National ID cards - good idea?

[snowychap]

We all love the EU, We all love the EU

La, la, la, la - hey.

Bon stuff.

[drat01]

Daily Mail rant?

Nope - I think you will find the Mail is against the DNA database

[Gringo]

Daily Mail rant?

Nope - I think you will find the Mail is against the DNA database

No they're not.

They're against a universal DNA database.

Quite a big difference which tends to negate the examples offered so far.

[drat01]

I love the fact that the people on VT who moan the most about civil liberties are those that are happy for real life abuses of them with crimes etc.

[drat01]

Daily Mail rant?

Nope - I think you will find the Mail is against the DNA database

No they're not.

They're against a universal DNA database.

Quite a big difference which tends to negate the examples offered so far.

If it wasn't so serious Gringo I think I would laugh at your comments there.

A couple of quick questions for you

- Should DNA evidence be available for use by the police to prove guilt or innocence?

- How and when should DNA be taken?

- Are crimes only committed by people who have offended before and may have passed on their DNA details?

Bottom line are you against DNA based evidence or not?

[Awol]

I love the fact that the people on VT who moan the most about civil liberties are those that are happy for real life abuses of them with crimes etc.

Sorry Ian but that doesn't make any sense. I think you'll find the other side of the argument to yours is suggesting that a DNA database containing samples from people who have committed no crime is unecessary and unlawful. It appears the EU agree. You wouldn't disagree with them, would you?

Edit: Your 'bottom line' question is also irrelevant, no one is sugesting it's a case of in favour of DNA evidence or not, that's ridiculous. But it isn't as black or white as you try to suggest.

[snowychap]

to prove ... innocence

It always used to be the case that innocence was presumed and guilt needed to be proven.

[Gringo]

Daily Mail rant?

Nope - I think you will find the Mail is against the DNA database

No they're not.

They're against a universal DNA database.

Quite a big difference which tends to negate the examples offered so far.

If it wasn't so serious Gringo I think I would laugh at your comments there.

A couple of quick questions for you

- Should DNA evidence be available for use by the police to prove guilt or innocence?

- How and when should DNA be taken?

- Are crimes only committed by people who have offended before and may have passed on their DNA details?

Bottom line are you against DNA based evidence or not?

I'm sure we've been through all this before.

No I am not against the use of DNA based evidence, yes I am against a universal DNA database.

You seem to struggle to understand that point of view.

I love the fact that the people on VT who moan the most about civil liberties are those that are happy for real life abuses of them with crimes etc.

I love the fact that the people on VT who moan the most fail to substantiate any reason why the dna of innocent people should be stored on a govt database. All the examples offered where DNA evidence has fingered people are cases where the DNA of innocents was not involved.

"the civil liberties of the victims" - very daily mail.

How many cases of people without convictions on the database have later been fingered for crimes? ie how effective is the current trawl of samples before extrapolating hyptheticals

[drat01]

So a person proven to be innocent by DNA testing is not a valid use?

Are you really saying Gringo that crimes are only committed by people who have offended before? That is exactly how it reads and under your idea DNA can and should only be used to prove innocence (Innocence proven OK?) of people who have committed crimes?

See Gringo you are saying it should be used and then not. Hence the questions before - which obviously your perogative - conveniently not answered.

A few more should police be able to use fingerprints, and yes we have had that one before? Should they be able to use evidence of eye witnesses? Should they be able to use CCTV images?

The objection, IMO, is more a political one than a realistic one.

[drat01]

I love the fact that the people on VT who moan the most about civil liberties are those that are happy for real life abuses of them with crimes etc.

Sorry Ian but that doesn't make any sense. I think you'll find the other side of the argument to yours is suggesting that a DNA database containing samples from people who have committed no crime is unecessary and unlawful. It appears the EU agree. You wouldn't disagree with them, would you?

Edit: Your 'bottom line' question is also irrelevant, no one is sugesting it's a case of in favour of DNA evidence or not, that's ridiculous. But it isn't as black or white as you try to suggest.

Jon - the argument that get's trotted out by a lot of people is infringement of civil liberties, with little or nothing to back that up. You say a database in unnecessary but surely anything that can help with ensuring the correct people are brought to justice is pro civil liberties? Not sure what point your comment is about me and the EU, hopefully not some point scoring.

