National ID cards - good idea?

[snowychap]

The last article falls into the category of science fiction - you can always tell when a key bit starts with the phrase "Some scientists believe" - Which scientists and what do they base this thought process on?

The sentence to which you refer was noted in the references of the 58 page document procuded by Gene Watch UK.

The sentence referred to:

17. House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology. Human genetic databases:

Challenges and opportunities (2001) London: The Stationery Office.

Yes these people have an agenda as does eveyone (they don't seem to hide it). They also appear to concentrate specifically upon technological 'advancements' based upon genetic science and looking at them from a public interest point of view. So I might give them, their reports and their references of other scientific/official sources more credence and respect than to just refer to them as 'science fiction'.

[drat01]

Snowy - dont be silly now or you will be sent to the step! please stop posting like this, Ian. Debate the point, but stop with this stuff. Ta. Blandy

No one has said the fact that someone's DNA makes you guilty. What it does do though is enable the police etc to start lines of enquiry that enable them to track the guilty quicker and with a greater increase in the chances of teh right person being caught.

The fact that DNA and fingerprints are stored and used though raises the whole issue of people's details being stored

[bickster]

I'm just wondering about the balance between the so called infringment of civil liberties (yet to be proiven) against the civil liberties of the victims of crime (totally proven)

The victims of crime have extra civil liberties? Thought not, so if they haven't got extra then how come they are singled out? the infringement of your civil liberties will affect everyone equally.

You can't seriously be suggesting that the needs of a few should be put before the rights of everyone? Sometimes you have to look at the big picture not the distracting side issues

And you can't prove something that hasn't happened you can only speculate as to what may happen, so comparing a possible future with something current is ale

ways going to be "something not proven" vs "something totally proven" so how come thats actually an issue?

[drat01]

Bicks - Maybe mine is a more simplistic view - cue comment - about the rights of victim far exceeding those of a guilty party.

To say that "needs of a few" is frankly mind boggling. How many crimes are committed? What level of crime does it have to reach before evidence such as DNA and finger prints - note: interesting that DNA seems to be the bad boy here but FP's are OK? - are to be used?

Your last paragraph is hurting my head - can you rephrase that please mate as I'm struggling with it a bot as to exactly what point you are making

[snowychap]

Snowy - dont be silly now or you will be sent to the step!

No one has said the fact that someone's DNA makes you guilty. What it does do though is enable the police etc to start lines of enquiry that enable them to track the guilty quicker and with a greater increase in the chances of teh right person being caught.

The fact that DNA and fingerprints are stored and used though raises the whole issue of people's details being stored

Can you refrain from the continual and unnecessary calling of people 'silly'.

It adds nothing to your viewpoint and is for no other purpose than to wind someone up.

On the second point, I refer you to:

...The fact that unique personal data is able to solve crime

Now, I am not saying that you believe that a DNA match equates with guilt because I give you much more credit than that - however, the kind of comment that you used is being used in various media to give the impression to the populace that these two things do go, necessarily, hand in hand.

[snowychap]

... note: interesting that DNA seems to be the bad boy here but FP's are OK? ....

Surely, you understand that there is a big difference between the potential uses of DNA and the potential uses of fingerprints? :shock:

[drat01]

Snowy - stop trying to make an issue out of nothing eh? people can talk about what they like, please let the mods moderate. Ta. Blandy

The fact that mass media outlets make a similar statement means bugger all to me. It's a fairly simple and straightforward thing, DNA and FP's - and WHY wont anyone come up with a similar argument against these? - are used to succesfully track down people who commit crime. By expanding the scheme to include more people could and most likely would (is this what Bicks was talking about?) mean that more guilty people are brought to justice and quicker.

I'm now really intrigued as to what people would accept as permissible evidence and what isn't. And why people are happy for finger prints but not DNA when both are very similar in being able to uniquely identify people from individual characteristics

[drat01]

... note: interesting that DNA seems to be the bad boy here but FP's are OK? ....

Surely, you understand that there is a big difference between the potential uses of DNA and the potential uses of fingerprints? :shock:

For the sake of completeness, such as what exactly?

[Gringo]

I'm now really intrigued as to what people would accept as permissible evidence and what isn't. And why people are happy for finger prints but not DNA when both are very similar in being able to uniquely identify people from individual characteristics

Where is this big distinction? Who is arguing that one should be admissable and another not? I haven't seen anyone raise this distinction apart from yourself.

Do we have a national fingerprint database that stores everyone's fingerprints? Nope. Should we have a national DNA database that stores everyone's DNA? No.

Storing the evidence acquired from convicted criminals - I don't see anyone arguing with that.

The only discenting voice raised is that of Snowy, who quite rightly points out that it is extremely dangerous to use DNA as the sole evidence when convicting someone, which is alongside CPS guidelines, that forensic evidence should always be supported by other evidence and not used to convict by itself.

