Be quick
So the key is that once you've been proved innocent you need to act fast to get yourself removed before 'you' turn up on a usb key on a random bus somewhere or on a laptop sold on ebay...
Lords demand DNA database deletions
The House of Lords forced another climb-down by the government yesterday by voting to amend the rules for the DNA database to allow innocent people to have their DNA samples destroyed and removed from the database. The Lords heard that existing guidelines made it all but impossible to get off the database once you were on it. …
-
Wednesday 5th November 2008 16:13 GMT Dave Gregory
Good!
I'm on that *%%^$" database for simply reporting an alleged crime; an unfortunate series of events that led to me (innocent passer-by who happened to have a phone with him) being arrested under suspicion of a very serious offence. Pretty soon afterwards, the allegations that the "victim" made against me were discovered to be utterly false (and that she had made similar allegations about three other men in the past), yet I remain on the database. The police did not even have the courtesy to reply to my emails on the topic, nor even apologise for arresting me.
Thank god NewLabour didn't manage to abolish the Lords!
-
Wednesday 5th November 2008 16:13 GMT Paul Buxton
Truth stranger than fiction
This is the Lords right? Unelected aristocracy fighting for my liberty where our elected officials just "promise to listen in the future". Well the future is NOW.
I've decided that next election I'm going to vote for The Queen! Bring back monarchy, out with Stalinism! I swear allegiance to The Queen of England, the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth.
Nuff said.
-
Wednesday 5th November 2008 16:13 GMT Jimbo
Hurray for the un-democratically-elected old duffers
Around the end of the last millennium I was given a cunningly-worded invite to have a swab taken, after going to an all-night garage for some fags on a saturday - the VERY SAME day of the week that a woman had been attacked near the garage earlier that month, which naturally made me (and presumably every other male who popped into the garage that night) fair game for a bit of hot databasing action. Ten years on, I'm still looking forward to the chance of getting plod to do what they were supposed to do (removing my details from the database once they'd got the right guy), hopefully before they leave my details on a train somewhere. Go on you Lords.
Paris, cos I'd give her a sample of my DNA anytime.
-
Wednesday 5th November 2008 16:13 GMT Maurice Shakeshaft
Why does it take an unelected legislator to defend the General Public?
What is the Government and Civil Services agenda here? It seems like they have completely given up on defending a persons right to anonymity - or don't we have that right, it was always a myth and technology is available to broadcast our details to the world.
If we have a "right" I'm more than prepared to accept my share of the responsibility that goes with it but it seems as though nanny state doesn't want to interfere with business and other processes by properly protecting the citizen. The state is a creation of the citizen not the other way round and it is about time our politicians and civil servant recognised and accepted that.
-
Wednesday 5th November 2008 16:15 GMT Anonymous Coward
Innocent people are just....
... people who haven't committed a crime yet. There are some things I will not yield and presumption of future guilt is one of them.
Put it this way, if you're innocent, it just means I haven't made what you're doing a crime yet.
Jacqui Smith (Rt Honorable Mighty Emperor)
-
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Wednesday 5th November 2008 16:17 GMT Anonymous Coward
Accountability sucks
The Lords aren't accountable to anyone. Not an electorate, nor their appointers. So they are free to vote on their own consciences and experience rather than toeing some abominable party line that some career politician or Civil Servant thinks will get them votes from the tardy proles, and/or increase their personal power, as applicable.
Long may this continue. I'm starting to think that the method by which peers are granted their membership of the Upper House is irrelevant, so long as the procedure for getting them out is arduous and requires distinct malfeasance on the part of the Peer.
-
Wednesday 5th November 2008 16:17 GMT Anonymous Coward
Irony
How times have changed, those un elected peers so disliked by the right on hippy types (who we happy that the commons act or what ever it was, was used to push through the hunting ban) now seem to be all that stands between the Govt and 1984. Good job they have legislation to help rail road these things through (and the fox hunting ban).........
-
-
Wednesday 5th November 2008 16:55 GMT Gareth Jones
@Inachu
So you have some problem with the concept of "innocent unless proven otherwise" then? Actually don't bother to answer that, you clearly are of the Daily Mail reading persuasion. And as all DM readers know, anybody arrested by our fine 100% competent police force must be guilty of something.
