News

Facebook DIGG

Curse of the DNA Register

by: Nigel Morris  |  Visit article original @ The Independent UK

photo
There is widespread mistrust in the UK over the expansion of a national DNA database. Britain's DNA database is the world's largest and includes an estimated one million people, who have never been found guilty of any offense. (Photo: PA)

    One million innocent Britons "criminalized," says damning report.

    A generation of young Britons is being criminalized for life by the relentless expansion of the national DNA database, ministers are warned today.

    Alarm and hostility over the massive scale of the collection of DNA has been uncovered by groundbreaking research funded by the Home Office among panels of members of the public.

    The Human Genetics Commission found there was widespread mistrust among people presented with evidence of the size of the database, which now contains the genetic records of more than four million people. It called for the database to be taken out of the control of the Home Office and police altogether, with one panel member warning that the database was a "first step towards a totalitarian state".

    Britain now has by far the largest DNA database in the world. It includes an estimated one million people who have never been found guilty of any offence, some 100,000 of whom are children.

    About 40 per cent of young black men have been forced to provide samples, compared with 13 per cent of Asian men and 9 per cent of white men.

    Genetic material is now taken from all people arrested by police, regardless of whether they are subsequently charged or convicted, and remains on file for life.

    Offences covered include begging, being drunk and disorderly, taking part in an illegal demonstration and minor acts of criminal damage caused by children kicking footballs or, in one instance, throwing a snowball.

    Detailed consultation on the database by the commission, the Government's genetic watchdog, found the public believed samples provided by the innocent should be destroyed and those of people convicted of lesser offences removed after a few years.

    The damning verdict was delivered by panels in Birmingham and Glasgow. After studying evidence about the database they called for an array of reforms designed to reassure the public that it would not be abused. They concluded that the records of children convicted of minor offences should be removed after a short period. Warning that adults are "criminalised" by having their DNA permanently on record, the panels said the length of time it stays on the database should be proportionate to their offence. "Currently no distinction is made between someone who has been arrested for breach of the peace and someone who has murdered somebody," the commission's report noted.

    It registered alarm over the "very lax security" protecting the database and concerns over "who had access to samples and profiles and for what purpose". The panel members unanimously supported a nationwide publicity campaign to raise awareness of the database, using the internet, posters, leaflets and school visits.

    The public backed control over the database being transferred to an independent body comprising ministers, police and civilians. Juries should be given better information about DNA in trials, they said, with independent scientists explaining the evidence, in addition to those hired by the prosecution and defence.

    The proposed destruction of many DNA samples would be strongly opposed by ministers, who argue that they have proved vital to solving a succession of "cold cases". A Home Office spokesman said: "The national DNA database is a key information tool which has revolutionised the way the police can protect the public through identifying offenders and securing more convictions. It provides the police on average with almost 3,500 matches each month." He said there had been 41,717 crimes in 2006-07 which yielded DNA matches, including 452 homicides, 644 rapes, 222 other sex offences and more than 8,500 domestic burglaries.

    David Howarth, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said: "There must be better ways of catching criminals than spending millions of pounds of taxpayers' money adding innocent people to the DNA database. Public confidence has been shattered by the Government's Orwellian attempts to create a national DNA database by stealth."

    Dominic Grieve, the shadow Home Secretary, said: "The Government should take heed of these findings. Currently the DNA database targets the innocent but not all the guilty."

»


IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. TRUTHOUT HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR IS TRUTHOUT ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.

"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON TO MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

Can someone please explain

Can someone please explain why a database of simple DNA infringes on my rights? Even if the database includes everyone. We're speaking here of the crudest identification, enough to conclusively distinguish among individuals, but not enough data to profile medically or to make health insurance companies curious. Given that we now have the means to quickly identify people by their DNA, how is this different from identifying people by their fingerprints, or by their faces? It's different in that it is several orders of magnitude more accurate. Eyewitness testimony and police line-ups are notoriously inaccurate. Fingerprints are better, but still unreliable enough to almost convict Brandon Mayfield of a crime he did not, and could not possibly have committed. No, DNA identification is accurate and useful, and all other means of identification are unreliable and subject to the bias of the examiner. What is dangerous is subjecting DNA to further and deeper analysis. For example, knowing what diseases are you likely to get or to pass on to your children is nobody's business but your own. Similarly, your heritage, racial background, parentage, and probable life span is private information. No one has a right to it or to use it for their own purposes except yourself. The detailed analysis of your DNA can be extremely useful to you in making plans and decisions of how to conduct and proceed with your life. In the hands of anyone else, the same information allows others to manipulate, coerce, and even blackmail you. So what needs to be guarded is the uses to which DNA information is put. There are ways of securing such databases, both physical and digital, against misuse. We must use them, just as, if we have firearms, we must educate ourselves and our families in their safe and civil use. When we have guns, we must have laws protecting the rights of others to be from from the potential harm of guns. If we don't have such laws, the biggest and fastest gun rules everyone's lives. That's wrong! Similarly, when we have DNA testing, we must have laws protecting the rights of those tested to be free from the improper use of their DNA against them. If we don't, those who control DNA information will be able to dictate the conduct of our lives. And that's wrong, too!

This post is a response to

This post is a response to Eric, who posted Wed, 07/30/2008, 8:53 pm, “Can someone please explain ...” You asked why a database of simple DNA infringes on your rights. First of all, if you are not worried, go ahead, submit your DNA; have it archived, subject to any current and all future uses. There are undoubted benefits. My concern is not that all users of DNA information will put their information, which is to say “your information,” to bad uses. Humans are occasionally negligent. Some of their actions become malfeasance. You, yourself, I believe, over rely on the promised virtues of DNA use. All these reasons, and more, will wreak havoc upon the individual whose DNA is misused. “Even if the database includes everyone.” Well, “everyone” would include me. I object to the widespread access to my personal information. When anyone attempts to include everyone, some people’s rights to privacy are ignored. “We're speaking here of the crudest identification, enough to conclusively distinguish among individuals ... Given that we now have the means to quickly identify people by their DNA, how is this different from identifying people by their fingerprints, or by their faces? It's different in that it is several orders of magnitude more accurate.” You use the terms “conclusively distinguish among individuals.” A couple sentences later, you say “(DNA) is several orders of magnitude more accurate.” Your use of “more accurate” acknowledges your first statement “conclusively distinguish(es)” is erroneous. There was a time, not long ago, we firmly believed fingerprints could “conclusively distinguish among individuals.” You advise, “(there’s) not enough data to profile medically or to make health insurance companies curious.” You’re wrong. There is more than sufficient data to greatly benefit the gambles which insurance companies routinely take with their actuarial tables. “(K)nowing what diseases are you likely to get or to pass on to your children is nobody's business but your own.” You warn, “In the hands of anyone else, the same (DNA) information allows others to manipulate, coerce, and even blackmail you.” Exactly. You console yourself with the thought, “There are ways of securing such databases, both physical and digital, against misuse.” There are innumerable instances where “private,” and “secure” information has been divulged. I was an investigator. I know that provided with as little information as one of your former addresses and your approximate dates of residency, I can obtain virtually all the other information about you (information that even you have forgotten about), with the single exception of exact information about all your recent purchases. The explanation of why a database of simple DNA infringes on your rights, doesn’t rest upon proof that a DNA database will always and necessarily infringe on all our rights, but that there is an extremely high likelihood that our safeguards against the misuse of our DNA information, judging from our past errors and transgressions, will not be effective.

"Can someone please explain

"Can someone please explain why a database of simple DNA infringes on my rights? " One word: Gattaca

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.