NationStates Jolt Archive

The whole population and every UK visitor should be added to the national DNA database, a senior judge has said.

Lord Justice Sedley told BBC News the current England and Wales database, which holds DNA from crime suspects and scenes, was "indefensible".

He added it would be fairer to include "everybody, guilty or innocent" on it.

Linky (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6979138.stm)

So, what do you make of this? An acceptable move in the prevention of crime? Or a huge breach of privacy and a step towards a police state?


(I can't stay to discuss, sorry, but will return later to reply to anything).

i'll take the "huge breach of privacy and a step towards a police state" option

a huge breach of privacy and a step towards a police state?

That one.

I don't understand why the judge thinks the current system is unfair. If you are convicted of a crime then must conventional punishments infringe on the convicts liberty - jail time, fines, community service, etc... So having your DNA added to a database is just part of the punishment for breaking the law.

Besides, there is no way I'm submitting any more data about myself to the government than I already do. I just don't trust the government, not with how they proven their trustworthiness lately.

edit: okay, scratch my first comment. It seems I had no idea how the DNA database works.
The DNA database - which is 12 years old - grows by 30,000 samples a month taken from suspects or recovered from crime scenes.

There has already been criticism of the database - the largest in the world - because people who are found innocent usually cannot get their details removed.

In one case, Dyfed-Powys Police stored the DNA of pensioner Jeffrey Orchard, from Pembrokeshire, after he was wrongly arrested for criminal damage.That guy wasn't even charged and his DNA remains on the database.

I agree with everything previously posted. Depressingly, however, what with both parties attempting ever cruder,, and more misguided measures to appear "tough on crime", I imagine this will be a reality soon enough.

Welcome brother to Airstrip One.

I am currently working on a way to make my DNA as wacky as I am. When viewed under a microscope, my genetic material will proceed to moon the viewer and run around in crazy little circles thus making positive identification impossible.

If I have any success, I will sell my results to the highest bidders. :cool:

i'll take the "huge breach of privacy and a step towards a police state" option

How so? The cameras they have on every corner is 100x closer to police state than keeping a DNA database for helping police do their damn job easier.

You should have to submit DNA and fingerprints when getting a license or anything else like that. It doesn't infringe on your rights. You can't be tracked by your fingerprints or DNA because where the fuck do you have to have your DNA or fingerprints read into an electronic system going about your every day business? The damn cameras everywhere and using plastic cards make it much easier for Big Brother to keep track of you than fingerprint and DNA database.

I am currently working on a way to make my DNA as wacky as I am. When viewed under a microscope, my genetic material will proceed to moon the viewer and run around in crazy little circles thus making positive identification impossible.

If I have any success, I will sell my results to the highest bidders. :cool:

If it does that I am sure anybody looking at will think "mmm must be Lunatic Goofball DNA". Still it will make a great episode of CSI.

The cameras they have on every corner

*lol*

*lol*
Exaggeration, but close enough http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6673579.stm

Yeah I don't like the looks of this. It could easily get out of hand pretty quickly if left unchecked.

I am currently working on a way to make my DNA as wacky as I am. When viewed under a microscope, my genetic material will proceed to moon the viewer and run around in crazy little circles thus making positive identification impossible.

If I have any success, I will sell my results to the highest bidders. :cool:

You do realize that just makes you all that much more identifiable? Clowns stand out in the crowd after all.

Oh, and you might become a lab specimen with such DNA. In fact...*readies nets*

edit: okay, scratch my first comment. It seems I had no idea how the DNA database works.
That guy wasn't even charged and his DNA remains on the database.

Apparently the police aren't even consistent in this regard either.

At least according to Private Eye, apparently neither Lord Levy nor Ruth Turner had their's taken.

(http://thejournal.parker-joseph.co.uk/blog/_archives/2007/8/3/3137600.html)

i'll take the "huge breach of privacy and a step towards a police state" option

Iiiiis... the one and only cor-rect answer! Tell them what they've won, John.
[/Bill Hicks]

You can't be tracked by your fingerprints or DNA because where the fuck do you have to have your DNA or fingerprints read into an electronic system going about your every day business?
Gattaca

You leave traces of DNA everywhere you go.

