National DNA database

[khitajrah]

Recently here's been a fair amount of public attention drawn to DNA profiling and the National DNA database in the UK. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7765484.stm I was just wondering what folk's opinions are on such a thing. My OH and I had quite an interesting discussion on it the other day, with both of our views at opposite ends of the spectrum with myself leaning more towards the scientific value in crime prevention/prosecution, the identification of bodies, etc. and he towards the ethical/moral implications of such a database and how the facilities are not in place to safeguard such information from those who could potentially abuse it.

 

What are your views?

 

(ps. This has nothing to do with the fact I'm reading about the forensic value of DNA profiling at this very moment, honest.)

[DamnSaxon]

From the sound of it, Khit, I'm with your OH - 100% opposed to it. I don't trust the reliability of the science, and I emphatically do not trust either the government we've got nor every future government.

 

If (and it's a big "if") the science were perfect, I still don't think that a universal database of everyone is either necessary or desirable - there must be a way of using it which shows a little respect for people's privacy. Bear in mind that everything you hear about it is propaganda - from those who want your private data.

 

If my sample were destroyed when I'd been shown to be innocent, I'd be quite happy to offer it to police investigating any (serious) local crime. Since they propose to keep it forever and scan it for any and all crimes, frankly I cannot condone it. There's far too much probability of a false positive. You hear people saying "but it's 99% good" - yes, but the odd 1% of 60 million people means there could be 600,000 potential suspects for every minor crime. Ridiculous.

 

We're supposed to live in a society, not a forensic fishtank - though with the number of snooping CCTV cameras shoved in your face wherever you go, it's hard to remember that sometimes. The current government's obscene obsession with collecting every possible item of data about all of us is grotesquely at odds with every notion of "freedom" which I recognise - even if we could trust the beggars not to lose the lot, which anyone claiming Child Benefit ought to appreciate, and even if they weren't proposing to allow every petty bureaucrat in the country to sift through stuff you thought you'd told your doctor in confidence.

 

Might be interesting to add a poll. Don't forget to include "100% agin"!

[khitajrah]

But what's the difference between this piece of information and the information provided when getting a driving license, having a bank account, taxes/inland revenue, your NI number, passports? All it could do would be potentially tie you to the location of a crime scene - it doesn't prove guilt. Besides, there's not much one could do with someone else's DNA information (if it did find it's way in the wrong hands) and in the UK a conviction can not be given solely based on DNA evidence - other factors are involved. I think it's just another case of paranoia and conspiracy theories when there is nothing to be paranoid about. Also, if one keeps their nose clean there is nothing to worry about. Mistakes ARE made, yes, as with anything that involves humans, but overall wouldn't the benefit outweigh the negatives?

 

 

PS. Poll added.

[JustMe]

Don't matter what we think as a complete DNA database is going to happen in the not too distant future along with identity cards. At first I was inclined towards the "invasion of privacy" view before moving towards "but it helps solve serious crimes" and I am now starting to believe that increased detection rates might well cut down on the number of crimes committed in this country.

 

Of course we do need safeguards so that people are not being convicted on a 99% chance that they were guilty based solely on DNA evidence but we also need to be doing something to reduce crime levels in the UK which I think the database would do.

[DamnSaxon]

Well, it may be just a matter of age, but when I applied for most of the above it was name and address and not much else - certainly no DNA, iris scans or whatever hi-tech trick happened to be flavour of the month at the time. And when you say "a conviction can not be given solely based on DNA evidence", I'd have to add the word yet - the same for no-one being able to misuse your DNA yet. Give 'em the DNA data of everyone and just watch the misuses appear.

 

You can keep your nose as clean as you like - I try to! - but if this becomes widespread, as HMG want, that isn't going to mean you don't have to find a way of convincing The System that your fresh DNA at a crime scene doesn't point the finger at you. After all, you would claim you're innocent, wouldn't you, especially if you had done it? I've already suffered from minor officials trumping up all sorts of rubbish against me on far thinner "evidence", and find the prospect of giving them even more ammunition positively terrifying.

 

I don't think that the claimed benefits outweigh the dangers. Sure, the police would get someone for practically every crime, their "clear-up" rate would no doubt rocket, but none of that would mean that they got the right person every time, or even most of the time. The lawyers would probably do pretty well out of all the miscarriages of justice, but IMHO those gentlemen don't really need much help in making stacks of money.

 

Paranoia? Maybe. But all this technology is far from perfect, and the authorities far from benign - the string of stories in the news about their plans for our data show that they regard your privacy and integrity as irrelevant - you're just another data subject. All data about me I regard as mine, and until there is a very strong system indeed to force any user of it to compensate me fully for its abuse when (not if) they lose it, I want it to remain with me. And sharing anyone's confidenctial information among millions of petty pen pushers is so far out of line I'm surprised even our current government dare to propose it.