The bottom line question is not irrelevant though at all and I agree it's not black and white. If you say that DNA should be a permissible tool for evidence gathering then you have to ensure that the authorities can use it to it's full capability. To join the DNA club it appears that you are saying you have to have committed a crime before, which goes back to then an assumption that all crime is committed by the same set of people.

I suspect this will go round and around again, and as said in another post I think that the main argument is more political that practical - so will leave it there

[drat01]

My point was not about people who are incorrectly convicted of a crime having their incorrect convictions quashed but about the slide away from a presumption of innocence which is happening (and has been happening for some time) in this country and the reversal of the burden of proof in some matters which is now seen as perfectly acceptable by some legislators.

That is not how it read

[snowychap]

...you have to ensure that the authorities can use it to it's full capability.

Do you propose that every single person in this country ought to give a sample of their DNA to go on a database?

[blandy]

The Big Brother state – by stealthPersonal information detailing intimate aspects of the lives of every British citizen is to be handed over to government agencies under sweeping new powers. The measure, which will give ministers the right to allow all public bodies to exchange sensitive data with each other, is expected to be rushed through Parliament in a Bill to be published tomorrow.

The new legislation would deny MPs a full vote on such data-sharing. Instead, ministers could authorise the swapping of information between councils, the police, NHS trusts, the Inland Revenue, education authorities, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority, the Department for Work and Pensions and other ministries.

Opponents of the move accused the Government of bringing in by stealth a data-sharing programme that exposed everyone to the dangers of a Big Brother state and one of the most intrusive personal databases in the world. The new law would remove the right to protection against misuse of information by thousands of unaccountable civil servants, they added.

Thomas Hammarberg, the Council of Europe's commissioner for human rights, said he believed Britain had gone too far in helping to bring about a "surveillance society". In a report drawing on personal data infringements across Europe but "inspired" by Britain's plan for a new internet, email and telephone database, he added: "General surveillance raises serious democratic problems which are not answered by the repeated assertion that those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear. This puts the onus in the wrong place: it should be for states to justify the interferences they seek to make on privacy rights."

He said he was "very worried about the downgrading of the protections of personal information", adding: "Of course there has to be a balance to be struck. At the moment we have not got it right."

David Howarth, the Liberal Democrat justice spokesman, added: "The Government shouldn't try to sneak through further building blocks of its surveillance state. Unrestricted data-sharing simply increases the risks of data loss. This is particularly troubling since the Government has already shown itself entirely incapable of keeping our personal data safe."

The data-sharing measure is referred to in the Coroners and Justice Bill outlined in yesterday's Queen's Speech. It could, for instance, pave the way for medical records to be sent to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency to identify drivers who pose a health risk, or school attendance data being handed to the Department for Work and Pensions to verify social security claims made by parents.

But civil rights groups warned that the possibility of public records being transferred to private companies on a minister's whim was of even greater concern. Under the existing system, public bodies require primary legislation to authorise the transfer of data to another agency. The new plans would end such parliamentary scrutiny by permitting ministers to use secondary legislation without a full vote of MPs. The Bill sets out how ministers would be able to sidestep data protection and human rights laws that prevent public bodies revealing private information.

NO2ID, a group which campaigned against government plans for ID cards and the associated National Identity Register, said the proposals went far beyond data protection and were intended "to build the database state, concealed under a misleading name". The group's national co-ordinator, Phil Booth, said: "This is a Bill to smash the rule of law and build the database state in its place. Burying sweeping constitutional change in obscure Bills is an appalling approach. Having proved – and admitted – they cannot be trusted to look after our secrets, they are still determined to steal what privacy we have left. Parliament needs to wake up before it has no say any more."

Civil liberties groups said the new powers could be used in conjunction with the equally controversial plan for a giant database holding details of people's emails, telephone calls and internet searches. The Communications Data Bill, which would contain this information, was set for inclusion in yesterday's Queen's Speech but will now be part of a consultation paper to be published in January.

Mr Hammarberg said Britain's poor record on data loss had led to an EU-wide debate about the dangers of a surveillance society. He added: "Data protection is crucial to the upholding of fundamental democratic values: a surveillance society risks infringing this basic right."

The Ministry of Justice said data-sharing was essential for the delivery of "efficient and effective public services, tackling crime and protecting the public". "Any draft order would require parliamentary approval and a privacy impact assessment," said a spokesman. "Additionally, the Information Commissioner would have been invited to comment on the proposals. This will ensure any potential privacy issues and risks are identified and examined.

