Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
DNA date base
Quote byTo frame you right now all I need to do is break into your home take a hair or two from your hair brush come. Make sure you have no one to place you somewhere else. Plant the hairs, may be leave a glass with your finger prints on it, hope they will be found and then drop your name to the police. There is no need for a database.
I think it’s a really bad idea. Yes you can say it will catch people quicker and so on but its big brother.. This stuff is as only as good as the people controlling it. Its not that far fetched to think if some one wants you framed then it can be done with out you even been there, just a few cells at a crime scene and your done for ! It’s all a bit minority report for my likening. You’re making too much of a noise on the political scene or you object a little too loud then that’s it. Like I say it only as good at the weakest link in the chain and that link is man..
I agree.. just another way of keep the masses in toe!
Quote byTo frame you right now all I need to do is break into your home take a hair or two from your hair brush come. Make sure you have no one to place you somewhere else. Plant the hairs, may be leave a glass with your finger prints on it, hope they will be found and then drop your name to the police. There is no need for a database.
I think it’s a really bad idea. Yes you can say it will catch people quicker and so on but its big brother.. This stuff is as only as good as the people controlling it. Its not that far fetched to think if some one wants you framed then it can be done with out you even been there, just a few cells at a crime scene and your done for ! It’s all a bit minority report for my likening. You’re making too much of a noise on the political scene or you object a little too loud then that’s it. Like I say it only as good at the weakest link in the chain and that link is man..
..but it is not that easy.
What if you can support the true story. You with draw money from a hole in the wall. You see someone. You go past a camera of some kind, CCTV, speed, congestion charging, DVLC enforcement, big bother can help you. You are stopped by the police, or the old terror old the criminal, you have an accident.
Setting someone up is full of pitfalls.
Quote by keeno
...
Regressive DNA where your DNA doesn't match your parents
...
DNA come half from the farther and half from the mother, (in humans). The two half fuse. to from one cell, which then develops into a new human being. Sometimes one chromosome mutates, but there are many in each gene.
So if you do not have DNA that match half you mothers and half you fathers, there is a word for it. Bastard, or your parents are not who you think they are.
I am first and foremost a human being.
As a human being I feel I have a fundamental right to live my life within the law with no controls checks or balances whatsoever. Obviously I am happy to take part in any investigation if it is suspected that I am breaking the law.
CCTV caameras are an absolute bloody disgrace.
The concept of a national DNA database is a disgrace.
I am not very keen on censuses but that seems to have become an accepted practice.
I do not think it is appropriate for anybody to hold information about me or records of my activities beyond those already established in law. Thinking about it I aint mad keen on some of the information that is recorded by various bodies but I live with it.
I suppose my view is based on my belief that most organisations, including governments, are fundamentally corrupt and incompetent. I appreciate many folk are happy to trust them. But then half the population are as thick as a scabby horse sandwich. If I ruled the world u would have to pass a test to demonstarte your understanding af a few issues before Id let u vote.
And yes we have got a nanny state but then we have a labour government and left wing as I am I admit labour love to nanny.
As a human being I feel I have a fundamental right to live my life within the law with no controls checks or balances whatsoever. Obviously I am happy to take part in any investigation if it is suspected that I am breaking the law.
CCTV caameras are an absolute bloody disgrace.
The concept of a national DNA database is a disgrace.
I am not very keen on censuses but that seems to have become an accepted practice.
I do not think it is appropriate for anybody to hold information about me or records of my activities beyond those already established in law. Thinking about it I aint mad keen on some of the information that is recorded by various bodies but I live with it.
I suppose my view is based on my belief that most organisations, including governments, are fundamentally corrupt and incompetent. I appreciate many folk are happy to trust them. But then half the population are as thick as a scabby horse sandwich. If I ruled the world u would have to pass a test to demonstarte your understanding af a few issues before Id let u vote.
And yes we have got a nanny state but then we have a labour government and left wing as I am I admit labour love to nanny.
Warming the Bed
one or two comment from the pro - data base conversations here suggest the well run out axiom.
