293809
story
Comments: 150 +- Science: Bioethics Group Raises DNA Database Concerns on Wednesday September 19 2007, @11:15AM
Posted
by
CmdrTaco
on Wednesday September 19 2007, @11:15AM
from the but-nobody-is-concerned-about-rna dept.
from the but-nobody-is-concerned-about-rna dept.
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicbiotech.gif); width:42px; height:65px;
biotech
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicgovt.gif); width:57px; height:80px;
government
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicpolitics.gif); width:61px; height:43px;
politics
PieGuy107 writes "In its report, The Forensic Use of DNA and Fingerprints: Ethical Issues, the council recommends that police should only be allowed to permanently store bio-information from people who are convicted of a crime.
Today, the police of England and Wales have wider sampling powers than the police force of any other country, and the UK has (proportionally, per head of population) the largest forensic database in the world.
When the police first began using DNA, consent was required before samples could be taken. A succession of Acts of Parliament and legislative amendments has increased police powers of sampling; the police can now take DNA samples from all persons arrested, without their consent, for recordable offenses (an "arbitrary" classification), and retain the samples indefinitely regardless of whether the person arrested is subsequently convicted or even charged.
In response to comments from the Home Office that retaining the DNA of people who were innocent at the time of arrest had helped to solve crimes they committed years later, the Nuffield Council stuck to its guns. "There has to be a limit to police powers," said Dr Carole McCartney, one of the report's authors. "DNA shouldn't be retained simply on the basis that it might turn out to be useful."
She added that many of the statistics from the Home Office were "inconsistent, incomplete and confusing" and that much of its evidence consisted of anecdotal accounts of "horrible men caught with DNA"."
Related Stories
If I love you, what business is it of yours?
-- Johann van Goethe
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.
Zombies (Score:5, Funny)
This playing God needs to stop! (Score:2, Funny)
These are not fingerprints (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
50% for siblings, 25% for first cousins.
As for your link, point mutations usually don't affect the DNA techniques police use because they don't change the lengths of segments cut by restriction enzymes. The other types of mutations are usually more fatal, more rare, and don't really interfere with police work a
Re: (Score:2)
If your cousin gets arrested and take his fingerprints, they have information on him. If they sample his DNA, they have information on you.
It depends on how they analyze the DNA, if they use a 13 marker system then if at least 7 of them match then you are likely to be related and vice versa, so really even if they do arrest your cousin, they likely only have half the picture unless they do a full analysis of the DNA, in which case if the DNA matches your cousin, they'll know more than enough to exclude you because of the various genetic recombination/crossover that goes on when the two gametes fused that later developed into you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:These are not fingerprints (Score:4, Insightful)
Not that anyone need be paranoid about the cops ever planting evidence.....
Parent
Re:These are not fingerprints (Score:4, Interesting)
This does nothing to limit *propagation* of your extremely portable DNA profile, which is nothing but a list of markers that looks like this:
AA BB CC CE DJ etc.
Even if the cops purge their database as well as their sample cabinet, are you so sure that in the meantime, your profile (with all your associated personal info) hasn't migrated somewhere else?
Think of your DNA profile as a credit card that cannot be cancelled in the event of loss or misuse, and guard it accordingly.
Parent
Re:These are not fingerprints (Score:4, Interesting)
Think of your DNA profile as a credit card that cannot be cancelled in the event of loss or misuse, and guard it accordingly."
I agree whole heartedly. There are states that gladly sell your drivers license information to private companies ( Acxiom [acxiom.com] for example). What would keep them from selling it like that information?
I'd certainly had for DNA of everyone to get out. The insurance companies alone would have a field day. You think it is hard now to get private insurance, if you have a pre-existing condition or something like high triglycerides? (I know about the latter one well), well, wait till they can pre-screen your DNA to find out what you might be afflicted with in the future.
And if your identity is stolen....or something bad is associated with your DNA profile....good luck getting that taken care of. Either people will be screwed for life (you can well change your DNA), or DNA will cease to be an important determining factor. The latter may happen, but, probably LONG after many people have their lives ruined. Talk about the ultimate biometric factor...
Parent
Re:These are not fingerprints (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:These are not fingerprints (Score:4, Insightful)
I foresee yet another banned technology.....
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why not? [cbsnews.com] Even Lesley Stahl gets it.
