DNA storage

[Denny Crane!]

Why is it a big deal?

I'm an anarchist/libertarian and avid civil rights proponent but I can't actually see a problem with storing DNA (preferably ran by an independant body) as it will help ensure correct calls are made in the justice department and speed up detection rates maybe even save lives.

Is there an angle I've missed?

[Desperado †]

If lost irresponsibly it can get into the hands of insurance companies, and mess a lot of things up. Mistakes happen, especially with politicians. I mean, look at the recent irresponsible loss of that children's tax credit info in Britain, and that was pretty simple data.

And of course, there's the power a Nazi type government would have if they had that kind of information.

[Helm]

As long as it doesn't get into the wrong hands I don't see anything wrong with it.

[Desperado †]

Isn't it too great a risk?

[Helm]

Isn't it too great a risk?

It's certainly a risk, I'm not sure whether it would be too great of a risk or not. They already hold a lot of data that would do a fair amount of harm to people if it ended up in the wrong hands.

[Desperado †]

It's certainly a risk, I'm not sure whether it would be too great of a risk or not. They already hold a lot of data that would do a fair amount of harm to people if it ended up in the wrong hands.

Yes, but DNA holds more information about a person than we've ever laid our hands on before.

[Helm]

Yes, but DNA holds more information about a person than we've ever laid our hands on before.

They could stick my DNA on such a database if they asked though I can understand why some people wouldn't want theirs on there.

[CtrlAltDe1337]

Why is it a big deal?

I'm an anarchist/libertarian and avid civil rights proponent but I can't actually see a problem with storing DNA (preferably ran by an independant body) as it will help ensure correct calls are made in the justice department and speed up detection rates maybe even save lives.

Is there an angle I've missed?

Insurance.

[Desperado †]

The current unfairness in Britain is that the taken DNA of crime suspects who are then found not guilty is kept on the database.

[Helm]

The current unfairness in Britain is that the taken DNA of crime suspects who are then found not guilty is kept on the database.

If you're a crime suspect you could be a little bit of a dodgy geezer though, so worth having their DNA just in case. Though I think they destroy it after 6 years which sounds fair enough to me.

[Desperado †]

If you're a crime suspect you could be a little bit of a dodgy geezer though, so worth having their DNA just in case. Though I think they destroy it after 6 years which sounds fair enough to me.

So it's fine for the police to take and keep anyone's DNA, on the grounds that they were a suspect for a crime which has now been resolved?

[Helm]

So it's fine for the police to take and keep anyone's DNA, on the grounds that they were a suspect for a crime which has now been resolved?

I'd think it's fine to have everyone put on there regardless of whether they were suspected of anything or not, providing it was kept secure, really secure as all personal data should ideally be.

Anyone who has been thought a possible suspect is a "dodgy geezer"? What?

They probably wouldn't be, but a slightly higher than average chance that they could be statistically.

[Fishy]

I'd think it's fine to have everyone put on there regardless of whether they were suspected of anything or not, providing it was kept secure, really secure as all personal data should ideally be.



They probably wouldn't be, but a slightly higher than average chance that they could be statistically.

No government has ever been able to hide information like this for a long time because it's worth money. And the people who work with the database or the IT people who create the protection for it will at one time or another realize that and sell it. It's pretty much inevitable unless you give them millions to do the best they can. Which might make this secure but nobody will pay them that much just to protect some data.

What scares me about things like this is, that when a good government is around the worst that can happen is that some information leaks and some people notice some possible minor bad side effects, the damage done then likely is heavily outweighed by the good that can be done. A not so good government however can really hurt the population.

During WWII for instance the Dutch had records of the religion of every citizen as well as their address and some other important data. This made the most organized country in Europe, probably the world, in that area. When the Germans came they simply took those databases and started rounding up the Jews much easier then in any other nation. As a result relatively more Jews were captured and killed in the Netherlands then any other country simply because the data was available. Now I'm not saying something like that will happen again in the near future, but I would prefer that it's also impossible instead of just unlikely.

Besides where will this stop, soon they will have our DNA, will put trackers in our cars to see on what roads we drive so they can charge us based on that instead of a general tax. Then they will start installing camera's everywhere like the CCTV in Britain and before you know it anybody can be followed almost 24/7. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing for most citizens but the damage you can do with that to both the country and a few individual people is enormous.

[Garrigan]

I would tend to agree with what Desperado has said; the current Govt's trackrecord of keeping tabs on important information hasnt exactly been great - I wouldnt exactly like to think that my DNA information was on CDs that had been left on trains/thrown in bins etc. Especially when it was taken through no fault of my own.

[Garrigan]

If you're a crime suspect you could be a little bit of a dodgy geezer though, so worth having their DNA just in case. Though I think they destroy it after 6 years which sounds fair enough to me.

Anyone who has been thought a possible suspect is a "dodgy geezer"? What?

[Denny Crane!]

People keep saying insurance but that doesn't actually mean anything to me, if someone could explain it.

[Helm]

Any third parties caught selling/buying or using DNA data should dealt with in with in such a way as they have committed a very serious crime and victims compenstated should it happen to them.

[bigfootedfred]

Debate on BBC1 on this.



full thing is here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode..._2_Episode_17/

Personally i think its a terrible idea.

[Mr. Pink]

Debate on BBC1 on this.



full thing is here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode..._2_Episode_17/

Personally i think its a terrible idea.

Good post. Thanks.

[Fishy]

Any third parties caught selling/buying or using DNA data should dealt with in with in such a way as they have committed a very serious crime and victims compenstated should it happen to them.

That won't happen who will pay for it? The government? The companies? The people stealing it? Besides how can you prove that somebody left all the firewall ports open on purpose, or that he didn't forget his USB stick on accident? You can't prevent information from being stolen, and worse the people that steal it from getting away with it.