliament by making this ruling has made it more difficult for the police to catch crooks so now dna evidence at crime scenes which could lead to prosecution now relies upon the perpetrator having commited a crime before AND been prosecuted for it.....i think that the police should not have their jobs made more difficult simply because people have some deluded idea that having their dna on database is taking away any more of their privacy than having your driving licence or national insurance documents, birth certificates, home addresses etc on databases of their own.....

....i have no doubt that the european court is doing its job correctly....problem being that their focus to protect everybodys rights lead to an imbalance which creates negativity elsewhere.

 

[B_Nick4444]

With informed consent for its use being given, or witheld being the prerogative of the owner of the information, not the end user.

this is one is more difficult to agree with

should I contract a communicable disease, and visit a medical professional, the incident will be reported as a statistic, though my individual information remains undisclosed

I have no problem with that; I would imagine DNA statistical information gathering to fall under a similar analysis and conclusion