Just watching the early morning news, and there appears to be an up roar in the UK regarding keeping DNA records of all people arrest, whether charged or not.

Within the story, they show a man that was arrest for murder as his DNA was matched after being arrested for a petty crime.

Do you think the DNA should be kept by the police? , as if you are innocent and are not planning to commit any crimes, should there be any worry?

I personally think its a good idea, and should be addopted worldwide and stored on a international database, as it could help solve many many cases....

I just don't get the civil libertarians, sometimes. Sometimes.

This is one example of where I don't get them and I think they are a bunch of over-sensitive, PC-crazy, sandal-wearing, tree-hugging, mustachioed women that don't shave under their arms and hirsute men that make pumpkin jam on Sundays.

If you've done nothing wrong, and the science is reasonably accurate, and the data is secure, and it results in more jail-time for more criminals......what's the problem with it???

I say store DNA from birth, not just when someone's nicked.

Dunno, not sure it's a tree hugger thing.

Those rednecked, good old boys I grew up with were fairly keen on the rights of the individual and weren't adverse to taking a shot at the odd greeny.

I suppose if you're going to start doing that to people at birth you may as well just insert a radio chip. Governments could then make a fortune selling your coordinates to debt collection agencies and divorce court lawyers.

Fair call...I was being over-dramatic....I blame the bourbon.

Secure data would mean that it is only used within the computer system, to compare with crime scene samples.

You're quite right to worry about the integrity of the system that holds your private information.....Ideally, and in reality, it would be a completely digital system with multiple levels of checks and balances to maintain security.

I hope you're not hirsute and you don't make pumpkin jam on the weekends.

I have mixed feelings on this one. On the one hand I agree with Harcourt, if you have nothing to hide, what's the problem? However, I see the other side of the arguement about civil liberties, why should I, living in a free country, have every detail about me stored somewhere 'just in case'?

Some people won't take a loyalty card from Tesco because they don't want all their shopping habits on a database. And surely it's their choice.

On the other hand though, DNA has been used to great effect in catching some criminals who otherwise wouldn't have been caught.

This is a tough one!

I'm not quite as hirsute on the top as I used to be.

I used to make pumpkin soup but rarely ate it. My ex hated cooking so I did most of it.

I was raised hard line Socialist on both sides of the family. They were also hard working patriots who were the first to join the armed forces when ever war broke out. My father at 90 still devotes his remaining active hours to community service...

I've let the team down badly having a tendency to underpay my servants up here.

I'm so glad when I see people have such ultimate trust and faith in our loving, caring and competent governments. I, too, feel so much more secure in my life to know that my government has my best interests at heart and is so benevolent to take care and look after me. What would I do if I actually had to take care of myself, to be responsible for my own life? I shudder at the thought.

There was a thread on Thaivisa a while ago about searches and checks being carried out on single guys traveling to the Asia region in an attempt to catch pedophiles etc. I think that it was being done from a London airport.

Many where up in arms and screaming foul about human rights blah blah and how they where being profiled yadda yadda. Well in my opinion I'd be quite happy for some copper to waste his time going through my socks if it meant that even one young kid could be saved from abuse, and when it comes to profiling well duh! Single guys going to S.E. Asia might be pedophiles NO SHIT SHERLOCK.

People where using excuses such as "sensitive" information on their laptops. What can be so sensitive that is either not illegal, high end corporate stuff which would be secure or some James Bond kind of stuff anyway? And if somebody is daft enough to leave information such as account details etc on their laptop then they have issues asides from big brother. The same people, when going through customs, hand over their passport showing their name, nationality, D.O.B. etc and a passport is absolute proof (unless a forgery) of who you are, yet they don't seem to complain about that.......

For me that thread showed an example of how many kick up a fuss about "big brother" etc. purely put of some kind of resentment for authority when in reality the alternative would be for these authorities to do nothing and if the governments of this world did nothing then the very same people would likely complain about that.

The whole database things however raises more questions. Should a copper stop me and delay (within reason) me by a few minutes or so then asides from a little inconvenience, no harm is done. What might concern me about a database though is some random chappie working for whoever getting their hands on my details and being able to use those details for nefarious purposes. What kind of security would the general public be afforded and just how would the authorities be able to implement security measures?

I think that whilst it is obvious that those in authority should be responsible and allow civilians the right to freedom, civilians also have the right to allow the authorities to do their job and civilians should also remember that they simply just cannot have their cake AND eat it.

IF it were guaranteed to be used only for checking on criminals and IF there were suitable controls around it all I probably wouldn't object as that seems a worthy cause and nothing to fear if you've done nothing wrong.

Unfortunately, it's not that difficult to see the info getting used for other purposes for which it wasn't intended, getting abused, lost, falling into the hands of criminals (ironic that one), and being used by people it shouldn't be for purposes it shouldn't either.

I think that whilst it is obvious that those in authority should be responsible and allow civilians the right to freedom, civilians also have the right to allow the authorities to do their job and civilians should also remember that they simply just cannot have their cake AND eat it.

Whoops.

I meant to say that civilians have the responsibility, not the right (although they do also have the right) to allow the authorities to do their job.