[drat01]

So Gringo - and by the way do you have to start every post with "You are the only one raising an issue" or similar because frankly it's silly (sorry snowy but it is) I'm getting fed up of this. Desist. Blandy- you are happy for a database of personal data to be stored.

So you have no problems with anyone arrested having DNA and fingerprints taken?

So is your argument that once you have crossed that line that the so called civil liberty infringment doesnt apply to you any more?

[Gringo]

Drat, do you have to be the only to raise spurious points, irrelevant to any arguments raised by other posters. If you have a point to make, make it instead of waffling along in what appears to be (sorry snowy) such a silly manner. ditto

And now you're standing up fo the civil liberties of convicted criminals. Next you'll be telling me that sending them to prison is an infringement of their civil liberties. So the argument for a universal ID card now comes down to the fact that to not make it universal infringes the civil rights of criminals. SIlly, silly, silly. (sorry Snowy).

[snowychap]

... note: interesting that DNA seems to be the bad boy here but FP's are OK? ....

Surely, you understand that there is a big difference between the potential uses of DNA and the potential uses of fingerprints? :shock:

For the sake of completeness, such as what exactly?

Not being a scientist (and in particular a genetic specialist), I am not going to even attempt a list of all possible uses for a sample of DNA though I can envisage them being multifarious.

I can't see that a fingerprint would carry any potential details about hereditary disease, say.

Could a fingerprint state with any degree of probability of a familial relationship between two people (obviously blood relationship)?

I thank Gringo for clarifying my position in his post. The clarification was spot on. I have no problem with the use of DNA evidence as a tool - indeed it is a good thing - but I do wonder how long it will be before CPS guidelines are questioned (somewhere in the back of my mind - there is a case where I think this has already happened).

[drat01]

Drat, do you have to be the only to raise spurious points, irrelevant to any arguments raised by other posters. If you have a point to make, make it instead of waffling along in what appears to be (sorry snowy) such a silly manner. ditto

And now you're standing up fo the civil liberties of convicted criminals. Next you'll be telling me that sending them to prison is an infringement of their civil liberties. So the argument for a universal ID card now comes down to the fact that to not make it universal infringes the civil rights of criminals. SIlly, silly, silly. (sorry Snowy).

well said Pete - bit in red happy to oblige if the others are well don't start it then, Ian. - shame Gringo still has his stutter and that's relevent to the thread how? read the announcement of yesterday. Mods are fed up of people taking little digs and squabbling in threads. Enough. You don't need to do it, you can put your case well enough without it. Blandy

Sorry Gringo I can't see where I am standing up for the civil liberty's of criminals exactly?

My position on this is as clear as clear can be, I can't see anything wrong in any sort of database on DNA and / or FP's. You have been very vociferous in stating that storing of personal data is in some way an infringement of the civil libery of people but then say its OK for some and not others which sort of contradicts itself.

I know I wont change your mind as its fairly entrenched in the all government (especially Labour one) is wrong and that any action that may help the state whould be opposed - well it seems that way anyway.

I'm off for a cup of tea and to watch Newcastle lose now - quite a good little chat

[drat01]

[.....

Not being a scientist (and in particular a genetic specialist), I am not going to even attempt a list of all possible uses for a sample of DNA though I can envisage them being multifarious.

I can't see that a fingerprint would carry any potential details about hereditary disease, say.

Could a fingerprint state with any degree of probability of a familial relationship between two people (obviously blood relationship)?

I thank Gringo for clarifying my position in his post. The clarification was spot on. I have no problem with the use of DNA evidence as a tool - indeed it is a good thing - but I do wonder how long it will be before CPS guidelines are questioned (somewhere in the back of my mind - there is a case where I think this has already happened).

As you replied Snowy - I'll reply to you before I go off for that cup of tea - please dont think I am ignoring you if I dont reply again so quickly

Your expected use of the DNA is an interesting one. So you are saying that the data will be used by outside companies? Is this happening now with data stored on the DNA database? Are the DNA samples of convicted Paedo's etc being used to determine the makeup of a child abuser? Is the DNA of mass killers beings used to determine who the next Mr Wright of Ipswich will be?

You see its an either one or the other surely?

[Gringo]

Sorry Gringo I can't see where I am standing up for the civil liberty's of criminals exactly?

....

You have been very vociferous in stating that storing of personal data is in some way an infringement of the civil libery of people but then say its OK for some and not others which sort of contradicts itself.

Who are these some people? Are they perhaps convicted criminals? So by you stating that you are not standing up for the civil liberties of criminals, and then arguing that "some people" (namely convicted criminals) are having their liberties infringed somehow contradicting itself?

From my point of view it is quite simple, and due to the fact that I have to keep repeating the same points, I apologise if it might appear like a stutter. If you are convicted of a crime, you tend to lose certain civil liberties, such as the freedom to go to starbucks,. as you're locked in a 6 by 4 with a hungry looking cellmate. So we already accept that convicted criminals lose certain civil liberties. Now some groups wish to see the rest of society lose these same civil liberties.