 

A friend who lived a few years in the Netherlands told me about their ID card. Mugshot, name, and an address where you could be contacted, not necessarily your home. I'd carry one like that without a qualm. But when some faceless individual starts tracking my every move even as far as the UK system already does, there needs to be very strong justification for it - and at the moment there's none at all.

 

Thanks for the poll ... is that 100% against someone else on my side, or did a mod add it for me? (I'm adding my actual vote anyway!)

[Njugle]

From an older thread:

http://www.shetlink.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=28764#28764

 

 

[we might even merge them]

[khitajrah]

OOops, I didn't even to think of looking if there was already a thread on the topic.

[DamnSaxon]

Note also the age of that thread. Shows how they keep on and on and on about these ideas until they've ground us into submission.

 

How do these mods do it? They must be even more godlike and omniscient than we thought

[lastpubrunner]

Also, if one keeps their nose clean there is nothing to worry about. Mistakes ARE made, yes, as with anything that involves humans, but overall wouldn't the benefit outweigh the negatives?

 

 

PS. Poll added.

 

"If one keeps their nose clean, there is nothing to worry about"

 

Those who do 'keep their nose clean' are precisely the ones that don't need to be on a DNA database; such people also don't 'need' an ID card.

 

It is no use saying "Mistakes are made"; I worked a few years ago on NAFIS - the National Automated Fingerprint Identification System. 100% 'matches' were never made; experts also recognise that an iris based recognition system will be no more than 85 - 90% accurate.

 

Considering that we have a population of approx. 70 million, if systems are even 99% accurate (they won't be), that means that there will still be hundreds of thousands of 'mistakes' each year.

 

The problem with ID cards is that if an ID card is lost/stolen and then cloned many times; how do you prove that you are in fact who you say you are ?

 

We shall still have birth certificates/driving licences/NI numbers etc.; surely it would be wiser to spread the risk, rather than have everything on one card ?

 

Fraudsters already have the technology in place to clone any card - debit or credit cards & ID cards; you may think that I am thinking negatively, but I prefer to call it realistically. Sadly, thinking 'positively' is not going to stop fraudsters from commiting crimes.

 

The problem with ID cards is that much of the data is 'fixed'; if someone steals your ID card, well yes, you will be able to get a replacement - after a great deal of trouble. However, your name (fixed), address (fixed until you move house), date of birth (fixed) NI number (fixed) will all be known to scammers. Yes, you can get a new bank A/C number etc., but what if someone has knowledge of the fixed data that cannot be changed ?

 

The government have stated that the carrying of ID cards will not be compulsory - so why bother having one ?

 

And they will be copied; by the thousand(s). This is not being 'paranoid', this is being realistic.

 

I can prove my identity through my Birth Certificate/driving licence/bank statements/utility bills/NI number etc.etc - ALL of which will still be used/needed regardless of whether ID cards are introduced.

 

This is quite interesting, could it happen here ???

 

http://aclu.org/pizza/images/screen.swf

 

(It lasts 2 to 3 minutes !)

 

Regarding the DNA database, statistics released by the Home Office earlier this year, showed it contains around 550,000 files with wrong or misspelt names. The national DNA database now holds over 3 million records; imagine how many 'mistakes' there might be with a database of 70 million !

 

Government has proposed the privatisation of the British Forensic Service – currently regarded as one of the finest in the world. Private companies try to make profits – that’s a large part of their reason for being. Presented with a large pile of data which could be misused for private profit, how can we be sure every person and every firm will resist temptation?

 

The security of and the access to and ownership of databases is a real problem. In the real world, data ends up being misused – and the only sure protection is not to have the data. When someone says, “but an innocent person has nothing to fear†you have to add “… if the data is not misused.â€

 

Mistakes have and will be made. The actual technique used by British police, according to the Director of the Forensic Institute in Edinburgh, is very vulnerable to contamination. We are the only country in the world that uses the highly sensitive LCN technique (low copy number) which allows crime scene investigators to detect invisible amounts of DNA - just a single cell - where a suspect has brushed against something or even just breathed on it. This methodology is so sensitive that it can detect the DNA of people who have never even visited the scene of the crime themselves – let alone been in any way involved. If you shake hands with someone – your DNA could be in their house or workplace.

 

Would it be better to spend billions on ID cards (which can & will be copied) and a DNA database or to invest that money in (for example) - jobs/NHS/Schools/Social housing/Emergency services/Improved transport etc ?

[Fjool]

Considering that we have a population of approx. 70 million, if systems are even 99% accurate (they won't be), that means that there will still be hundreds of thousands of 'mistakes' each year.

