NationStates Jolt Archive

Link:The Sydney Morning Herald (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/07/21/1184560101132.html)
Police can take DNA from every offender

Heath Gilmore
July 22, 2007
AdvertisementAdvertisement

NSW police are to be given the power to demand DNA samples from any offender regardless of the severity of the crime.

The Sun-Herald has learnt cabinet approved the power last week as part of a legislative package focused largely on anti-terrorism measures.

Premier Morris Iemma said yesterday police had to be given the tools to fight terrorists and other major criminals. But civil libertarians have accused the Government of creating a police state monitoring every aspect of the lives of its citizens.

Under the legislation police will have the discretion to demand a hair sample or mouth swab after any arrest, no matter how minor. Police only have to believe that taking the sample will produce evidence linking the offender to a crime. At present samples can only be taken for serious offences such as murder, robbery and sexual assault. Other new measures include police being allowed to use road spikes as a weapon against terrorism or major crime suspects.

The 50-odd members of the Tactical Operations Unit - part of the State Protection Group, which will play a key role in APEC meeting security in September - will be the only ones allowed to use the spikes as a preventative measure.

The unit will require permission from the Police Commissioner or a delegated authority before using them to stop suspects fleeing a particular area. Usage of the spikes had been limited to stopping suspects in live pursuits.

New offences have been listed for people found to have supplied explosive materials, with a jail term of up to three years.

"When it comes to fighting and responding to potential terrorism threats, we continue to learn from overseas experiences and back our police with the powers they need to protect the community," Mr Iemma said.

Mr Iemma also announced the Government's plans to restrict access to bail applications in the local court system, to help protect victims of violent crime.

Currently, remand prisoners can usually only take their case to the Supreme Court once.

The change will extend that to the local court system to restrict repeat applications, unless there is a compelling new reason to revisit the matter.

NSW Council for Civil Liberties president Cameron Murphy said the Government was setting up a DNA database on the whole population by stealth.

He said the community should be horrified that anyone could be arrested for jaywalking and asked for a DNA sample.

He said the use of road spikes was fraught with danger and placed innocent people in danger.

The changes to the laws will be introduced at the next sitting of Parliament.

Well thats a new development. Maybe they should chip me, and link all DNA and chips to a central database. That way they could then simply plug in my DNA, get an instant match, as well as my whereabouts during the crime, and current location.

I can't believe this shit. They can literally take DNA samples for even the slightest of crimes now. Did you know loitering without money on your person is a crime? It may cost you some DNA.

Privacy is soooo 20th century.

Starting on January 1, 2003 Virginia became the first US state to collect DNA samples from all convicted felons.

Beginning Jan. 1, the state expanded its sampling to include anyone arrested for a violent felony. The DNA database, which already contains roughly 200,000 biological profiles, is expected to grow by a third.

Britain already requires DNA samples to be taken of all people who are arrested. Since not all those arrested are convicted that is an even broader approach

Sounds like you're behind the times.

Ya'll best not be getting any parking tickets anymore. They could easily gather it without you knowing before.

Here in the US, if you throw a cigarette butt, or a drink cup, or spit on the sidewalk in public, they don't even need a warrant.
DK got hot just thinking about that.

Ya'll best not be getting any parking tickets anymore. They could easily gather it without you knowing before.

Here in the US, if you throw a cigarette butt, or a drink cup, or spit on the sidewalk in public, they don't even need a warrant.

Starting on January 1, 2003 Virginia became the first US state to collect DNA samples from all convicted felons.

Beginning Jan. 1, the state expanded its sampling to include anyone arrested for a violent felony. The DNA database, which already contains roughly 200,000 biological profiles, is expected to grow by a third.

Britain already requires DNA samples to be taken of all people who are arrested. Since not all those arrested are convicted that is an even broader approach

Sounds like you're behind the times.

Felony. Jaywalk. Felony. Jaywalk. Felony. Jaywalk.

Hmmmm.

Here in the US, if you throw a cigarette butt, or a drink cup, or spit on the sidewalk in public, they don't even need a warrant.

Why should they?

The first two are technically littering. The third, DK's favorite no doubt, is the police being fascist asshats.

The first two are technically littering. The third, DK's favorite no doubt, is the police being fascist asshats.

I don't see how. Having the government have a record of what your genome looks like does not increase it's power over you, DNA holds no personal information, you cannot track people with it, it cannt be used as a weapon against you. I don't really see anything remotely different between that and fingerprinting to be honest, except that DNA is more accurate.

The first two are technically littering. The third, DK's favorite no doubt, is the police being fascist asshats.

What's "fascist asshat" about collecting something you threw away in public (including bodily fluids)?

Mmm?

What's "fascist asshat" about collecting something you threw away in public (including bodily fluids)?
You all see my point here.