I know I wont change your mind as its fairly entrenched in the all government (especially Labour one) is wrong and that any action that may help the state whould be opposed - well it seems that way anyway.

A little bit off topic - I refer you to the last post where you accused me of blindly anit-labour and I pointed out that on the "blair remembrance thread" I was virtually the only person posting positive things about his reign. Good things are congratulated, bad things are vehemently resisted. But let's stick to the debate in hand.

[drat01]

Typical I go to watch the match and its bloody half time but looks like Man Ure are easily going to win - before I get back to the second half then just so we both know where each other stand as it seems that mistakes are being made on both sides - you are not averse to people who have criminal records (or those being arrested?) having personal details stored on a database. So for the sake of discussion should people like this be made to carry an id card ?

[Gringo]

Nope. What purpose would that serve. To take away one civil liberty is not an argument to takeaway another. Each infringement should be measured on it's own merits. Someone who has been CONVICTED (not simply arrested) forgoes some of the liberties society would normally allow him. I'm sure that most modern societies accept that.

Locking people in prisons is for punishment, rehabilitation and exclusion from society. Storing fingerprints and DNA is for criminal investigation purposes.

I don't see what argument is being put forward in making criminals (or the rest of us) carry ID cards.

[snowychap]

As you replied Snowy - I'll reply to you before I go off for that cup of tea - please dont think I am ignoring you if I dont reply again so quickly

Your expected use of the DNA is an interesting one. So you are saying that the data will be used by outside companies? Is this happening now with data stored on the DNA database? Are the DNA samples of convicted Paedo's etc being used to determine the makeup of a child abuser? Is the DNA of mass killers beings used to determine who the next Mr Wright of Ipswich will be?

You see its an either one or the other surely?

It isn't my expected use but rather an indication that there are multifarious uses for DNA where there are not for fingerprints.

If you can show me someone who can DETERMINE the mext Mr Wright from Ipswich, I'll show you someone who doesn't understand the implications of what they are saying.

If you have some sort of database specifically for one purpose then that is the purpose for which it should be used.

No other.

On te database for convicted criminals - I agree that there is an issue with even those convicted.

Does being convicted of nicking a loaf of bread from Tesco mean that for the rest of your life you should be viewed by the state differently to others or the same as Mr Wright of Ipswich?

I would draw a parallel between the retention of DNA on a database (for the purpose of assistance in detecting, solving and prosecuting crimes) and the spending of convictions (i.e. under the Rehablitation of Offenders Act).

[Awol]

I was a "fan" before big blue came along AWOL

You say police managed long without resorting to this method, are you then suggesting we return to the days of the bobby blowing his whistle saying stop and the evil crook saying it's a fait cop guv'nor :-)

Surely any method that helps solving of crime is worthy of consideration and introduction?

No mate, I'm not suggetsting a return to Trumpton style policing but i don't agree that ANY methodology should be considered. Maybe the police should be in hospitals waiting to cuff potential crims as they pop out of the womb?

I think where you and I really differ is imagination. Mrs Awol is pretty switched on with all of the DNA/Genetics stuff and her argument against this is mainly based on what they can do with this information in the future - that it would not just be used for the detection of criminals and as scientists understand the genome more the opportunity will be to usean individuals DNA against them. Insurance if you have a gene for hereditary diseases, criminal profiling, loads of potential ways to use an individuals DNA against them. How is that not undermining an indiviuals civil liberties?

FWIW I agree the police should keep ther DNA of convicted criminals on file - the degree of re-offending justifies that - but those cleared of wrong doing or indeed the entirely innocent should not have their DNA retained imo.

Again this infringement of civil liberty is used as some sort of catch all defence but fails to show where and what civil liberty actually is being eroded. Should finger prints not be recorded now? Should DNA not be a permissible form of evidence?

For the reasons above I think it is an infringment of civil liberties and as you mention fingerprints, no, I don't think innocent people should be having their fingerprints stored either.

I agree with one of Gringo's later posts in this thread that you fundamentally take a different view from mine over whether healthy suspicion of authority is a good thing and what consititutes personal freedom.

DNA database, National ID cards, pay as you drive in-car spying etc is not what this country stands for, no matter how much your Stalinist buddies try to make it so.

[bickster]

To say that "needs of a few" is frankly mind boggling. How many crimes are committed?

I thought Labour was winning the war against crime? Thats what they and you keep telling us.

In fact they'll be so successful at it soon there will be no crime and this whole DNA database thingymabob won't be needed at all. I'd wager they wouldn't get rid of it even if crime were a thing of the past though

but the "needs of a few" comment isn't mind boggling at all, the victims of crime being much smaller in number than the entire population of the UK, they are the few in this instance