Gattaca

You leave traces of DNA everywhere you go.

I think you are misunderstanding him.

He is not saying you don't leave DNA everywhere you go.

Just that it is easier to track someone by using CCTV and the small bit of plastic everyone carries with them these days.

Jesus. Its gonna be like that movie V for Vendetta in a few more years. Everybody should start collecting art in their basements.

Jesus. Its gonna be like that movie V for Vendetta in a few more years.
Can it be like the graphic novel instead?

It’s much better.

Jesus. Its gonna be like that movie V for Vendetta in a few more years. Everybody should start collecting art in their basements.

Then start wearing masks!!! THEN BLOW UP PARLAMENT!!!!

(This account in no way endorses the destruction of government property.)

To be honest why does it matter if they have your DNA? If you don't murder someone then you have nothing to worry about! Giving your DNA doesn't give acess to your E-mail or anything.

To be honest why does it matter if they have your DNA? If you don't murder someone then you have nothing to worry about! Giving your DNA doesn't give acess to your E-mail or anything.

So it doesn't worry you what they could do with it?


Though that is by the by. AFAIK the main arguement against this is the coercive aspect of being forced to give yourself to the state.



I always find it interesting when people say (as you did effectively) "nothing to hide, nothing to fear." Since it always makes me wonder what other draconian and intrusive measure they would implicitly concent to using that rationale. Think We by Yevgeny Zamyatin.

You do realize that just makes you all that much more identifiable? Clowns stand out in the crowd after all.

Oh, and you might become a lab specimen with such DNA. In fact...*readies nets*

Hah! You think I haven't escaped from nets before? Or laboratories? :p

So it doesn't worry you what they could do with it?


Though that is by the by. AFAIK the main arguement against this is the coercive aspect of being forced to give yourself to the state.



I always find it interesting when people say (as you did effectively) "nothing to hide, nothing to fear." Since it always makes me wonder what other draconian and intrusive measure they would implicitly concent to using that rationale. Think We by Yevgeny Zamyatin.

Yeah I even boycott Disney world because they want to fingerprint me.

Hah! You think I haven't escaped from nets before? Or laboratories? :p

Soap nets?

As for laboratories, we have a special implant for you. One that destroys all dirt on contact with the host body. And mud too.

You can try to escape. We would be most entertained. :p

To be honest why does it matter if they have your DNA? If you don't murder someone then you have nothing to worry about! Giving your DNA doesn't give acess to your E-mail or anything.

Potentially it could be used to discriminate against you - ie increased cost for insurance or decisions for medical treatment denied because your DNA was perceived as not 'fit' enough.

Also next time some member of the Royal family needs a new kidney I don't fancy this kind of information about who is potentially compatible being available to be abused.

Given that it would be of tremendous value for science, archaeology etc..

Yeah I even boycott Disney world because they want to fingerprint me.

:confused:

Soap nets?

As for laboratories, we have a special implant for you. One that destroys all dirt on contact with the host body. And mud too.

You can try to escape. We would be most entertained. :p

So if I hug the Earth....?

So if I hug the Earth....?

Nice try LG. You're not that big.

Or I suppose we could suspend you in a null-g field and leave you in a sterile room. Clean walls and floors, utterly devoid of a single speck of dirt and mud.

Nice try LG. You're not that big.

Or I suppose we could suspend you in a null-g field and leave you in a sterile room. Clean walls and floors, utterly devoid of a single speck of dirt and mud.

I suspect that trying to contain me will be an interesting exercise in trial and error. The first person entering the room will get hit with flying poo. :)

You do realize that just makes you all that much more identifiable? Clowns stand out in the crowd after all.
yes, but nearly 50% of the population are absolutely terrified of us, so it works to our advantage.

I suspect that trying to contain me will be an interesting exercise in trial and error. The first person entering the room will get hit with flying poo. :)

Not in a null-g field LG. You'll be stuck with your own poo. In fact, you'd be too well behaved for that. That 'g' doesn't stand for gravity by the way. It's tailored just for you.

yes, but nearly 50% of the population are absolutely terrified of us, so it works to our advantage.