Statute of Limitations (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Statute of Limitations (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Sounds kinda like some other protections (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I predict police will adopt the recommendation, (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And what happens... (Score:5, Insightful)
They'll try that here in the US Soon (Score:5, Insightful)
Only here, it will be needed for all school children. They'll have to have their DNA recorded before they're allowed to enter the public school system.
It will be touted as "This is to help protect children from being kidnapped by a non-custodial parent or, God forbid, to identify a child if they have been killed.
Then if every child grows up with this being the "norm" what happens ?
What Happens? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
There are prehistorical documentaries. Look for "V is for Vendetta", "The Sheep Look Up, "Minority Report",
"THX 1138", "Fahrenheit 451" and "1984". When I read or saw all of these for the first time, little did I realize that they were written by people who were actually peering in to the future.
One has to wonder what happens if there is in fact a "gay gene" or a genetic predisposition to crime and disobedience.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"I'm referring specifically to apparently normal children, without obvious physical or mental defects. I'm convinced people are subconsciously aware of what's going on, and becoming alarmed by it. For example, there's an ingrained distrust in our society of highly intelligent, highly trained, highly co
Re:They'll try that here in the US Soon (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
One of the things that separates a human from an animal is the ability not to act on instinct/genetic influences. A genetic disposition wouldn't necessarily mean someone would act out in a certain way if raised properly.
Society and culture in general has told us what is acceptable and what is not. Committing a violent murder is not acceptable, being gay is somewhat accepted now but wasn't
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Standard Should Be The Same (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd say the standard should be the same as all evidence. Are they allowed to keep your mug-shot forever (yes, as far as I know). If they take a handwriting sample and you are not convicted, are they allowed to keep that? The standard should be the same for DNA. They certainly get to keep your fingerprints right?
If they request and get it during the course of an investigation I think they should get to keep it. I see no reason why they shouldn't.
If they start abusing this (arresting people on provably fake charges and such) just to get DNA, they you can do a civil suit. The judge will make 'em toss it and the millions they'll have to shell out every time will help keep them honest.
But if you are at a murder scene and have knife scratches on you, the police should get to keep your DNA if they use it to rule you in or out, just like they get to keep pictures of you.
Now if you want to make it so they can keep the DNA but it can't be admitted to court (so they couldn't convict you on that alone) then I would be fine with that. That's probably a good idea, in fact.
Re:Standard Should Be The Same (Score:4, Insightful)
Consider the scenario. You are arrested for a crime you didn't commit. Fortunately, despite the police trying to pin it on you, the real culprit confesses and you are released without a stain on your character.
Then a little while later you are arrested again because your fingerprints (which were only stored because you were incorrectly arrested before) are found on some recovered stolen mail. The only problem being that you were the _VICTIM_ of the theft. Yes! Your fingerprints were on the mail because you _POSTED_ it!
No attempt by the police to investigate. Finger print match. Call the person in to the station. Arrest them immediately. And then tell them to accept a caution to get it over with!
Think it's a tall story?
http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/ViewArticle.aspx?SectionID=62&ArticleID=1361138 [blackpoolgazette.co.uk]
Tim.
Parent
Convicted? (Score:3, Interesting)
They're going to end up just taking it a birth or while kids are in school or at hospitals. Unless there are explicit laws disallowing all evidence obtained though knowledge of such surreptitiously obtained DNA, the government will have a free hand to gather any information it wants. Without such laws, judges will cave in the face of teary eyed victims and media pressure, and if you so much as left a hair in a public place ten years ao, the police will be allowed to gather that and add you to their lists.
In case you think there's nothing wrong with this, answer me this. How many wealthy and powerful people do you think have their DNA, or will ever have their DNA, in a government database?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Given this, I'd say that we need to record the DNA of anyone famous enough to be mentioned several times in the newspapers, and at least twice on TV news. It's for their own safety, really. (:-)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"""
It was revealed this year that more than 100,000 DNA samples had been taken from children, aged ten to 16, who have never been charged or convicted of any crime.
"""
DNA samples, profiles, and families (Score:2, Interesting)
The question of usefulness does come into play, however -- and realize that in what I am about to say, I'm not a DNA expert so I welcome further commentary from those who are. If a sibling of mine were to be the person that is guilty of a "horrible" crime, and for whatever reason my DNA profile is on record (say for a securi
What about the children of the database (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People DO emigrate and immigrate from the UK, and their genes wouldn't be on the record anymore in theory. Plus mutations happen, only half the genes get passed on / kid, etc...