"if you are innocent then you have nothing to fear."
This wonderful sentiment runs well in police states and dictorial governments but goes against the concept of freedom and privacy and democracy.
We have from time to time penalised innocent people and convicted them of crimes and removed from them their personal freedoms only to discover at a later date their innocence.
The point is we shouldnt have to fear.
"if you are innocent then you have nothing to fear."
This wonderful sentiment runs well in police states and dictorial governments but goes against the concept of freedom and privacy and democracy.
We have from time to time penalised innocent people and convicted them of crimes and removed from them their personal freedoms only to discover at a later date their innocence.
The point is we shouldnt have to fear.
Thousands of DNA samples taken from criminals have been filed under the names of innocent people, it was revealed yesterday.
There are 550,000 false, misspelt or incorrect names on the Government's vast DNA database, which contains more than 4million samples.
That means one in every eight records is thought to be inaccurate.
Most alarming is the revelation that many criminals are using other people's names if they are caught.
Home Office Minister Meg Hillier gave the example of somebody who was arrested, and gave their sister's name.
"That data would be on the database," she told MPs.
Politicians are worried that people could be charged with crimes they have not committed if DNA belonging to a criminal who gave their name later turned up at a crime scene.
It was stressed that innocent people could provide an authentic sample of their own DNA to prove it did not match.
However, they would still be forced to undergo the stress and humiliation of a criminal investigation.
Presumably, the police could quite easily verify someone's identity, simply by searching them. After all, they managed it when they arrested Euan Blair.
But, in over half a million cases, they simply haven't bothered, but have stored the DNA, without knowing for sure whether it actually belongs to the person they think it does.
And some among us want to give these idiots a database containing the DNA of every man, woman, and child in this country! Still, we shouldn't be too worried: on the basis of this showing, the Plods would struggle to organise a piss-up in a brewery, let alone a DDR-style police state...
Sex God
Firstly, I am absolutely amazed that so many ‘intelligent’ people are happy to just sit back and accept that DNA testing is an accurate science :shock:
There are plenty of scientists who are still very dubious about the whole DNA identification thing and just because law enforcement agency’s the world over have jumped on the “oh this makes it easy” band wagon, doesn’t make it right.
There are many unsolved issues concerning the use of DNA, most of which are kept under close wraps for obvious reasons but seriously, DNA is not the silver bullet we are all lead to believe it is.
Part proof of this (and yes here comes the conspiracy theory) is that a couple of years ago you could have goggled a phrase like “ unreliable DNA tests “ and come up with literally hundreds of scientific sites all giving their own views and evidences as to why DNA tests are far far from as accurate as the powers that be would have us believe.
I tried the same google search 6 months ago and came up with almost nothing
I goggled some of the names of the then eminent scientists involved and guess what? Nadda, no mention of their work in the DNA field.
Personally I think we are being hoodwinked. There are far too many cases of people being found guilty of being somewhere when all the live whiteness’s have stated they were somewhere else, purely on the basis of DNA evidence.
Combine my own feelings of the inherent unreliability of DNA with the case after case evidence of contaminated DNA samples and the whole debate takes on a different light.
Get back to proper police work is the answer, find the proof, prove the evidence and stop using a relatively unproven scientific aid as a crutch to hold up a cash starved law enforcement policy. As with all things, you get what you pay for. We need more people on the ground doing what the police are meant to do, prevent and detect crime to a level that is beyond reasonable doubt. DNA testing at this time does not, imho, fit into that criteria.
What :dunno:
you said you wanted controversial
There are plenty of scientists who are still very dubious about the whole DNA identification thing and just because law enforcement agency’s the world over have jumped on the “oh this makes it easy” band wagon, doesn’t make it right.
There are many unsolved issues concerning the use of DNA, most of which are kept under close wraps for obvious reasons but seriously, DNA is not the silver bullet we are all lead to believe it is.
Part proof of this (and yes here comes the conspiracy theory) is that a couple of years ago you could have goggled a phrase like “ unreliable DNA tests “ and come up with literally hundreds of scientific sites all giving their own views and evidences as to why DNA tests are far far from as accurate as the powers that be would have us believe.