I don't think this is an accurate way of looking at it. The 70 million is the total database size, but the errors will be based on the number of checks, which will number far fewer than the total entries in the database.

 

There are many good arguments against the DNA database, but this isn't really an appropriate one I think.

 

I voted against.

[lastpubrunner]

Considering that we have a population of approx. 70 million, if systems are even 99% accurate (they won't be), that means that there will still be hundreds of thousands of 'mistakes' each year.

I don't think this is an accurate way of looking at it. The 70 million is the total database size, but the errors will be based on the number of checks, which will number far fewer than the total entries in the database.

 

There are many good arguments against the DNA database, but this isn't really an appropriate one I think.

 

I voted against.

 

It may not be an appropriate argument at the moment, but I believe that it will become an important argument in the future - as we become even more dependent on technology.

 

Of course, you are quite correct when you state that the number of checks will be far fewer than the total number of entries; however, the system is in its infancy at the moment, why is why I believe that the number of errors will escalate.

 

In 1997/98, I worked at Hendon Police Training centre. I was involved with testing NAFIS. Initially, the software was developed (from what I remember) in Canada and it was altered slightly to meet the requirements of the UK Police.

 

Before I worked with the software, I had to familiarise myself with the procedures the finger print officers have to follow and learn what identifying factors they look for whilst taking prints. I had to learn about 'arches', 'loops', 'whorls', 'ridges' and 'islands'. On a couple of occasions I tried to trick the fingerprints officers; from scans, they could tell if a set of prints had been inverted, which hand they were from and whether male or female. Yes, a finger print officer can do all these things.

 

Fingerprints would be scanned and the machine would provide data along the following lines :

 

'There are 5,000 people (on the existing Police fingerprint database) with a 50% match to the scans, there are 1,000 people with a 70% match to the scans; there are 500 people with an 90% match to the scans'.

 

At the end of the day though, a 100 % 'match' could only be decided by a trained Finger Prints expert (for legal reasons). Becoming a Finger Prints expert takes quite a few years and they were far better than the machines so far as accuracy was concerned. NAFIS is primarily useful in that it narrows down the search field parameters; checking finger prints is a very time consuming job, involving checking prints on cards. NAFIS helps to speed up the process. Yes, technology has improved since then, but it is still not good enough.

 

I've mentioned the above, because the need to take fingerprints is intended to be part of the process of producing ID cards. It wasn't 100% accurate then and it isn't 100% accurate now. The same applies to eye scans - but even more so !

 

The primary problem that I see with a National ID card system is that despite what some might think, the technology does not exist to make bioscans which are 100% accurate. An accuracy rate of say 95% sounds impressive, but not in the context of the total population.

 

Of course, many/most involved with IT projects hope that the scheme will go ahead. It will be a source of excellent pay for a good few years. I hope that I can get on that gravy train. None of us believe that it will work accurately - but when has that ever mattered ? A database would be needed which would be very many times larger than the DVLAs. Does anyone really believe that any government (left or right) is capable of making such a gigantic IT system work effectively ??? I can see an ID card system requiring numerous 'upgrades' and 'patches' - all of which will cost billions and think of all the people needed to enable such a system to 'work' - I hope that I can be one of them !

 

 

Regarding ID cards and a DNA database, the primary problem is that of data security. Systems that have already gained acceptance can be quite suspect. How many people are aware that for most swipe card systems as used in hotels (for use by the guests to enter their room) and from what I remember on the Northlink Ferries, the guest's personal data is held on the room entry card. In turn, that data stays on the card until the information is 'overwritten' by the details from the next guest. But what if the card falls into the hands of someone with a scanning device ?

 

At work, we used to have a card scanning system to make entry into the building, it failed so frequently, that it was replaced by a non-card system.

The foolishness of the 'cure-all' approach of ID Cards - having 'all' data on one card, will provide 'benefits' mainly for criminals.

 

What many people don't often realise, is the costs (financial and personal) of technological failure in a system that has become dependent on technology.

 

Recent news is that Interpol want an international facial recognition database... do they realise the problems with the match rates in facial recognition?

 

It would be one of the most expensive government IT projects ever (in partnership with all the usual suspects in failed computerisation and recent data losses), with technologies that are suspect, and purposes that are poorly justified and keep changing. I've worked on many IT projects over the years, and I can assure you that I've never known of one to be within budget (Or even close). Come to that, can anyone name any Government Project which hasn't been at least double the 'expected' budget (2012 Olympics etc.)

 

Does anyone really believe that this (or any government) is capable of implementing an all-encompassing system (ID Cards & DNA database) that will actually work with any degree of accuracy ?