Besides, I thought that DNA was supposed to be good at proving someone didn't commit the crime, not finding who did?
Re: (Score:2)
Genes can even emigrate and immigrate without their donors . . .
Whatever your concerns... (Score:5, Insightful)
On the one hand, they're spoonfed endless pseudo-forensic schpiel that give the (false) impression of DNA being nigh-infallible. On the other hand, they're stuffed full of political propaganda telling us how DNA sampling will make $random_crime a thing of the past, how it'll mean that "paedophiles can no longer pretend to be teachers!" and on the third, weirdly mutant hand (broken index in the DNA database I think), years of being taught not to think critically and not to question authority (gubmint knows best!). All you need to do to pass a draconian law is to fawn to the Daily Mail-reading "Middle England" about paedophiles and illegal immigrants (is it rascist to say the Brits are sterotypically xeonphobic? That was certainly my impression growing up) and all of a sudden people can't vote for you quickly enough.
Disclaimer: yes, I am a British citizen. I don't believe the majority of our public could stand up to a wet paper bag. I would love to be proved wrong. UK is in a race to be the first "democratic" police state, who wants to join us and finish second?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It certainly seems that way doesn't it? For everything the Americans do that scream totalitarianism, you Brits have done one better. I'm just glad I live in Canada, where we receive everything at least a decade after you Brits and Americans (that goes for consumer electronics AND police states).
WontSomebodyPleaseThinkOfTheConstables? (Score:3, Funny)
Arr! (Score:2, Funny)
"Avast! It cannot be Medium John Silver's DNA on that XBox 360 Special Monkey Island Edition!"
"Sir, it matches the database."
"Yarr. Caught red handed."
Sampling (Score:2)
It is like finger prints... (Score:2)
The issue isn't controlling the collection of DNA, I would be fine with it being collected as are finger prints as a standard and more precise identifier of individuals, but rather access to and the uses to which the information can be put.
If - and this is the big if - you required that a DNA match (vs. DNA collection) be
Information Structures. (Score:2)
Call Me When You Need Me (Score:2)
GATTACA, anyone? (Score:2)
And they say America is Big Brother (Score:2)
Genetic Disposition (Score:3, Interesting)
If they example the DNA of thousands of rapists, for example, and find they all have certain genetic traits in common, will they then theorize that anybody with this genetic trait be more likely to commit rape? What would they do? The potential for "crime prevention" might be high in their eyes, maybe even to the point of pre-emptively arresting and convicting people for their genetics? Think about the potential for false positives; do you think that would stop them from trying to convict "potential" criminals?
I disagree that DNA is just like a finger-print; the amount of information they can gain, or they can speculate on, is orders of magnitude higher. Anything like this should always under-go major scrutiny, especially measuring the potential for abuse. Politicans and Police Officers CAN, HAVE and WILL abuse whatever powers they are given, history has shown very clearly to me that that will probably never change.
It's one thing to give Police tools that could be useful in finding somebody who's commited a crime, but i'm 100% against giving them anything that would allow any sort of pre-emptiveness against peopel who "might" commit a crime. Once the police get ahold of a way to do genetic profiling to try and determine potential criminals, it'll be too late.
DNA Profiling Not As Reliable As Reported (Score:5, Insightful)
For one thing, the figures cited are founded on the assumption that the DNA sites that are being matched up are individually independent. But they have not established that beyond a reasonable doubt yet.
Here is an example of what I mean: what are the odds that a randomly-sampled American has the genes that result in curly hair? Relatively low... maybe around 0.2 or so.
On the other hand: what are the odds that the same person has the genes for curly hair... GIVEN THAT he also has the genes for sickle-cell anemia? That would be pretty high: maybe around 0.99, give or take.
Individual genes (or lots of them anyway) are NOT completely independent. They depend on others in complex ways that are not yet fully understood. And until we understand more about that, we should be very careful before making claims about the "reliability" of such tests. In certain cases (and there is no reliable way to tell which), the reliability of the test might only be 1 in 100,0000 or even less. That might still sound like a lot, but it is not. That would match 4 or 5 people just in my immediate area.