I tried the same google search 6 months ago and came up with almost nothing
I goggled some of the names of the then eminent scientists involved and guess what? Nadda, no mention of their work in the DNA field.
Personally I think we are being hoodwinked. There are far too many cases of people being found guilty of being somewhere when all the live whiteness’s have stated they were somewhere else, purely on the basis of DNA evidence.
Combine my own feelings of the inherent unreliability of DNA with the case after case evidence of contaminated DNA samples and the whole debate takes on a different light.
Get back to proper police work is the answer, find the proof, prove the evidence and stop using a relatively unproven scientific aid as a crutch to hold up a cash starved law enforcement policy. As with all things, you get what you pay for. We need more people on the ground doing what the police are meant to do, prevent and detect crime to a level that is beyond reasonable doubt. DNA testing at this time does not, imho, fit into that criteria.
What :dunno:
you said you wanted controversial
I was just wondering who was going to collect these DNA samples. Your local GP? Hospitals? The police?
The entire nation is going to go their GPs to be swabbed and filed. Yer like that's going to work. And if you don't have a GP then your not tested.
Please please please can someone tell me how this is going to work?
The entire nation is going to go their GPs to be swabbed and filed. Yer like that's going to work. And if you don't have a GP then your not tested.
Please please please can someone tell me how this is going to work?
Quote by Pete_sw
Firstly, I am absolutely amazed that so many ‘intelligent’ people are happy to just sit back and accept that DNA testing is an accurate science :shock:
I do not think DNA testing is an exact science, but rather another tool in detecting crime.
All cases should have evidence that is then corroborated. Sometimes this is not the case and some types have to stand alone.
The police can not stand outside each of our homes to prevent crime.....there is just not enough of them. So they need to use all the available tools to help. Help being the operative word.
DNA evidence may show that the accused has been in contact with the evidence. What it doesn't show is when or how. Other evidence is needed to "prove" it.
Dave_Notts
As Has been said before, the problem is not about the police use of dna evidence, although that is flawed, but about others with access to the database. This, currently, is practically all government departments in the UK, and the data is available to the US authorities via information sharing arrangements. Shortly, this data will be available to all EU law enforcement agencies. In the near future, given the lack of oversight and legal requirements, this may also be available to other parties interested in such a large database of available and listed dna sample/s.
A read:
As you can see, life is not easy !
A read:
As you can see, life is not easy !
Quote by Dave__Notts
...
DNA evidence may show that the accused has been in contact with the evidence. What it doesn't show is when or how. Other evidence is needed to "prove" it.
Dave_Notts
...and that is how it works. The prosecution puts up evidence, the defence puts up a witness to counter and make an argument more favourable to the defence and then 12 men and women decide.
If the defendant says I have never meet her and he and her blood on him and his skin is under her nails, you decide.
If the defendant s says he had an argument the day before, you decide.
DNA is evidence, just like a man who says "I saw him kill her." It is to be considered by twelve men and women. It may or may not prove something.
DNA is just a tool.
Travis
Sex God
Quote by JTS
But it is a tool that 12 good are told, nay preached to, is infallible.
Precisely my point. I have no problem with DnA being used in evidence if the truth were told about it’s reliability.
It seems to me there is a massive belief among the populous (law enforcement officers included) that it is, as JTS states, ‘infallible’ and that’s just not true, I also believe that this ‘opinion’ has been serviced and highlighted and yes even preached, by some that really should know better purely because they know that if DnA evidence is given to a jury, conviction is almost certainly guaranteed and thus helping to expedite a rapid clear up rate.
If this were not the case, why does it seem that all those eminent scientific exponents who until recently had websites, articles in scientific publications, and being generally verbose about, well not so much the unreliability of DnA testing, but more about how we should not rely upon it as much as we do, been told to wind their necks in, the websites apparently taken down and any published material on the subject almost impossible to find, or if found, found to be considerably watered down?
