Plod to retain personal data from DNA innocents Police will continue to retain the personal details of everyone they arrest, despite a human rights ruling meaning the DNA profiles they are linked to must be deleted. The European Court of Human Rights said last year that DNA data should not be indefinitely retained from those who have not been charged or convicted. The …
Ah, yes. The Vetting and Barring Scheme (VBS) and the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA). And it's still anticipated that something like nine million people will have to register for vetting, assuming that the Home Office has got its sums right (which seems unlikely).
Given the increased suspicion that records of previous arrests can bring, it would be no surprise if, once arrested, someone finds they're more likely to be arrested again in the future. And it will simply be because of the prejudicial attitude that regards arrest itself as justification for suspicion.
And so, as the years go by, the number of arrests increases, with each arrest adding to the suspicion, making future arrests all the more likely. Positive feedback, though hardly positive for the victim of such prejudicial suspicion.
At some point, there'll be enough arrests on record to score enough points in the VBS that the ISA will decide that it's safest to bar that individual. This would be despite the fact that this individual has repeatedly been cleared not only of whatever they were arrested for, but for many other crimes as well, due to their DNA profile having been checked for possible matches with unsolved crimes.
Absurd, but that's how the system appears to be set up.
If I didn't know better, I'd wonder whether it was plausible for a UK government to deliberately make such a complete mess of things, so as to prompt a knight in shining armour (the EU) to appear, rescuing us and ensuring a positive reception to our new masters by the UK population.
Except once rescued permanently, we may wish there had been a third way...
Hogwash!
Short segments of DNA can be synthesised very cheaply, but doing a whole person's DNA is not feasible.
This also assumes you know the DNA fingerprint of the 'plant', which is very unlikely.
It's much easier to get hold of the 'plant's DNA (hair, blood, etc.) and add it to the crime scene.
For a start you don't need the entire genome, because that's not what DNA testing is looking for. Secondly, you can cheaply synthesise only the sections of the genome that would be tested for, with nothing more than the equipment found in an undergraduate lab and, say, the information found on the police DNA database, You can add this to a blood sample that's had the DNA-containing cells centrifuged out, and hey presto - one blood sample that contains only the DNA of your stooge, with no traces of any other.
This post has been deleted by its author
It doesn't matter what kind of forensic evidence we're talking about, DNA or otherwise - it all boils down to some guy in a witness box saying what he's salaried to say. No judge or jury conducts the tests themselves - in the end it's a question of court testimony, and how much weight is placed on it. I've sat in the gallery of a court case where the magistrate himself told the defendant firmly that slandering our fine policemen (who were in fact quite plainly lying through their teeth) was asking to have his sentence increased. Star chamber or what? Handshakes all round later in the Lodge I expect.
Moot anyway as you say - as, if I were a juror, there could never be a conviction anyway based on DNA - especially illegally-held DNA. If more people stood up on their hind legs and said that, instead of treating DNA as some kind of modern magic (which to the average person is all it is) - the govt might start wondering if it was all worth the effort.
In the last analysis, this isn't about DNA - it's about our police and govt (increasingly the same thing) being seriously out of control.
Then why should I.
My parents brought me up to believe that something was either right or wrong and this was the bases of 'The Law of The Land'. In effect they gave me a moral compass which I think has guided me pretty well. (Proof of this is that I have never been arrested nor had any problems with the law, except when I had my laptop stolen and I was told by plod it was my own stupooid fault)
But now the law of the law seems to be in conflict. Who do I trust to make 'The Law of The Land' ACPO, The Police, and The Courts, The Politicians or the European Court? From the point of view of my moral compass it's only the Court of Human Rights which seems to give a damn about what is right and what is clearly wrong.
The Police seem to bend the rules to create new easily solvable crimes.
The Politicians bend the rules for their own personal profit
ACPO seem to do what ever they want with little regards for what anybody says.
The Courts seem to think giving a Nursery Worker Pedo 7 year is acceptable where as banks/large Business fraudulently steal Billions and do massive damage to society is tough and too complicated to do anything about.
So with no clear guidance as to what is and isn't wrong what can do. The worst crime now seems to be depriving Business or the Government of money.
Something has gone really wrong here. Welcome to teh land of the free
The time has come when our DNA will be used to create half-man, half-pig bird snakes who will commit crimes with our fingerprints and leave our DNA behind to falsely imprison us and steal our identities to take out huge loans in our name.