Remember the police think that the very fact they *thought* Jean Charles de Menezes was somebody else was justification enough to kill him. You may support the idea of the boys in blue being judge, jury and executioner, but most of us have reservations.
-
Wednesday 5th November 2008 16:56 GMT David Pollard
Everyone or no-one
Isn't there a technical problem here? It's not possible to preserve a complete and fully functioning audit trail without also keeping details of records that have been deleted or modified.
If the system allows amendments and deletions to be made without a full trace being preserved, then the data is not secure. If a full trace is preserved then records can only be cloaked rather than deleted.
Prof. Sir Alec Jeffreys, having reasoned through the implications of the technology that he ushered in, made it clear at the outset that if they were to allow social equity DNA profile databases would have to be all or nothing. Most still seem to ignore the valid argument that he presented.
-
Wednesday 5th November 2008 19:41 GMT Anonymous Coward
@Maurice Shakeshaft
No government has ever been in favour of anonymity for the masses - the more information that they have about individuals, the easier it will be for them to remain in power.
It's quite possible that people enter politics with the best intentions - but those seem to have deserted them by the time they get "to the top"...
Can't remember where I read it, Heinlein?, but the sentiments behind "Those who desire power, are the last ones you should allow to wield it" seem more and more true as time passes. The peers have a large fraction of people that haven't gone out of their way to be where they are, and therefore on average are likely to be more balanced than the scoundrels that want into power.
-
Wednesday 5th November 2008 19:41 GMT Chris C
The clue is in the example
"The example provided in guidelines is if everyone in a building is arrested and has DNA forcibly taken after the discovery of a body. If this body subsequently turns out to have died of natural causes there might be an argument for deleting those people's DNA records."
That example provides you with all you need to know about the thought process. In any reasonable, civilized society, there is absolutely no way that every occupant of a building would be arrested or have their DNA forcibly taken simply because a dead body was found in the building. That in and of itself destroys the presumption of innocence by saying "we don't know who did it, so you're all suspects".
I've said it before, and I'll say it again -- the police take the mangled phrase "innocent until proven guilty" too literally. That phrase states that everyone is guilty, and their guilt simply has not been proven yet. Contrast that with the original phrase "innocent UNLESS proven guilty".
-
Wednesday 5th November 2008 19:42 GMT Paul Buxton
@David Pollard
"If the system allows amendments and deletions to be made without a full trace being preserved, then the data is not secure. If a full trace is preserved then records can only be cloaked rather than deleted."
There is one simple flaw in your logic. This is NuLabour and therefore security is not an option, only fear is an option. Records can and should be deleted and no trace preserved.
"Prof. Sir Alec Jeffreys, having reasoned through the implications of the technology that he ushered in, made it clear at the outset that if they were to allow social equity DNA profile databases would have to be all or nothing. Most still seem to ignore the valid argument that he presented."
You must have missed the point of Sir Jeffreys argument, the main crux of it being that the Government should not be allowed direct access to it.
You make it sound like Sir Jeffreys is in full support of the Government's plans for a DNA database and I can assure you that this is far from being the truth. Most of the people who ignore Sir Jeffreys valid argument are the Government, probably because Sir Jeffreys main argument for a DNA database includes the suppression of Government access to it. As a scientific tool which could reap health benefits for millions of people, the Government want to take his research and turn it into a tool to suppress people. Sir Jeffreys is understandably a bit miffed at this, and rightly so.
-
Wednesday 5th November 2008 19:42 GMT Jonathan
whyis everyone surprised?
most of the point of the house of lords for ages has been that its not a short-sighted vote-grabbing grubby little forum like the house of commons.
its the only place in the government where "will Sun readers like this" isn't important.
and people want to get rid of it, or make it a short-sighted vote-grabbing grubby little forum like the house of commons!
why?
(as (in part) it also functions as the highest court in the land.. lets make those positions political as well?)
-
Wednesday 5th November 2008 19:42 GMT Jonathan McCulloch
@inachu
"If the criminal has been proven innocent then yes delete the innocents DNA all across the Govt DNA database where ever they may be."