You're a clown too?

*scribbles down name*

justice sedgely is a dangerous man.

You're a clown too?

*scribbles down name*

I think LG and I are in different realms of clowning. I am an event clown and I think he is a birthday clown......but I could be wrong. I know he doesn't like twisting and that's most of what I have done for the past few years, since I am without sidekick.

I think LG and I are in different realms of clowning. I am an event clown and I think he is a birthday clown......but I could be wrong. I know he doesn't like twisting and that's most of what I have done for the past few years, since I am without sidekick.

I've done a few events, but parties pay the bills. *nod*

I wouldn't mind twisting so much until everybody starts wanting swords. :p

Not in a null-g field LG. You'll be stuck with your own poo. In fact, you'd be too well behaved for that. That 'g' doesn't stand for gravity by the way. It's tailored just for you.

Goofballs cannot be contained. You'd need infinite energy. *nod*

*produces gobs of frightful calculations* See?

Where is Cromwell when you need him?

I think you are misunderstanding him.

He is not saying you don't leave DNA everywhere you go.

Just that it is easier to track someone by using CCTV and the small bit of plastic everyone carries with them these days.

You can voluntarily not use that little bit of plastic (I'm purely a cash user, myself).

As for the cameras, being seen while you do things in public isn't novel. Leaving traces that can be found after the fact is.

Where is Cromwell when you need him?

Fancy a genocide then?

Fancy a genocide then?

what...the British will wipe each other out? I don't see that.

I understand why people might be opposed to this, but I guess the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" makes sense to me.

If we have sufficient restrictions, I would support it. For instance, you need a warrant to search the database unless you are trying to match a DNA sample to a person.

I am currently working on a way to make my DNA as wacky as I am. When viewed under a microscope, my genetic material will proceed to moon the viewer and run around in crazy little circles thus making positive identification impossible.

If I have any success, I will sell my results to the highest bidders. :cool:

I place my bid of high quality volcanic mud for your own personal mudhole.

I understand why people might be opposed to this, but I guess the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" makes sense to me.

If we have sufficient restrictions, I would support it. For instance, you need a warrant to search the database unless you are trying to match a DNA sample to a person.
I think you should have a warrant for that, too.

what...the British will wipe each other out? I don't see that.

I meant this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cromwell#Irish_Campaign:_1649.E2.80.9350)

I meant this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cromwell#Irish_Campaign:_1649.E2.80.9350)

I don't know if I would call it genocide...

I don't know if I would call it genocide...

The United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines the term as: Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Kind of fits the requirements

I meant this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cromwell#Irish_Campaign:_1649.E2.80.9350)
In other words, the side of Cromwell that we don't get taught in British history class. Strange, that.

In other words, the side of Cromwell that we don't get taught in British history class. Strange, that.

Yup. I could never figure out why that was

+1 for the antichrist.

:p

Kind of fits the requirements

Yeah I am aware of the definition. Did a substantial percentage of the persecuted group become subjected to genocide?

I don't know.

Yup. I could never figure out why that was
Probably for the same reason that the genocide against the Boers, the brutalities of the British Raj, the Anglo-Irish war, the slave trade, and everything else that doesn't fit in with Land of Hope and Glory doesn't get a word in.

One wiki deserves another ;)

Ireland

Main article: Great Irish Famine

James Mullin reports in an article entitled "Irish Famine Education and the Holocaust 'Straw Man'" in the American Chronicle that Francis A. Boyle, Professor of International Law at the University of Illinois wrote to the New Jersey Commission on Holocaust Education on May 2, 1996, that "Clearly, during [the Irish Potato Famine] years [of] 1845 to 1850 the British government pursued a policy of mass starvation in Ireland with intent to destroy in substantial part the national, ethnical, and racial group commonly known as the Irish People." Mullin continues that in Boyle's legal opinion the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland actions violated sections (a), (b), and (c) of Article 2 of the CPPCG, and therefore "constituted acts of genocide against the Irish People".[24][25]

Other academics take a different view for example the Belfast-born and Cambridge-educated historian Peter Gray concludes that UK government policy "was not a policy of deliberate genocide", but a dogmatic refusal to admit the policy was wrong and "amounted to a sentence of death to many thousands."; and Professor James S. Donnelly Jr., a historian at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, has written that "... it is also my contention that while genocide was not in fact committed, what happened during and as a result of the clearances had the look of genocide to a great many Irish..."[26]

the only reference to genocide in Ireland...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history

Yeah I am aware of the definition. Did a substantial percentage of the persecuted group become subjected to genocide?