As for DnA being used as just a part of the prosecutions case, not so. There have been many convictions passed where the prosecutions case has hinged entirely on DnA evidence, where anything else admitted has been wholly circumstantial and even unreliable. The jury has convicted despite this purely on the DnA evidence “his / her DnA was found at the scene, therefore they are guilty” Not so.
In my opinion the whole DnA reliability thing should be studied carefully, independently and publicly. So that the whole truth is out there for everyone to see, that everyone is made aware of the facts when they immerge and that jury’s are told that they cannot convict purely on DnA evidence unless it is presented with other corroborating facts.
IMHO DnA is not the holy grail that it is currently made out to be by those who stand to gain the most from its use.
The problem is not going to get better. The WAY evidence is presented to a jury is quite crucial, jurors have problems with evidencial statistics. ie: evidence presented to a jury in a statistical percentage carries more influence than in a personal presentation (1:1000 V 0.1%). Most prosecuting officials will be well aware of the influence that ways of presenting the evidence carry.
The way in which statistical DNA evidence is presented to legal decision makers can have a profound impact on the persuasiveness of that evidence. Evidence that is presented one way may convince most people that the suspect is almost certainly the source of DNA evidence recovered from a crime scene. However, when the evidence is presented another way, a sizable minority of people equally convinced that the suspect is almost certainly not the source of the evidence. Three experiments are presented within the context of a theory ("exemplar cueing theory") for when people will find statistical match evidence to be more and less persuasive. The theory holds that the perceived probative value of statistical match evidence depends on the cognitive availability of coincidental match exemplars. When legal decision makers find it hard to imagine others who might match by chance, the evidence will seem compelling. When match exemplars are readily available, the evidence will seem less compelling. Experiments 1 and 2 show that DNA match statistics that target the individual suspect and that are framed as probabilities (i.e., "The probability that the suspect would match the blood drops if he were not their source is 0.1%") are more persuasive than mathematically equivalent presentations that target a broader reference group and that are framed as frequencies ("One in 1,000 people in Houston would also match the blood drops"). Experiment 3 shows that the observed effects are less likely to occur at extremely small incidence rates. Implications for the strategic use of presentation effects at trial are considered.
Sex God
How about this idea?
As I see it the two sides of the argument are;
For, Lets have DNA testing of everyone so rapists etc can be identified by their DNA.
Against, I've not committed a crime, why should the Gov. have my DNA / don't trust Gov. with my DNA no matter what safeguards they promise.
So, assuming DNA is only to be used to solve crimes.
Who commits most crimes, especially violent crimes? MEN! Sorry lads, but most rapists are men, most murderers are men. Then why do we need to collect female DNA? Statistically, you'll not solve many serious crimes by having it.
Now, I think I'm right in saying that most rapists / murderers etc, have some previous violent record, may be being cruel to animals / wife / girlfriend beating / school bullying. So, if more (for want of better words) low level violent attacks were reported, then the ones most likely to go on to more serious crimes are already on the DNA register, hence easier to trace. While the non-offenders do not have to have their DNA stored.
Possibly, just knowing that their DNA will be taken for the low level offences MIGHT dis-courage the low level attacks.
Now, this is easy to make happen, if you see animal cruelty, report it. Women, if your partner assualts you, don't put up with it or make excuses, report it, get him charged and then he will be DNA tested, job done!!
Now to the second part.........right now science allows people to be identified by their DNA....but what happens as science advances? Maybe, something in the water supply could be swallowed by everyone, with no ill-effects.....except to someone with THAT DNA, maybe to render them blind for 5 days as a punishment or ........well, imagine anything you like, because someone somewhere will try it out, sooner or later.
John
As I see it the two sides of the argument are;
For, Lets have DNA testing of everyone so rapists etc can be identified by their DNA.
Against, I've not committed a crime, why should the Gov. have my DNA / don't trust Gov. with my DNA no matter what safeguards they promise.
So, assuming DNA is only to be used to solve crimes.
Who commits most crimes, especially violent crimes? MEN! Sorry lads, but most rapists are men, most murderers are men. Then why do we need to collect female DNA? Statistically, you'll not solve many serious crimes by having it.
