# Why would I not want the Gardai to  know my DNA profile?



## Brendan Burgess (11 Sep 2013)

I don't understand the argument about civil liberties here. 

If it was operationally possible, why would the Gardai not collect everyone's profile? 

What have innocent people to lose? 

There will be mismatches extremely rarely, so I could get a knock on the door , telling me that my dna had been found in a rape case in Donegal. 

But far more people wouldn't even be suspects, because the Dna would show that it was not them. 

But the Gardai would be able to  catch the guilty much easier. 

I must be missing something here.


----------



## blueband (11 Sep 2013)

I think what most people dislike is the thought of giving the state any more power over its citizens than it already has. people for the most part don't trust the state, and with good cause.  plus the fact that DNA is not 100% foolproof


----------



## Betsy Og (11 Sep 2013)

I agree, a database should be compiled (&fingerprinting). 

I think it should be independent of the guards and with lots of safety checks. Otherwise, amongst the paranoid at least, there would be a fear of being framed  (assuming the DNA/fingerprints could be taken from the holding and placed elsewhere - maybe that's not even possible).

In general I think Civil liberties should relocate to the Middle East, Africa & Latin America - I cant recall the last good service they performed in Ireland.

The innocent have nothing to fear (except from criminals), its about time the innocent allowed the State to turn the tables on criminal elements.


----------



## blueband (11 Sep 2013)

it would be open to all kinds of abuse by agents of the state, think of it...you are giving them evidence to do as they please with, you would have to be nuts to trust the state with your DNA. anyway its all just kite flying, if they ever tried it on it would be challenged through the courts


----------



## Vanilla (11 Sep 2013)

In a nutshell because we cannot trust the state or its agents not to abuse their power.



Betsy Og said:


> In general I think Civil liberties should relocate to the Middle East, Africa & Latin America - I cant recall the last good service they performed in Ireland.


 
Is this a joke? Seriously, is it?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (11 Sep 2013)

Let's say  a Garda takes a personal dislike to me and wants to convict me of a crime, I have not committed. 

He has my DNA profile on a database. How can he abuse that profile?


----------



## mandelbrot (11 Sep 2013)

Vanilla said:


> In a nutshell because we cannot trust the state or its agents not to abuse their power.


 
What you appear to be saying is that since power is open to abuse the agents of the State should not have, or be able to exercise, power...?

Using that line of reasoning then we arguably shouldn't have a police force, a revenue collection service, an army, or enforceable laws of any kind.

The exercise of power by the State (in this case via it's holding of information) always requires checks and balances to prevent abuse - I'm not sure why the above idea should be dismissed out of hand without weighing up the pros and cons, purely on the basis of potential for abuse.


----------



## Sunny (11 Sep 2013)

It's a debate worth happening but I would naturally be suspicious of such databases. There is a danger that it could encourage lazy policing and juries who get blinded by the presence of DNA evidence and ignore other evidence that proves a persons innocence. Already we see DNA evidence been treated like it is infallible. 

There is also a question as to whether any Government should have the amount of genetic information on its citizens that this Database would provide. Maybe we have nothing to fear in Ireland but what if Hitler or some other dictator came to power and decided to engage in a bit of ethical cleansing. He wouldn't have to work hard to identify anyone that didn't fit his ideal genetic make up. I admit that this argument is weak in many ways but I wouldn't trust this technology to some countries and if that's the case, why should we have it? 

I would also have concerns about the cost of running and securing a database. Concerns about the ability of the Government so share information as seen in the US. Concerns about the database being used for civil law matters as well as criminal e.g. Paternity disputes. 

Having said all that there are positives to the idea and I am more comfortable with a full database than a partial database just made up of criminals.


----------



## blueband (11 Sep 2013)

it wouldnt be other countries getting their hands on it that would bother me, it would be that fact our own 'bozos' had it that id be scared of..


----------



## T McGibney (11 Sep 2013)

The Birmingham 6 were convicted on the basis of circumstantial scientific evidence that was then largely regarded as infallible.


----------



## blueband (11 Sep 2013)

T McGibney said:


> The Birmingham 6 were convicted on the basis of circumstantial scientific evidence that was then largely regarded as infallible.


but our honest state and its agents would never do anything like that to one of its citzines


----------



## Betsy Og (11 Sep 2013)

Vanilla said:


> Is this a joke? Seriously, is it?


 
Well I'm open to being enlightened, but the only time I hear of them is to object to things like gardai using audio surveillance - used to great effect against the Limerick gangs. They appear to me to be handwringing 'do gooder' types, always at hand to defend the 'our rights', but ultimately their output is to make it harder for our justice system to do its work. 

Our citizens have more to fear from criminals than from the State. With the exception of fairly isolated incidents in Donegal, have our guards been widely discredited in the last 20 years? I dont think so.

So I'm willing to 'take a few chances' (as some might see it) for the greater good, as fundamentally I dont believe these things will be used 'conspiracy style' against me, and even if they are dont I have plenty of opportunity in the independent court system to state my case (or maybe this goes all the way to the Aras - I wanted to say White House....).

I'd rather criminals to be running in fear than ordinary people. 