I don't know.

How about this :

In the wake of the Commonwealth's conquest, the public practice of Catholicism was banned and Catholic priests were executed when captured. In addition, roughly 12,000 Irish people were sold into slavery under the Commonwealth. All Catholic-owned land was confiscated in the Act for the Settlement of Ireland 1652 and given to Scottish and English settlers, the Parliament's financial creditors and Parliamentary soldiers. The remaining Catholic landowners were allocated poorer land in the province of Connacht. Under the Commonwealth, Catholic landownership dropped from 60% of the total to just 8%.
Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cromwell)

Or maybe you would prefer this :

his phase of the war was by far the most costly in terms of civilian loss of life. The combination of warfare, famine and plague caused a huge mortality among the Irish population. William Petty estimated (in the Down Survey) that the death toll of the wars in Ireland since 1641 was over 618,000 people, or about 40% of the country’s pre-war population. Of these, he estimated that over 400,000 were Catholics, 167,000 killed directly by war or famine and the remainder by war-related disease.[11]

Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromwellian_conquest_of_Ireland)

Were we not discussing Cromwells actions because i'm gonna guess and say he was long dead by then

My point is that your definition of Cromwells actions as being genocide might be a matter of opinion is all.

SNIP

Were we not discussing Cromwells actions because i'm gonna guess and say he was long dead by then

Ignore the info I gave you if you wish

Were we not discussing Cromwells actions because i'm gonna guess and say he was long dead by then

Ignore the info I gave you if you wish

Ignore the info? Maybe I already knew of Cromwells actions....

Were we not discussing Cromwells actions because i'm gonna guess and say he was long dead by then

Ignore the info I gave you if you wish
I think his point was that wiki listed the Irish Potato Famine as the only British genocide against the Irish.

I think his point was that wiki listed the Irish Potato Famine as the only British genocide against the Irish.

No...he edited his post after I posted the post you quote in your post. :confused: LOL

You asked the following if i'm correct :



The answer was yes so you're now playing with whether genocide is a correct descriptor. The previous definition I gave you doesn't fit in what way?

I notice my wiki comment escaped your attention.

anyway I'm not going to get involved in a pissing match. Need some food ;)

My point is that your definition of Cromwells actions as being genocide might be a matter of opinion is all.

You asked the following if i'm correct :


Yeah I am aware of the definition. Did a substantial percentage of the persecuted group become subjected to genocide?

I don't know.


The answer was yes so you're now playing with whether genocide is a correct descriptor. The previous definition I gave you doesn't fit in what way?

No...he edited his post after I posted the post you quote in your post. :confused: LOL
Argh! I'm now expected to think, and work out what I'm posting?

Ignore the info? Maybe I already knew of Cromwells actions....

Yeah I am aware of the definition. Did a substantial percentage of the persecuted group become subjected to genocide?

I don't know.

Really?

No...he edited his post after I posted the post you quote in your post. :confused: LOL

I think you broke my brain. Luckily work tonight doesn't require one :D

Oh, come ON. We're only on page 5, and we've gone from DNA databases to genocide.

How did we get from DNA to Cromwell anyway?

Oh, come ON. We're only on page 5, and we've gone from DNA databases to genocide.

How did we get from DNA to Cromwell anyway?

Well I suppose DNA databases could be used for really accurate genocide

You can voluntarily not use that little bit of plastic

That is quite true. However, most people do use it, and it thus makes them
easier to track.


(I'm purely a cash user, myself).


Me too. I also have a rather fetching homburg with a wide brim to wear when I go out.

In other words, the side of Cromwell that we don't get taught in British history class. Strange, that.