Now, I think I'm right in saying that most rapists / murderers etc, have some previous violent record, may be being cruel to animals / wife / girlfriend beating / school bullying. So, if more (for want of better words) low level violent attacks were reported, then the ones most likely to go on to more serious crimes are already on the DNA register, hence easier to trace. While the non-offenders do not have to have their DNA stored.
Possibly, just knowing that their DNA will be taken for the low level offences MIGHT dis-courage the low level attacks.
Now, this is easy to make happen, if you see animal cruelty, report it. Women, if your partner assualts you, don't put up with it or make excuses, report it, get him charged and then he will be DNA tested, job done!!
Now to the second part.........right now science allows people to be identified by their DNA....but what happens as science advances? Maybe, something in the water supply could be swallowed by everyone, with no ill-effects.....except to someone with THAT DNA, maybe to render them blind for 5 days as a punishment or ........well, imagine anything you like, because someone somewhere will try it out, sooner or later.
John
I was reading about DNA not long ago and found this little titbit:
The American DNA pioneer who recieved a Nobel Prize for his work, believes that black people are less intelligent than white people!!
:?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I for one am not for a national database. Not that Ive done anything wrong, but it is a bit big brotherish.. its been going this way for last ten years within my work field of collecting databases of information. Ive seen how some of this info is passed around and until Im certain that *my* information is safe I dont want to volunteer it..
Already, young people are given cards by a *certain national governement funded organisation* that collates information on them...... as manager when was I asked for *other* information on young people from this organisation I refused to give it (That was the start to the rocky end to my career
). I did agree to ask young people if they wanted to fill forms in themselves knowing that it would be passed on.
Its all about tracking young people (card has a computer strip across the back like your CC), their movements, buying habits, eduactional information, offending etc. etc. its been happening for years. Yes, some of it is quite innocent, but why do they need it?
They have a national database of information on *someones* child without their parents or themselves knowledge *perhaps*?.
The reason I refused to give the information requested? When questions such as, why do you need this information? What are you going to do with this information? Who will you share it with? How will you keep it secure? etc. etc. No answer!! It was asked in writing and in person in meetings we (large group of concerned workers) invited them to...
We felt it was the begining of a national database for all... and they were using us workers to start collecting it for them and letting us face the flack for it.
Nothing to do with DNA, maybe? Maybe not? We felt that was next on the agenda (easy to do when your held to ransom for your future projects funding), or perhaps we all suffered from BB paronia?? :? :?
The American DNA pioneer who recieved a Nobel Prize for his work, believes that black people are less intelligent than white people!!
:? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I for one am not for a national database. Not that Ive done anything wrong, but it is a bit big brotherish.. its been going this way for last ten years within my work field of collecting databases of information. Ive seen how some of this info is passed around and until Im certain that *my* information is safe I dont want to volunteer it..
Already, young people are given cards by a *certain national governement funded organisation* that collates information on them...... as manager when was I asked for *other* information on young people from this organisation I refused to give it (That was the start to the rocky end to my career
). I did agree to ask young people if they wanted to fill forms in themselves knowing that it would be passed on.Its all about tracking young people (card has a computer strip across the back like your CC), their movements, buying habits, eduactional information, offending etc. etc. its been happening for years. Yes, some of it is quite innocent, but why do they need it?
They have a national database of information on *someones* child without their parents or themselves knowledge *perhaps*?.
The reason I refused to give the information requested? When questions such as, why do you need this information? What are you going to do with this information? Who will you share it with? How will you keep it secure? etc. etc. No answer!! It was asked in writing and in person in meetings we (large group of concerned workers) invited them to...
We felt it was the begining of a national database for all... and they were using us workers to start collecting it for them and letting us face the flack for it.
Nothing to do with DNA, maybe? Maybe not? We felt that was next on the agenda (easy to do when your held to ransom for your future projects funding), or perhaps we all suffered from BB paronia?? :? :?