"The power will be exercised only in circumstances where the sharing of the information is in the public interest and proportionate to the impact on any person adversely affected by it."

[Awol]

I love the fact that the people on VT who moan the most about civil liberties are those that are happy for real life abuses of them with crimes etc.

Sorry Ian but that doesn't make any sense. I think you'll find the other side of the argument to yours is suggesting that a DNA database containing samples from people who have committed no crime is unecessary and unlawful. It appears the EU agree. You wouldn't disagree with them, would you?

Edit: Your 'bottom line' question is also irrelevant, no one is sugesting it's a case of in favour of DNA evidence or not, that's ridiculous. But it isn't as black or white as you try to suggest.

Jon - the argument that get's trotted out by a lot of people is infringement of civil liberties, with little or nothing to back that up. You say a database in unnecessary but surely anything that can help with ensuring the correct people are brought to justice is pro civil liberties? Not sure what point your comment is about me and the EU, hopefully not some point scoring.

The bottom line question is not irrelevant though at all and I agree it's not black and white. If you say that DNA should be a permissible tool for evidence gathering then you have to ensure that the authorities can use it to it's full capability. To join the DNA club it appears that you are saying you have to have committed a crime before, which goes back to then an assumption that all crime is committed by the same set of people.

I suspect this will go round and around again, and as said in another post I think that the main argument is more political that practical - so will leave it there

No not points scoring ref the EU, it was intended as a gentle joke.

I didn't say a database was unecessary, it is a useful tool in fighting crime and non of the naysayers on here are suggesting otherwise. The problem imo - and forgive me if we are going round and round because I can see your argument and I'd like you to see mine - is that either a universal database or something approaching that where the DNA of people who have done nothing wrong is retained for future use, is fundamentally wrong.

I was once incorrectly lifted by plod for something and they took my DNA. I was never charged but it was retained. Why? In case they got it wrong once but I looked a likely sort to do something in future? This comes back to Snowy's very valid point regarding the presumption of innocence. What about my civil liberties, I've never committed a crime so why can't my civil liberities be respected and the sample destroyed? It appears that the EU agree with me, Gringo, Snowy and others that this should be the case and that our current system is very wrong. I don't expect you to agree but it would be nice - no sarcasm - if you can see that we have a valid point of view.

Yes the police should be able to use DNA evidence where it is available but why should that mean everyones DNA being held so that method can be used to it's fullest capacity? Following that argument why isn't every child in the land finger printed at birth? It's the same principle and would be just as 'practical' as you put it. FWIW this isn't about politics for me, it goes to the heart of the type of society we wish to live in.

[bickster]

Topic cleaned of all the personal stuff, pm's have ben exchanged s can we carry on with the debate now leaving all our personal baggage at the door please

[Risso]

On R5 this morning, they interviewed a dad whose son had been placed on the DNA database even though he hadn't commited a crime. He'd been arrested by mistake, which the police acknowledged, but they still insisted on a DNA sample which they said they would take by force if it wasn't given voluntarily. Apparently Liberty took up the case, and threatened to take the case through the courts, but happily, the police backed down and agreed to destroy the sample, as well as copies of the lad's fingerprints.

For a hypothetical example of how the DNA database could infringe on a person's liberties. Say a piece of your hair for whatever reason is amongst the samples that are found at the scene of a crime. The police then arrive to question you, while you're in an important meeting trying to close a deal, or at your daughter's wedding, or any one of a thousand situations where it would be embarrassing/expensive to be arrested and taken off to the police station to prove that you couldn't have commited the crime.

[villal]

They keep referring to destruction of the sample - I haven't seen any reference to removal of the profile from databases - or have I got that wrong?

[blandy]

...The objection, IMO, is more a political one than a realistic one.

That's a sad view, because if after 30 odd pages (and a previous thread) you feel that all the various people who have expressed an "anti" view and all the reasons given, are just "political" and "not realistic" it suggests that either we have all utterly failed to get across why we don't agree with it, or that we have succeeded, but you can't appreciate the alternative viewpoint other than in terms of it being "political and unrealistic".

I can honestly say that whichever party or parties wanted it I would oppose it, and that far from viewing my objection as unrealistic I feel it is quite the opposite. I feel many realistic objections have been raised, from the practical - cost, for example, to data security concerns, to concerns about implementation, and use and the effect on sections of society, to concerns about civil liberties and big brother state - concerns about how the authorities are trying to get us to serve their needs, rather than them serving our needs.