You didn't?

Then again, coming from an Irish Catholic background and going to a catholic school, I'm not surprised I was told all the nasty things about him.

The only use for a DNA database should be medicinal, and the only people on it should be those consenting to have their data gathered and sequenced for their own benefit.

Apparently the police aren't even consistent in this regard either.

At least according to Private Eye, apparently neither Lord Levy nor Ruth Turner had their's taken.

(http://thejournal.parker-joseph.co.uk/blog/_archives/2007/8/3/3137600.html)Hahaha!... bastards...

Where is Cromwell when you need him?Busy murdering Irish babies.

Busy murdering Irish babies.

Someone has too.

They're CATHOLICS :eek:.

Can't let them breed too much and take over the world. I mean seriously, can you imagine the horror of a worldwide Irish empire with Oh Danny Boy as the anthem :shudders:.

Seeing this on the news today made me sick to the stomach. It doesn't make me like our fine nation more.

Cromwell?

How the? Never mind, daily life on NSG.



Anyway, my opinion on the matter - meh, won't happen. Too expensive by half, and most of the left wing papers will complain. And maybe the Daily Mail, depending on how it feels (it'll either be "HUZZAH, IMMIGRANTS ON THE LIST" or "DISGRACE! WHITES TO BE TRACKED!").

I'd much prefer to have a volunteer system, myself. So if you think you're not going to commit any crimes in the next forever, you can go and see them and say "hey, have my DNA, fine".

Might be useful, seeing as we now have interviews to get passports and it'd make it easier for people like me, who've said somewhat stupid things in the past, but are unlikely to commit any crimes.

To be honest why does it matter if they have your DNA? If you don't murder someone then you have nothing to worry about! Giving your DNA doesn't give acess to your E-mail or anything.So no worries if someone manages to get hold of YOUR DNA - hair, blood, etc... - and sprinkles it all over a random crime scene?

Though, I sorta support DNA databank in order to a) decrease inequality between 'suspects' and 'innocents' b) increase the reliability of DNA testing and c) reduce the dependency from DNA testing

Having similar DNA at the crime scene shouldn't be taken as a solid proof nor a sole proof because it isn't: If there's 1 in a million chance of someone having a similar genetic fingerprint that would still leave 8-9 people, for example, in London who share the 'fingerprint'...and there's always the risk of either involuntary or deliberate contamination.

Cromwell?

How the? Never mind, daily life on NSG.



Anyway, my opinion on the matter - meh, won't happen. Too expensive by half, and most of the left wing papers will complain. And maybe the Daily Mail, depending on how it feels (it'll either be "HUZZAH, IMMIGRANTS ON THE LIST" or "DISGRACE! WHITES TO BE TRACKED!").

I'd much prefer to have a volunteer system, myself. So if you think you're not going to commit any crimes in the next forever, you can go and see them and say "hey, have my DNA, fine".

Might be useful, seeing as we now have interviews to get passports and it'd make it easier for people like me, who've said somewhat stupid things in the past, but are unlikely to commit any crimes.

The problem I have with this idea is that what is considered a crime today and what may be considered a crime tomorrow may not tally.

I'd still like the ability to commit 'crimes' with a reasonable chance of getting away with it if the government went too crazy in either direction.

The problem I have with this idea is that what is considered a crime today and what may be considered a crime tomorrow may not tally.

I'd still like the ability to commit 'crimes' with a reasonable chance of getting away with it if the government went too crazy in either direction.
If you were doing something that was going to sort out a government that went 'too crazy in either direction', it'd be illegal even now as treason, and the thing about such crimes is that DNA evidence is the least of what they'll have on you, and indeed the thing they'll need the least to prove it was you.

The main crimes that DNA evidence solves is stuff like murder and rape, which aren't likely to become legal any time soon.

If you were doing something that was going to sort out a government that went 'too crazy in either direction', it'd be illegal even now as treason, and the thing about such crimes is that DNA evidence is the least of what they'll have on you, and indeed the thing they'll need the least to prove it was you.

The main crimes that DNA evidence solves is stuff like murder and rape, which aren't likely to become legal any time soon.