Grow up Britain and stop worrying about everything. If we let criminals out and don't keep tabs on them we'll winge, if we do keep tabs on them we'll winge. If this prevents one serious crime then I'm all up for having my DNA stored on the big bad database
Don't complain when you appear on a list of about 6 'possible 10 loci matches', and get a midnight invitation to the police station, then. Oh, but your not in the UK, are you, judging from your 'Grow up...' comment.
This DNA database is no use at all in uniquely identifying criminals, although it is good at generating a *list* of suspects needing investigation. You clearly do not understand what is at stake here, and have just bought the official line.
"If this prevents one serious crime then I'm all up for having my DNA stored on the big bad database"
Then you must also support the installation of state-monitored CCTV in all the rooms of all the family homes in the country. If it stops even one child from being abused, then it's worth it, isn't it?
Isn't it?
Oh great, the UK violating the rules of the European Court of Human Rights?!. Our government might just as well have said, welcome to Police State UK, please leave your Human Rights at the door and pick them up again when you leave. Anyone living here, sorry we have canceled all your human rights and so your ancestors fought against state interference for nothing. We are your masters now.
If that isn't bad enough, I've just had a very scary thought. Combine this failure to delete PNC records with this comment from Lobby group Liberty, I.e. "Government has fed a culture where arrest might as well be conviction, and suspicion equals guilt. In this climate, a permanent record of suspicion can seriously damage the life chances of any young person who has ever had their collar felt by the police."
These two points combined, have lead me to a very scary thought. Its occurs to me that as the government make the laws, then they are able to misuse these PNC records as another behind our backs way to identify anyone who is willing to disobey the laws they define. In effect, use it to find anyone willing to disobey them. That way its not simply about crime prevention, its also a means of potential political opponent and dissident identification and it also provides unofficial punishment (as Liberty group said) which is a way to keep people in line. By failing to delete the records, its giving them yet another way to find (and unofficial punish) the people who are more willing to be disobedient.
Its like this unofficially Domestic Extremist(tm) label, that's yet another one of these unofficial disobedient labels, that's used to unofficially keep harassing and thereby punishing the disobedient people. Don't dare protest or you are a domestic extremist. Don't dare even consider being disobedient. We are your masters.
"Your retention of DNA is illegal." - "OK, we won't keep it for long."
"We don't want ID cards." - "We'll just give them to kids then."
"None of your IT projects ever work." - "We'll scrap them and start a new one."
etc., etc.
I was particularly impressed with the government's response to the consultation on DNA retention where they used the word innocent in quotes, as if they didn't believe in the concept.
Does anyone know of a civilised country to move to?
> "Government has fed a culture where arrest might as well be conviction, and suspicion equals guilt."
It could be said that Government is merely reflecting what people think. (Spot the logical fallacy there). But if so, can the Government complain that the whiff of fraud in such cases as the troughing Whacky Jacqui Smith and her over-fed ilk is feeding a culture of wanting to see politicians dangling from lamp posts on piano wire.
Luther's response to this is equally cultural. Observe that with suitable choice of wire gauge and weights, each dangling example to the others could be made into an aeolian harp - surely the sweetest song that would be ever heard from any of them.
What if I'm askd who I am by a policeman and refuse to consent to him tsaking my details and recording them?
Can I opt out on data protection grounds? what legitimate exclusions to the dpa do they have if I refuse to consent to them having my data?
(1) People vote members of parliament;
(2) Biggest winner rules;
(3) Government decides policy and parliament votes its approval;
(4) Government signs international treaties;
(5) Government instructs the police;
(6) Police are supposed to follow the laws of the land and policy.
Since when have the police become the government? This is called police state. When do the police hit squads start killing people they think are guilty but lack sufficient evidence?
There is a fundamental difference here. Beside the potted hash of salient points, a full copy of the fingerprint is retained for visual examination, which leads to additional manual checks after the computer has found a possible match. If your dabs pass this visual check, there is almost a certainty that either you or your identical sibling (and even this is moot) left the print.
With DNA, because of the problems with keeping viable DNA samples, only the computed hash of the markers is retained. There can be no further check. I believe that this is about 13 easily identified markers out of millions.
This means that they only have a tiny, tiny fraction of the data from the DNA to compare, which seriously reduces the degree of certainty of a DNA 'match'. Optimistic figures put this at about one in 14 million I believe, which would mean that there are about 6 people in the country who could be confused with YOU on DNA evidence.
It is this possibility of false implication that is the danger in a comprehensive National DNA database.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