Similar theme on a reason why not to, as per Times UK Newspaper 18 Nov:

The private details of millions of mobile phone customers, including their numbers and addresses, have been sold illegally. Staff at T-Mobile passed the information to brokers who then sold it to rival phone companies. The companies then called customers as their contracts were due to expire to offer a better mobile phone deal. T-Mobile confirmed that it was being investigated for breaching data protection rules after Britain’s information watchdog said that an unnamed mobile phone company had been involved in the illegal sale of customers’ records. T-Mobile suggested that it was an industry-wide problem, while sources said that a single employee, who was now facing prosecution, had been responsible. The company is Britain’s fourth-biggest mobile phone provider and has 16.6 million customers....

Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat’s Home Affairs spokesman, said: “This shameful incident shows the disdain with which some companies treat sensitive personal data. Stiffer penalties for those involved in serious data breaches, whether in the public or private sector, cannot be introduced soon enough.”

I think everyone recognises that the security of the data is of paramount importance.

For the sake of the argument, lets take data security as a given...... A hypothetical fool-proof, abuse-proof, attack-proof system of storage and use.

What other arguments are there against DNA collection and storage?

I'm interested in the civil libertarians (and others) reasons for objecting.

Of course, if a hypothetical fool-proof, abuse-proof, attack-proof system of storage and use was an impossibility, then there is certainly cause for concern.

People where using excuses such as "sensitive" information on their laptops. What can be so sensitive that is either not illegal, high end corporate stuff which would be secure or some James Bond kind of stuff anyway?

So if you encrypt your sensitive data and are then asked by customs to reveal the contents will you? I am aware of a legal firm in the US that issues it staff with blank laptops (basic OS only) for travel purposes, all work is carried out on-line via encrypted data connections (VPN pipe) and data only stored on the company's home servers, the laptop has no data stored on it and uses disk encryption to avoid any temporary files giving anything away if the HDD is removed from the laptop. All this to ensure client privacy.

IF it were guaranteed to be used only for checking on criminals and IF there were suitable controls around it all I probably wouldn't object as that seems a worthy cause and nothing to fear if you've done nothing wrong.

Authorities the world over have a proven track record of not being able to be trusted with data security. There have been many cases of sensitive data being lost or accessed illegally - once that information is no longer controlled then it's value is lost. With biometric data being tied to a passport could lead to the situation where you fail to be identified as you at Passport control as your biometric has been replaced on the system's database by the person that has stolen your identity. Already the chipped passports are the subject of hacking, suggesting that DNA information storage systems will be immune from hacking shows that you really do not understand data security and the progress of technology black and white hat as time progresses.

Over time laws and the political masters that make them up change, if today the law said that DNA profiles were only to be used to apprehend violent crime I am sure most people would be in favor of the scheme. Tomorrow there is an amendment to the law allowing the DNA profiles to be scanned looking for a newly discovered gene has been linked to criminal psychotic disorders shown by arsonists, seems a bit unfair to label people like this but it is for the greater good. As the population rises resources are to be controlled more tightly so the DNA database law is amended again to allow profiling based on common health problems in later life to allow the government to predict health care budgets. At this point the health insurance companies get hold of the database and run comparisons against it's customer database.

I can see more reasons not to do this than are outweighed by benefits.

On a related matter - everwonder what happens to the thousands of pages of passport photocopies and other forms that you supply hand of fist to Thai government departments for visas, WP4, 90 day reporting etc. I'm sure that is always treated with respect and securely handled - not !

......and still banks etc. expect you to use DOB, place of birth as their security questions - tossers!

If you've done nothing wrong, and the science is reasonably accurate, and the data is secure, and it results in more jail-time for more criminals......what's the problem with it???

I say store DNA from birth, not just when someone's nicked.

Yep, I'm with you on that.

I have mixed feelings on this one. On the one hand I agree with Harcourt, if you have nothing to hide, what's the problem? However, I see the other side of the arguement about civil liberties, why should I, living in a free country, have every detail about me stored somewhere 'just in case'?

Some people won't take a loyalty card from Tesco because they don't want all their shopping habits on a database. And surely it's their choice.

On the other hand though, DNA has been used to great effect in catching some criminals who otherwise wouldn't have been caught.

This is a tough one!

It is indeed a toughy Tigg's. But overall, I think holding the data is the best option. I got burgled a few years ago and they caught him through his fingerprints. Who know's how many other people he would have robbed and made their lives a misery, without the fingerprinting technology catching him first.

To 99% of Joe public, our files will be left sleeping at the back of a data base. It's the 1% that will be used and if it stops just one serious crime being committed, them I believe it's worth it.

As for the Tesco shoppers. Those type of people just amaze me, talk about being Paranoid. It's Market Research, Tesco aren't bothered about just one individual, they are bothered about a whole community and what we want to shop for. Rochdale's Tesco doesn't have Chocolate coated Ants on the shelves, why, cos there is no or little demand in Lancashire. However, Tesco at the corner of the Amazon Rain Forest probably do stock them. This data that they collect is to try and ensure that what they have on their shelves are what we want and need. The people you are on about are also probably the first one's to complain than Heinz Salad Cream isn't available anymore.