I think you misunderstand my point. How about if a future government banned any anti-government material being produced and distributed and use the DNA deposited in the saliva used to wet the envelope that you sent to a friend to find you or the blood you deposited while getting a paper cut from the anti government poster the you hung?

It may be a little far fetched but totalitarian government do pop up around the world and I wouldn't like one of the to have my DNA on file when the came into power.

Seeing this on the news today made me sick to the stomach. It doesn't make me like our fine nation more.

Fuck me, you liked it before? :eek:

I think you misunderstand my point. How about if a future government banned any anti-government material being produced and distributed and use the DNA deposited in the saliva used to wet the envelope that you sent to a friend to find you or the blood you deposited while getting a paper cut from the anti government poster the you hung?

It may be a little far fetched but totalitarian government do pop up around the world and I wouldn't like one of the to have my DNA on file when the came into power.There's some quote that states that laws should be considered not on the good they will achieve, but the evil that they will make permissible. And I know I have fucked up this quote big time and I have no idea who said it. Probably one of the American founding fathers though.

You do realize that just makes you all that much more identifiable? Clowns stand out in the crowd after all.

Maybe, but unlike the rest of us jokers, they CAN wash the facepaint off and ditch the funny shoes.

Of course, that would make them blend into the herd... which is not conducive to clowning....

Click Stand;13028091']Then start wearing masks!!! THEN BLOW UP PARLAMENT!!!!

(This account in no way endorses the destruction of government property.)

PLAY THE 1812 OVERTURE!!!!

Yeah I even boycott Disney world because they want to fingerprint me.

What? Why?

Maybe, but unlike the rest of us jokers, they CAN wash the facepaint off and ditch the funny shoes.

Of course, that would make them blend into the herd... which is not conducive to clowning....

I'd like to see LG wash off his entire DNA. That'd be funny to see.

Besides. Washing facepaint off? Pshaw. Kids stuff. Washing off the face. Now that's professional. :p

Maybe, but unlike the rest of us jokers, they CAN wash the facepaint off and ditch the funny shoes.

Of course, that would make them blend into the herd... which is not conducive to clowning....Maybe it does... have you ever thought of stealth clowning?

You asked the following if i'm correct :



The answer was yes so you're now playing with whether genocide is a correct descriptor. The previous definition I gave you doesn't fit in what way?

Actions....not consequences.

Please also note that the only person who seems to be calling Cromwell's actions genocide is you (based on a wiki article of all things). So I link to another wiki regarding genocides through history (of which the only one involving Ireland and Britain was the potato famine). (and in a light hearted manner might I add...but obviously you either did not understand what I meant or are just interested in pushing your agenda)

Sorry but just because you say something is a genocide...based on a wiki article...well ... hate to break it to you but that is utter bollocks.

Please note as well that I am not denying that it could have been....what I am denying is that something you said happened and is therefore a genocide...all based on a wiki article that actually does not call Cromwell's actions as a genocide.

Sorry but when it comes to accusations of genocide I require more than just a paragraph in a wiki article. That is weak. Fact is that the word genocide is bandied about too easily.

Actions....not consequences.

Please also note that the only person who seems to be calling Cromwell's actions genocide is you (based on a wiki article of all things). So I link to another wiki regarding genocides through history (of which the only one involving Ireland and Britain was the potato famine). (and in a light hearted manner might I add...but obviously you either did not understand what I meant or are just interested in pushing your agenda)

Sorry but just because you say something is a genocide...based on a wiki article...well ... hate to break it to you but that is utter bollocks.

Please note as well that I am not denying that it could have been....what I am denying is that something you said happened and is therefore a genocide...all based on a wiki article that actually does not call Cromwell's actions as a genocide.

Sorry but when it comes to accusations of genocide I require more than just a paragraph in a wiki article. That is weak. Fact is that the word genocide is bandied about too easily.


No shit. If in doubt, evoke images of Nazism and rush to the moral high ground. If what Cromwell did in Ireland, namely, the massacre of a city, is to be considered genocide, that rather reduces the sematic worth of the term by extending it to every military leader and their dog prior to 1900.