If I've read you right, in the quote, then it's all gone in one eye and straight out of one eye again. If I've got you wrong, then I apologise.

FWIW I can see there would be some occasions when it would prove useful, some instances where there would be benefit. I feel personally that the disadvantages outweigh the plusses by a distance.

[snowychap]

We know where you live

For quite the wrong reasons, today's readers of the The Universal Declaration of Human Rights can get a strong sense of datedness. Article 12 says we have a right to privacy and to protection from attacks on one's honour and reputation.

The bright luminous smear that the credit card-using, emailing, mobile-telephoning possessor of a travelcard leaves behind him as he moves about his daily life under the CCTV camera's ubiquitous eye, has made privacy a thing utterly of the past for all but the technophobic drop-out or those beyond a certain age who cannot manage, or be bothered with, the endless fiddlesomeness of getting logged on, registered, connected – and thereafter relentlessly tracked by anyone interested.

In the haste with which we have embraced emailing and mobile phoning we have stripped ourselves naked to any eyes that wish to see. Manufacturers of biometric identity data devices and surveillance equipment have importuned governments into violating the limits of citizen privacy and autonomy by selling them the idea that, by turning every individual into a suspect to be watched and monitored, the tiny percentage of bad folk among them can be caught.

There is an irony in this: the bad folk are not always stupid enough to leave a bright luminous smear of their presence on the public record; from the hood to the multiple pay-as-you-go mobiles, the fake ID and the once-only used internet café, they are going to stay out of reach of that intrusive gaze that watches the rest of us.

Privacy is indeed a right. It is more: it is an essential. Private life, a margin of inviolability for our thoughts, feelings, intimacies, reflections, anxieties, our hopes and nascent plans, and our recoveries from the abrasions of life, are fundamentals of personal and psychological health. Even lovers must have their privacies from one another. It is a strange and shallow human existence that lives at every moment under the burning eye of the inquisitor – exactly what the church once wanted us to think was our predicament: existence before the never-closed eye of a jealous divinity, even when we are alone in the dark. It shows that the state, in wanting to attach so many electronic and bureaucratic monitors to its ordinary citizens, has given up on that other idea.

So the UDHR's article 12 asserts a right that is indeed fundamental, and has already been lost in all practical senses. That does not mean we could not win it back. It does not mean that the injustices which will accumulate in number, and eventually the sheer flood of useless information that bureaucracies will drown themselves in, will not force a retreat. But the privacy principle asserted by article 12 and other human rights conventions should have stopped it in its tracks in the first place. But then: when principle opposes power, it is too often on the losing side.

What about the right to protection against attacks on one's honour and reputation? Here too the brave new electronic world makes this a laughing-stock. Look at the blogosphere – the biggest lavatory wall in the universe, a palimpsest of graffiti and execration – to see what a whimsy that idea has become. In jurisdictions like ours, there can be a remedy after the fact when such attacks occur in print or on the airwaves; one can sue. For the armies of the nameless invited to "post a comment", the only defence would be to compound the felony – by invading their privacy through yet further electronic means.

It does us credit if we prefer putting up with them to seeing the tentacles of rights-annihilating power reach still further into the bowels (though this, in this case, would be the apt location) of our polity.

[villal]

Not in the UK, but worrying all the same.. :shock:

And no its not from a syndicated news source, therefore probably more reliable

The NSA’s new data-mining facility is one component of a growing local surveillance industry

Surrounded by barbwire fencing, the anonymous yet massive building on West Military Drive near San Antonio’s Loop 410 freeway looms mysteriously with no identifying signs of any kind. Surveillance is tight, with security cameras surrounding the under-construction building. Readers are advised not to take any photos unless you care to be detained for at least a 45-minute interrogation by the National Security Agency, as this reporter was.

There’s a strangely blurry line during such an interrogation. After viewing the five photos I’d taken of the NSA’s new Texas Cryptology Center, the NSA officer asked if I would delete them. When I asked if he was ordering me to do so, he said no; he was asking as a personal favor. I declined and was eventually released.

America’s top spy agency has taken over the former Sony microchip plant and is transforming it into a new data-mining headquarters — oddly positioned directly across the street from a 24-hour Walmart — where billions of electronic communications will be sifted in the agency’s mission to identify terrorist threats

more here on the link