When I go to Thailand now, I often think how much better it is shopping for my little luxeries, than it was 20 years ago. Tesco Lotus, Carrefore, Villa Markets etc. All stocking our Heinz Brown Sauce and the little items that we love. And how do they know we love em? Yep, market research and data collecting.

People where using excuses such as "sensitive" information on their laptops. What can be so sensitive that is either not illegal, high end corporate stuff which would be secure or some James Bond kind of stuff anyway?

So if you encrypt your sensitive data and are then asked by customs to reveal the contents will you? I am aware of a legal firm in the US that issues it staff with blank laptops (basic OS only) for travel purposes, all work is carried out on-line via encrypted data connections (VPN pipe) and data only stored on the company's home servers, the laptop has no data stored on it and uses disk encryption to avoid any temporary files giving anything away if the HDD is removed from the laptop. All this to ensure client privacy.

That's what I was getting at, if the information was that sensitive then it shouldn't be stored somewhere as insecure as a laptop in the first place.

Of course, if a hypothetical fool-proof, abuse-proof, attack-proof system of storage and use was an impossibility, then there is certainly cause for concern.

A hypothetical abuse-proof, attack-proof system of storage and use IS an impossibility. Allegedly highly secure IT systems can be broken into. Just ask Gary Mckinnon who managed to hack into US military and NASA systems. Just ask T-Mobile in the UK whose employees have sold their customer list to business rivals.

I used to work work for a company installing systems into GP surgeries in the UK. I left and went to work elsewhere. 4 years later I got a job doing the same thing with a different company. One of my old customers was a customer of the new company. I walked into their surgery one afternoon, said 'Hi' and logged onto their system. No-one blinked an eyelid.

As for 'If you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear' give me a break. Just ask the Jews in Germany, US citizens of Japanese descent in the USA, gays in the UK pre 1967, gays in Iran today.

The government is not your friend. It SHOULD be your servant but that's not a position it's comfortable with. It would like to be your master. It needs to be kicked in the ollies on a regular basis and reminded where its power comes from.

Good post endure.

Never say never. I would not agree that a perfect system is impossible.....think outside the box and there are answers that have not been considered.....a system that is permanantly offline, for example would be unhackable. Data is transferred INTO it via removable media.

I'm not a systems designer so I won't dwell on the possibilities..... I do suspect that it would not be impossible, albeit cumbersome to work with.....but that is the price of perfection.

a DNA database does not necessitate much more than a cross-reference to a name and perhaps fingerprints.

Keep in mind that in this discussion, I am thinking in terms of a hypothetical system that is abuse-proof.

So, is the answer to the DNA storage question only dependant upon the question of data security?

If so, we should be discussing system design.

It's got to be an important part of the discussion though.

Bear in mind that today's system designs are tomorrow's junk.

It's got to be an important part of the discussion though.

Bear in mind that today's system designs are tomorrow's junk.

Yes, that's my point. Data security is essential. Paramount. I think both sides of the debate agree on that.

Once upon a time, not long ago, there were many things considered to be technologically impossible, but today we take for granted.

If we put the feasibility of data security to one side, (using the broadest interpretation of "secure"; ie abuse-proof, theft-proof, government-proof etc), are there any other arguments against DNA collection and storage?....I'd be interested in hearing them.

From birth.

From criminals caught in normal police activities.

From other sources.

Not at all.

Assuming a hypothetical absolutely infallible system of storage and comparison......(it only needs storage and comparison capabilities).

Apparently the 1st British census was carried out in 1801. I wonder if similar arguments where had then, only less complicated.

Apparently the 1st British census was carried out in 1801. I wonder if similar arguments where had then, only less complicated.

I somehow doubt it. I think the idea of freedom that we have today, may be a whole lot broader in scope and more commonly accepted than was the case in 1801 Britain.

Just a suspicion....I have no knowledge about it.

Waste of time discussing censuses (censi?) with Harcourt, he comes from a country where 390,000 people listed their religion as Jedi Knight in 2001.

Waste of time discussing censuses (censi?) with Harcourt, he comes from a country where 390,000 people listed their religion as Jedi Knight in 2001.

Waste of time discussing censuses (censi?) with Harcourt, he comes from a country where 390,000 people listed their religion as Jedi Knight in 2001.

And that's out of a population of less than 4 million.

There was an email that went around convincing people that if X number of persons claimed it as a religion, then it would become an official religion.

I suspect that most respondants did so only for a laugh....as me.

Never say never. I would not agree that a perfect system is impossible.....think outside the box and there are answers that have not been considered.....a system that is permanantly offline, for example would be unhackable. Data is transferred INTO it via removable media.

The GP systems I'm talking about weren't online. No system is unhackable. The people who run systems can be bought/bribed/blackmailed.

I've just read the latest John Grisham offering, a novel based on exactly that.

Good story, crap ending though.

Never say never. I would not agree that a perfect system is impossible.....

Do you mean "Almost never say never?" or "Virtually never say never?". A bit like "everything in moderation including moderation"?