Link:The Sydney Morning Herald (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/07/21/1184560101132.html)


Well thats a new development. Maybe they should chip me, and link all DNA and chips to a central database. That way they could then simply plug in my DNA, get an instant match, as well as my whereabouts during the crime, and current location.

I can't believe this shit. They can literally take DNA samples for even the slightest of crimes now. Did you know loitering without money on your person is a crime? It may cost you some DNA.

Privacy is soooo 20th century.

While I disagree with you on some subjects, I'll agree this is a step too far.

But hey, it's all in the name of fighting terrorism, right?

It must be 1984 this year!

Nicely Orwellian.
Thanks to the so-called "Patriot Act" they can demand to know what books you check out.My book list should put me nicely in the radical left. Fortunately my local library keeps no records of the books you had out once they're checked back in.

I don't see how. Having the government have a record of what your genome looks like does not increase it's power over you, DNA holds no personal information, you cannot track people with it, it cannt be used as a weapon against you. I don't really see anything remotely different between that and fingerprinting to be honest, except that DNA is more accurate.

DNA holds a huge quantity of personal information. The tests used in court (DNA matching) only look at a tiny fraction of the genome, enough for reliable matching, and as such are not invasive of privacy. That is almost certainly the information they are going to database, and as such it isn't much more "invasive" than recording the name and address of a suspect who is arrested.

The thing is, the samples will last effectively for ever. We don't know what information may be gleaned from them in the future. Is it completely out of the question that a future fascist state might implement eugenics on the basis of those samples?

Think I'm paranoid? Fascist states can come about overnight, by a coup. Or they can come about slowly, step by step. There have already been several steps, and this is another one.

[...]
Fortunately my local library keeps no records of the books you had out once they're checked back in.

Are you sure about that? At the very least, I would expect them to keep a record of the last borrower until the book is returned by the next one, to detect vandalism.

Yes, some people vandalize library books. :(

Nicely Orwellian.
Thanks to the so-called "Patriot Act" they can demand to know what books you check out.My book list should put me nicely in the radical left. Fortunately my local library keeps no records of the books you had out once they're checked back in.

Hey as long as your not a Muslim it's all good. And even then you just need to avoid checking out any books about chemistry or airplanes.

Starting on January 1, 2003 Virginia became the first US state to collect DNA samples from all convicted felons.

Beginning Jan. 1, the state expanded its sampling to include anyone arrested for a violent felony. The DNA database, which already contains roughly 200,000 biological profiles, is expected to grow by a third.

Britain already requires DNA samples to be taken of all people who are arrested. Since not all those arrested are convicted that is an even broader approach

Sounds like you're behind the times.

Not really ... maybe in the case of Briton but not the USA we appear "behind" them

With the current age of 24 hour a day fear we will see how long that lasts ...

I don't see how. Having the government have a record of what your genome looks like does not increase it's power over you, DNA holds no personal information, you cannot track people with it, it cannt be used as a weapon against you. I don't really see anything remotely different between that and fingerprinting to be honest, except that DNA is more accurate.

Your DNA is your most personal, personally identifyable material. A name can be changed, a person can move, one can change their phone number, or religion, but your DNA is your DNA for life.

DNA is kept precisely FOR the purposes of tracking and monitering, if it wasn't used for this purpose, there wouldn't be a desire for police to hold it.

How about these little scenarios:

I cut my thumb opn last night. I bled all over a number of items, including a painted canvas. I plan to show this canvas to my mother when I go see her. I have a habit of leaving things on the bus. I get off to see my mother, and some time later that day there is a bomb detonated on the bus.

or believe it or not, not all police are good guys. "Framing" or "setting up" suspects is not unheard of and would be significantly more believable if they were able to plant DNA.

We don't fingerprint shoplifters

Your DNA is your most personal, personally identifyable material. A name can be changed, a person can move, one can change their phone number, or religion, but your DNA is your DNA for life.

DNA is kept precisely FOR the purposes of tracking and monitering, if it wasn't used for this purpose, there wouldn't be a desire for police to hold it.

How about these little scenarios:

I cut my thumb opn last night. I bled all over a number of items, including a painted canvas. I plan to show this canvas to my mother when I go see her. I have a habit of leaving things on the bus. I get off to see my mother, and some time later that day there is a bomb detonated on the bus.

or believe it or not, not all police are good guys. "Framing" or "setting up" suspects is not unheard of and would be significantly more believable if they were able to plant DNA.

We don't fingerprint shoplifters

And the police in theory can "plant" your DNA on a crime scene once they have samples of it.

And the police in theory can "plant" your DNA on a crime scene once they have samples of it.