Humans have 23 chromosome pairs. Each chromosome is packed with genes. Genes have alleles. Each chromosome in a pair is different. When a cell sexual divides the pairs become single chromosome in the daughter cells. The different combination possible within each sex cell is high, each of the 32 chromosome can only have one option present. That is 32x2+31x2+30x2+29x2+x28x2+27x2+26x2+25x2+24x2+23x2+22x2+21x2+20x2+19x2+18x2+17x2+16x2+15x2+14x2+14x2+13x2+12x2x11x2+10x2+9x2+8x2+7x2+6x2+5x2+4x2+3x2+2x2+1x2
now add a sex cell from the other parent, that doubles the number of possible combinations. I will leave you to do the maths. That is only from two individuals, with limited alleles.
It is true that in screening a reduced portion of the whole profile can be used. This may be where people get the idea that we all have doppelgangers out there. The only prof of duplicate DNA is in children that have developed from one single sexual fusing. Identical twins, triplets etc.
now add a sex cell from the other parent, that doubles the number of possible combinations. I will leave you to do the maths. That is only from two individuals, with limited alleles.
It is true that in screening a reduced portion of the whole profile can be used. This may be where people get the idea that we all have doppelgangers out there. The only prof of duplicate DNA is in children that have developed from one single sexual fusing. Identical twins, triplets etc.
Quote by
Humans have 23 chromosome pairs. Each chromosome is packed with genes. Genes have alleles. Each chromosome in a pair is different. When a cell sexual divides the pairs become single chromosome in the daughter cells. The different combination possible within each sex cell is high, each of the 32 chromosome can only have one opption present. That is 32x2+31x2+30x2.....
now add a sex cell from the other parent, that doubles the number of possible combinations. I will leave you to do the maths.
It is true that in screening a reduced portion of the whole profile can be used. This may be where people get the idea that we all have doppelgangers out there. The only prof of duplicate DNA is in children that have developed from one single sexual fusing. Identical twins, triplets etc.
I don't need to do the maths, since the maths has nothing to do with the thread.
It is largely irrelevant that 1 in 1 million is the maths, if the 1 you are sourcing your information from is the wrong one.
The whole procedure is riddled with chances of error. Evidence retrieved from the crime scene may from the wrong person. Evidence retrieved from the person offended agsinst may well be innocently there. And lastly, evidence "fingerprinted" in the forensic laboroatory may well be wrong, wrongly interpreted, or even "inserted" maliciously. The whole procedure depends on cleanliness, from start to finish. Something that is just not a "people" thing. The whole procedure depends on interpretation, from start to finish. The science has been found wanting on occasions and the presentation of the evidence to a jury has also been found wanting. Example above. As a brick in the wall of evidence, it is just that, one block. The use of dna samples is not taken, alone, as proof of guilt, yet. But in the future, this procedure with all its potential faults, looks like becoming not only a brick but the whole wall. Based largely upon mis-used statistics.
Quote by
The only prof of duplicate DNA is in children that have developed from one single sexual fusing. Identical twins, triplets etc.
Hmmmm, you'd think that would be the only way wouldn't you?
People might find it interesting to Google Devlins research and findings on the Arizona Convicted Offenders DNA database......after that try "Prosecutors Fallacy" for some more eye opening information.
This will make a good starting point:
DNA is not infallible, it is possible in any major conurbation to have numerous matches very close to another person.....
However am I against a database? For everyone in the country, yes I am, there is absolutely no need for it.
"Nothing to hide, nothing to fear?" Absolute fallacy again, how many of those who have spouted this line would be happy with monitored CCTV installed in their house or routine monitoring of their mail, email or phone calls? Not that many I'll wager, but if not, why not? You have nothing to hide do you? Here we hit the crux of the problem, everyone has something they don't want everyone else to know about them, from the trivial to the extreme, there are things in all of our lives we would never want in the public domain.
By all means a criminal database is a fine idea, narrowing sampling down to those who have committed and been found guilty of crime is a wholly sensible course of action, but if we have only a very small percentage of our population who have ever been convicted of serious ( , murder or molestation for example) crimes, why sample every single man, woman and child?