You cannot prove innocence, since it's impossible to prove a negative ("prove you didn't commit the crime"). What's more, you don't have to: you are innocent until proven guilty.
What's more, criminals are what you get AFTER the trial (and a guilty verdict). Up until then, they're innocent. So, you don't prosecute criminals: you prosecute innocent people who then become criminals on conviction.
-- Jon
-
Wednesday 5th November 2008 19:42 GMT michael
re:Everyone or no-one
"isn't there a technical problem here? It's not possible to preserve a complete and fully functioning audit trail without also keeping details of records that have been deleted or modified.
If the system allows amendments and deletions to be made without a full trace being preserved, then the data is not secure. If a full trace is preserved then records can only be cloaked rather than deleted.
Prof. Sir Alec Jeffreys, having reasoned through the implications of the technology that he ushered in, made it clear at the outset that if they were to allow social equity DNA profile databases would have to be all or nothing. Most still seem to ignore the valid argument that he presented."
not realy it is posible to have a delete stub in the database saying somthing like "record num # added #/#/# remove by request of subject date #/#/#"
nothing to point to who it was and no dna tag
-
Thursday 6th November 2008 01:14 GMT Graham Marsden
@AC 16:57
"Those who desire power, are the last ones you should allow to wield it"
It wasn't Heinlein (he was just in favour of only letting the military rule), but similar sentiments have been expressed by Arthur C Clarke and Douglas Adams.
PS @what's wrong with those 150?
> Haven't they had their DNA forcibly taken and put on the database.
Nope, they were probably just in the Lords Bar when the time to vote came and the party Whips said "go and vote for this even though you haven't read it"...
-
Thursday 6th November 2008 10:33 GMT David Pollard
@ Paul Buxton
As best I can tell, Prof. Jeffreys sees forensic DNA profiling as a useful tool which can help to establish innocence or guilt. From the outset he has drawn attention to the dangers of social inequity which arise if the technology is used to construct partial databases.
Equality before the law can be provided either by having everyone on the NDNAD or having no one on it and relying instead for policing on the crime scene profile database. In each case stringent public scrutiny is required to minimise malfeasance and errors.
From the Select Committee on Science and Technology Seventh Report, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmsctech/96/9607.htm:
'During this inquiry we also heard reservations about the practice of retaining DNA profiles of suspects who are never charged with an offence, or found not guilty. Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys told us that he was "totally opposed to the extension of the database" in this way, regarding as "highly discriminatory" the fact that "you will be sampling excessively within ethnic communities, for example"'
@ michael
If the database contains deleted stubs without any (cloaked) link to the original details and an archive containing them then the audit trail isn't complete. There would be no way of knowing, e.g., that someone hadn't paid to have a record removed. To provide a full audit trail all the data that has ever been entered has to be available somewhere together with records of amendments and deletions.
-
Thursday 6th November 2008 10:33 GMT Gulfie
Irony? Double irony, surely
A lot of the comments here infer that people have forgotten the NuLabour overhaul that the Lords has been given since '97. Initially there were about 800 unelected peers, NuLabout changed this, getting rid of most of them and instead undertook a 'ballot stuffing' style exercise, putting in a lot of people of their own choosing.
The fact that they are willing to stand up for common sense and to fight the Orewllian future we appear to be almost in is most refreshing. Well done M'Lords and Ladies, keep up the good work.
Its a very American book but I thoroughly recommend 'Little Brother' by Cory Doctorow (and the audio book is pretty good), you could almost call it a 'modern 1984'.
-
Thursday 6th November 2008 10:48 GMT Anonymous Coward
DNA Eugenics
Not only does retaining records of the innocent promote the governments view that we aren't really innocent just haven't committed a crime yet, but the innocent (or rather not yet guilty) are used as a control group when commercial companies are allowed to access to samples for 'research'. http://www.genewatch.org/sub-539491 This research aims to tie racial characteristics to the probability of criminal behaviour, and can only be described as Nazi style eugenics. It is just 63 years since the end of WWII, and we are letting this happen again.