The amount of DNA from a mouth swab is only going to be enough to smear a cigarette butt. I guess that might be enough to secure a conviction in some cases.

I guess it could be worked up into a bigger sample. Put it in a cell nucleus, incubate that.

I'll be fine, I live in Victoria.

I'll be fine, I live in Victoria.
So you ARE a troll!

I honestly don't mind this.

I don't see how. Having the government have a record of what your genome looks like does not increase it's power over you, DNA holds no personal information, you cannot track people with it, it cannt be used as a weapon against you. I don't really see anything remotely different between that and fingerprinting to be honest, except that DNA is more accurate.

Mmmm you have obviously not been arrested - taking DNA it is not a pleasant process.

And not only can it be used against me, it can be used against my family.

There has been at least one case of a conviction where - ok stick with me here

A woman was arrested for drink driving and her DNA taken. Her DNA didn't match the database for any crimes but DNA similar to hers did - so her brother was arrested and eventually convicted on DNA evidence.

BTW for anyone in Britain - you can now be arrested for anything - literally anything - it doesn't have to be a crime, there does not need to be any evidence, theoretically the police have to justify why they arrested you - but even if that is BS and you get an apology they keep your DNA.

I honestly don't mind this.

Curious. Do you assume that anyone who is arrested has necessarily committed a crime, or do you really not have a problem with anyone's DNA being sampled and kept by law enforcement?
Somewhere in between?

Curious. Do you assume that anyone who is arrested has necessarily committed a crime, or do you really not have a problem with anyone's DNA being sampled and kept by law enforcement?
Somewhere in between?

I wouldn't mind even if everyone in the country had to give in their dna and fingerprints, it would help in crime etc, and I don't see it being totalitarian either, I believe that through 'identificationism' that rights or welfare and state insurance, suffrage and free health care can be enabled, in that way through measures like this and ID cards etc, 'citizenship' can have legal rights etc and not just be de facto as it is now, where wealth is more a measure.

I wouldn't mind even if everyone in the country had to give in their dna and fingerprints, it would help in crime etc, and I don't see it being totalitarian either, I believe that through 'identificationism' that rights or welfare and state insurance, suffrage and free health care can be enabled, in that way through measures like this and ID cards etc, 'citizenship' can have legal rights etc and not just be de facto as it is now, where wealth is more a measure.

Well, OK. I don't entirely disagree. I guess it would be done at birth, on admission to a hospital, at arrest, as a condition of employment ... and after a few years, when the majority were sampled, compell the remainder to be sampled too.

It would provoke a huge backlash if it was done all at once. Remember the "Australia card"?

I'll be fine, I live in Victoria.So you ARE a troll!

Vikkies are trolls ? What does that make us No Such Whales people then ?

*tries to resist urge to make fun of Rusty*
*fails*

He'll be fine next time he's arrested!

Your DNA is your most personal, personally identifyable material. A name can be changed, a person can move, one can change their phone number, or religion, but your DNA is your DNA for life.


so?


DNA is kept precisely FOR the purposes of tracking and monitering, if it wasn't used for this purpose, there wouldn't be a desire for police to hold it.


No it isn't, it's for use of identification. The government doesn't need to and cannot use DNA to find your location and moniter what you are doing.


I cut my thumb opn last night. I bled all over a number of items, including a painted canvas. I plan to show this canvas to my mother when I go see her. I have a habit of leaving things on the bus. I get off to see my mother, and some time later that day there is a bomb detonated on the bus.


It still wont make any more of a difference then leaving your finger prints on the bus.


or believe it or not, not all police are good guys. "Framing" or "setting up" suspects is not unheard of and would be significantly more believable if they were able to plant DNA.


Thats a seperate issue all together.


We don't fingerprint shoplifters

We used to, before we used DNA.

Police have always been required to photograph and fingerprint you if you are been arrested. I don't see how this is any different.

Well, OK. I don't entirely disagree. I guess it would be done at birth, on admission to a hospital, at arrest, as a condition of employment ... and after a few years, when the majority were sampled, compell the remainder to be sampled too.

It would provoke a huge backlash if it was done all at once. Remember the "Australia card"?

This is a silly analogy since the Australia Card as proposed in the 80s effectively had no more information or utility than a driver's license has now. Since that time all the state licensing systems now include standard information and a universal numbering system, which in effect have created a de facto national identification card which is everything the Australia Card was supposed to be.

It is even sillier considering that the Federal Government is introducing a new version of the Australia card, a smart card with a chip on it which will have memory accessible to private companies alongside the memory used by government agencies, which will have all the same ID properties as the Australia Card, and 20 years after the original Australia Card idea was floated, unlike then, nobody seems to care. So to suggest that there would be a huge backlash if it was all done at once with the Australia Card as your example is doubly stupid.