Quote by winchwench
Im all in favour of what it say's in the title.
I'd willingly give a sample to a "DNA date base" if it guaranteed to match me to a perfect date
Well, the size of the penis is dependent on the genes. So:
There is no connection between sperm production and penis-size, but there may be between testicle size and sperm production. In the testicles the sperm-cells are made, so some connection is only logical. I do not know if there is a clear one-on-one relation between size and sperm. The semen is what ‘comes out' in orgasm and only a small part of that is sperm-cells. Most of it is a lubricating and carrying fluid that is made in the prostate gland. How much of that fluid gets produced has no connection with the sperm-production, nor with the size of the penis.
How much a penis will grow in puberty is different for every boy, it is dictated by the DNA (your blue-print). The growth or the size cannot be influenced, you will have to wait and see. The same goes for the amount of semen that gets produced. So, exercises or masturbation make no difference.
Thinking of DNA, that is what you inherit from your parents. The size your penis will grow to may be guesstimated by checking out how ‘big' your male relatives are. That, I guess, may be tricky. Be careful HOW you find out.
Scientists identify gene responsible for size: :lol2:
Same scientist receives 1 billion emails in 1 minute, and leaves the planet.
Most murders are committed by someone the victim knows. THe highest percentage being their partner. Why not save time and money and just arrest the victims partner?
Most child abuse is carried out by someone the child knows. A member of the family is most likely.
If i battered my wife to death in her bed I'm not sure DNA evidence would help. My DNA is all over the house. It is all over my partner.
DNA testing is only useful in the tiny percentage of crimes that are committed by strangers. A national database would be a large unweildy machine of limited use. It would be expensive to run and set up. It would rely on getting DNA samples from everybody and removing them when they die.
Most child abuse is carried out by someone the child knows. A member of the family is most likely.
If i battered my wife to death in her bed I'm not sure DNA evidence would help. My DNA is all over the house. It is all over my partner.
DNA testing is only useful in the tiny percentage of crimes that are committed by strangers. A national database would be a large unweildy machine of limited use. It would be expensive to run and set up. It would rely on getting DNA samples from everybody and removing them when they die.
Casanova
I am rather worried about the way this government, and many other governments in the First World, are trying to get more and more control over their citizens. In my opinion, government should exist for the people, not the people for the government! And this whole DNA national database things just smacks soooo badly of the government wanting more control over ordinary citizens.
And let's face it - even if this government only uses the info for positive gains for us all, there is no guarantee that the next government will, or the one after that. Once the info is out there, it can't be taken back, since the average citizen will have very little (or even no) control over their own personal info any more.
:borg:
Not to mention the current government's track record with keeping personal info private... I'm not just talking about data loss (like the CSA CDs going missing and other similar incidents that we have all heard about recently.) But also the government shares much personal data between departments, and plans to do so even more, as well as allowing access to it by some private companies (for a fee of course!)
Anyway I could literally go on for hours about this subject, but it is probably better if I just say this: If you are at all worried about this kind of thing, have a look at and support the NO2ID organisation, which is a very large, very well informed and very active pressure group with loads of useful info.
Russell
And let's face it - even if this government only uses the info for positive gains for us all, there is no guarantee that the next government will, or the one after that. Once the info is out there, it can't be taken back, since the average citizen will have very little (or even no) control over their own personal info any more.
:borg:
Not to mention the current government's track record with keeping personal info private... I'm not just talking about data loss (like the CSA CDs going missing and other similar incidents that we have all heard about recently.) But also the government shares much personal data between departments, and plans to do so even more, as well as allowing access to it by some private companies (for a fee of course!)
Anyway I could literally go on for hours about this subject, but it is probably better if I just say this: If you are at all worried about this kind of thing, have a look at and support the NO2ID organisation, which is a very large, very well informed and very active pressure group with loads of useful info.
Russell
Forum Virgin
anyone that believes that nutters will stop killing because they are more likely to be caught is really deluded - fear doesn't exist in the minds of these bastards.
