DNA Database - Would You Be Happy To Be On It?

[Blitzen]

If you would, then would you have any concerns?

If you wouldn't, is there a particular reason(s) why?

[sleepyhead]

My DNA is mine alone. There are many arguements for and against a DNA database.

Simple reason I wouldn't want to be on a DNA database is that I really dislike other people having my own personal data unless it is essential.

[nichomach]

No. I don't believe that even if the database was punted as just accessible to law enforcement it'd stay that way - that's what we were told about RIPA, and then it got broadened out to include just about every department of central and local government. We're obliged to provide census data, but that gets sold to private companies all the time. Same with DVLA data, and it will be the same with the National Identity Register if they do bring it in - they've already said that they will be charging for access to it. They can't secure the data that they already have (just ask HMRC), and can't be trusted to be honest WRT to the implications for us when they screw up (they told us that the data from the two HMRC disks couldn't be used to access bank accounts, but as was shown to Clarkson, that was untrue).

Even the utility to law enforcement of a DNA database is questionable; assuming it's error-free (which'd be a first ), there's more than one way for DNA to end up at a crime scene. Unfortunately, those three letters have achieved such authority that all the police have to say is "we found his DNA" and that's pretty much case closed.

Also, at heart, I just don't believe that the state has an automatic right to know everything about a person just because the means are available to do so. I believe that the state should answer to the citizenry, not the other way around. National registers and DNA databases and stuff like that change our relationship with the state, and I'd argue not in a healthy way. I don't go with the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" argument, either; we have a right to a private life, and when I say private I mean not open to government prying just because they feel like it. If that privacy is to be invaded, it should only be done on the basis of reasonable grounds, and it shouldn't be the people doing the invading who determine what "reasonable" means. I'd rather that were governed by warrants issued by the judiciary.

[kalniel]

Depends what's being stored. If it's just a means to provide a unique and traceable ID then cool (ie, they 'hash' the DNA sample in such a way you can't infer genetic information, it's just a key code).

[Blitzen]

No. I don't believe that even if the database was punted as just accessible to law enforcement it'd stay that way - that's what we were told about RIPA, and then it got broadened out to include just about every department of central and local government. We're obliged to provide census data, but that gets sold to private companies all the time. Same with DVLA data, and it will be the same with the National Identity Register if they do bring it in - they've already said that they will be charging for access to it. They can't secure the data that they already have (just ask HMRC), and can't be trusted to be honest WRT to the implications for us when they screw up (they told us that the data from the two HMRC disks couldn't be used to access bank accounts, but as was shown to Clarkson, that was untrue).

Even the utility to law enforcement of a DNA database is questionable; assuming it's error-free (which'd be a first ), there's more than one way for DNA to end up at a crime scene. Unfortunately, those three letters have achieved such authority that all the police have to say is "we found his DNA" and that's pretty much case closed.

Also, at heart, I just don't believe that the state has an automatic right to know everything about a person just because the means are available to do so. I believe that the state should answer to the citizenry, not the other way around. National registers and DNA databases and stuff like that change our relationship with the state, and I'd argue not in a healthy way. I don't go with the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" argument, either; we have a right to a private life, and when I say private I mean not open to government prying just because they feel like it. If that privacy is to be invaded, it should only be done on the basis of reasonable grounds, and it shouldn't be the people doing the invading who determine what "reasonable" means. I'd rather that were governed by warrants issued by the judiciary.

I agree

If it was just for police purposes to catch baddies then im sure most people wouldnt mind being on it. I would have to be VERY secure first though to convince me.
The fact that if this data is taken, it will be sold off to any Tom, Dick or Harry is worrying.

[directhex]

the government has trouble securing a ham sandwich. securing the mother of all databases, and keeping it accurate? nah

[nichomach]

I agree

*faints* Had to happen eventually, right?

If it was just for police purposes to catch baddies then im sure most people wouldnt mind being on it. I would have to be VERY secure first though to convince me.
The fact that if this data is taken, it will be sold off to any Tom, Dick or Harry is worrying.

I hate the fact that we're compelled to provide data on the basis that it's necessary - the census, etc. - and it may very well be necessary - and then it gets completely misused... The bubbling you can hear is my blood boiling

[Blitzen]

I hate the fact that we're compelled to provide data on the basis that it's necessary - the census, etc. - and it may very well be necessary - and then it gets completely misused... The bubbling you can hear is my blood boiling

Absolutely.....
In theory its a great idea.
Trouble is, it is almost certainly a recipe for disaster as there is no way on this earth they will use it for the purpose which they are advertising it.

[nichomach]

Ah, but remember , if we SAY that, we must be supporting eeeeevil terrirismists!

[Salazaar]

The government has a proven track record with data security.

Which is why I'm not giving them the slightest bit more.

[dangel]

the government has trouble securing a ham sandwich. securing the mother of all databases, and keeping it accurate? nah

No - there's never been a sandwich leak as yet.

[SiM]

I haven't decided whether I would like to pursue a career in the mafia yet, so NO...

[directhex]

No - there's never been a sandwich leak as yet.

the government covered it up. the department of ham and bagels' entire recipe database was left on an unsecured laptop in a bdsm club!

[ajones]

No

I don't work in anywhere related to this industry, so don't know what the current score is. However, a recall a raucous a while back when the yanks started patenting DNA sequences. If I put my DNA on public record, does that mean someone in a lab coat across the pond could patent the contents of my left testicle?

[dangel]

the government covered it up.

stops the flies getting at it tho doesn't it?

[godsdog]

It's the most insane idea that's been floated since the last insane idea that was floated, you'd be here for a week giving reasons why it's such a bad idea.