-
Thursday 6th November 2008 11:17 GMT Anonymous Coward
The House of Lords
Before ZanuLab and Bliar tried to butcher it beth House of Lords was a superb example of Britishness. Over the hundreds of years of it's existence it acted as a brake on the possible, or as currently the actual excesses and stupidity of the government of the day. The Lords has the opportunity to examine legislation in more detail and ( excuse the caps as I want to make a point ) BECAUSE THEY DO NOT HAVE ANY PARTICULAR PARTY ALLEGIANCE can look at proposed laws from a more unbiased view than the Commons. Over the years they have done a pretty good job of this and, contrary to left-wing opinion, have not held up any legislation.
The fact that hereditary peers owe alleigance to the Crown has always been a fact that governments of all colours did not like. To make the House of Lords all elected would mean that their traditional largely independent views would be replaced with following party lines.
I am all in favour of reforming the House of Lords - by re-instating all hereditary peers and appointing others for a fixed term - selected from volunteers by, for example, the Taxpayers Alliance, pensioners grups and ex-Armed Forces personnel.
AC as I am one.
-
Thursday 6th November 2008 13:58 GMT Graham Marsden
@THEY DO NOT HAVE ANY PARTICULAR PARTY ALLEGIANCE
Err, sorry, but that's not the case.
Yes, some Lords, eg the Cross Benchers and Bishops don't have any party allegiance, but the rest of them most certainly do being Labour/ Tory/ Lib Dem peers (and often ex-MPs)
There's plenty of Party political BS still going on in there, the only difference being that the Lords don't have to worry about re-election.
-
Thursday 6th November 2008 14:55 GMT Anonymous Coward
Ummm folks...
The Lords haven't done anything that can't be undone by the Commons. The Lords have voted to amend part of the current Counter Terrorism Bill rather than pass it unchanged. The amended bill now has to go back to the House of Commons where the government can simply remove the amendment, pass *that* version of the Bill and send THAT back to the Lords for a further reading. The Lords could then choose to re-amend the bill and send that back - so-called Parliamentary Ping Pong - when all sorts of loathsome government toadies come out of the wood work to rail against the Lords frustrating democracy.
However, I don't think it'll go that far, because of Parliamentary timing. The current session is coming to an end later this month and it is unusual for a bill to be carried from one session to another. If the bill is not given Royal Approval before Parliament is preroged then the whole bill falls and must be reintroduced from the very beginning. So the government will be expecting the Lords to accept Parliamentary Supremacy and to accept the original version passed by the Commons on the grounds that the House of Commons (and don't laugh now) represents the will of the people - okay take a few minutes to compose yourselves.
For the Lords to stand firm and refuse to let the Commons get its way would be incredible. The government could choose to force the bill through using one of the two Parliament Acts, but I'm not sure if this is one of the bills the PAs are supposed to apply to.
All of which shows why the British model of the legislature is broken. We still have a bicamaral assembly, but the Commons has decided that all of the power is held in one chamber. Much better if we had either a unicamaral parliament or the American model of two elected chambers with different voting systems and different election dates. The Labour Party approach to reforming the HoL would be to make it just as toadying to the executive as the Commons. So like most of the people here, I'm with the Lords on this one.
Now if only we could get a proper consitution...
-
Thursday 6th November 2008 19:19 GMT Mark
@David Pollard
Why must we protect against purchased deletion? Any such deletion would have a trail in other areas: the bank account suddenly getting out of the red, long holidays "at a friends house". Hookers and blackjack.
And the scenario is so unlikely that why should EACH AND EVERY CITIZEN be dinged by a "protective" measure?
If you hear a "wop..wop..wop" it's all in your mind.
-
Thursday 6th November 2008 19:19 GMT Anonymous Coward
@mike Richards
The only problem with the American system is that it's still controlled by two parties who are both bought off by big business and special interest groups (whether RIAA or nutty religious) or are afraid of their own shadows and fail to stand up on their hind legs and make a show of things.
Would that any one of them had the courage to tell all the special interests to F off and do what is right for the country instead of worrying about "how much money did I bring back to my state or i'll Fail at next standing for election".
This topic is closed for new posts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