In terms of trusting the State, I trust them to waste money, have jobs for the boys, take an eternity to do things, but on the other hand I trust them to, fundamentally, have the best interests of the State and its citizens at heart, try to deliver good services for citizens (however flawed - both the citizens and the services).

Put it this way, if the State is such a malign influence, why dont we have separatist Militia type groups (like the Michigan Militia), or why arent we voting in all manner of extreme left types??

I think we're thinking too academically about the DNA point, about whether in principle in an ideal world it should be a good idea - I think we should be pragmatic and imagine if it was in use in Ireland of today would the benefits outweigh the downsides.


----------



## Sunny (11 Sep 2013)

Using that logic, why don't we all wear microchips so we can be tracked. You have nothing to fear unless you are up to no good.


----------



## blueband (11 Sep 2013)

I was thinking the same, that way they could track us from the minute we left our homes. where we were, who we met. but theres noting for us to worry about. the state would promise the information would never be open to abuse by anyone!
yippie...we can all sleep easy in our beds at night....well except for the nasty criminals!!


----------



## Vanilla (11 Sep 2013)

Betsy Og said:


> Well I'm open to being enlightened


 
Who are the 'civil liberties'? It's FLAC, the Rape Crisis Network, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, the Irish Human Rights commission,among many others. You may not value all that they do, but it is hugely important that they exist. They guard our human rights and right to equality. 

I strongly believe in freedom, privacy and the right to bodily integrity in the absence of having been proven to have committed a crime ( or having been charged with a crime in some circumstances) and I would not agree with a generic database being kept of DNA or other records by the State that would fundamentally undermine those rights. 

I know that although we live in a democratic country that the state is not beyond corruption. Mandlebrot, your leap from my not wanting a DNA database to not allowing the State to exercise power of any sort is so far fetched that I don't think I need to answer it. The state can and must exercise power however we should keep a close eye on how it is done and jealously guard our rights. 

At the risk of being very far-fetched and I'm saying this with a smile on my face- could a Guard abuse this database? I'm not a forensic scientist, but would it be possible for them to 'plant' evidence, conclusively linking a suspect through their DNA to a crime scene? Ie Jimmy's DNA is on the database, Garda takes Jimmy's hair ( or whatever) and plants it at the scene. Ergo Jimmy must have been there. It could be a lifesaver for a lazy Guard, in fact, save them from actually investigating the crime. Or if their tally of nicking the right suspect was below target.


----------



## Betsy Og (11 Sep 2013)

Vanilla said:


> the Irish Council for Civil Liberties


These are the lads I was thinking about.


----------



## blueband (11 Sep 2013)

it all comes down to trust, and if history has thought us anything its that the state cannot be trusted to act in the best intrest of its people.  would a DNA data base be abused by the less scrupulous among us, I think most of already know the answer to that.


----------



## Sunny (11 Sep 2013)

Betsy Og said:


> These are the lads I was thinking about.



So you find an organisation that campaigned for equal rights for women, decriminalisation of homosexuality etc offensive? God forbid anyone would want to hold the Government to account on human rights issues.


----------



## Betsy Og (11 Sep 2013)

Sunny said:


> Using that logic, why don't we all wear microchips so we can be tracked. You have nothing to fear unless you are up to no good.


 
a) twould cost too much, b) it might be a teeny bit OTT for the entire population to be constantly monitored. Maybe if we focussed the chipping on violent criminals for starters, sure its just a version of the ankle braclet used in some jurisdictions but no doubt is viewed as a vile and insidious erosion of the rights of serious criminals by our friends in the Irish Council of Civil Liberties.

Back to the DNA - its a once in a lifetime swab. I'd imagine the pattern or whatever is kept on a computer file and the swap of cotton is incinerated. So Lugs Branningan that has us in his sights has nothing to plant on the scene of the crime. 

All the database will ever do is quickly focus on some suspects from whom, with the benefit of rapid response, will be yielded more evidence (have less time to line up alibi's, get caught by surveillance etc). If it was even only used for people who were convicted of a serious crime (and that would reap most of the rewards and be a good compromise between all or nothing) it should be a great asset.

As you mention chipping, in view of the horror that is child abductions, is it surprising no-one has ever discussed chipping a child so that, in the event of an abduction, they could be found within minutes (more likely alive & unharmed)? Could it even technically be done? You'd wonder with regard to high risk people (royals, the v wealthy, presidents etc), is it something they have done???....just a thought.


----------



## Betsy Og (11 Sep 2013)

Sunny said:


> So you find an organisation that campaigned for equal rights for women, decriminalisation of homosexuality etc offensive? God forbid anyone would want to hold the Government to account on human rights issues.


 
All good and laudable of course, but my point (and bear in mind our discussion is solely on the criminal side) is that they seem to be the criminal's biggest ally.

My experience of them was solely in relation to criminals but thank you for enlightening me as to their other good work.


----------



## Sunny (11 Sep 2013)

Betsy Og said:


> All good and laudable of course, but my point (and bear in mind our discussion is solely on the criminal side) is that they seem to be the criminal's biggest ally.
> 
> My experience of them was solely in relation to criminals but thank you for enlightening me as to their other good work.



Well then you will be delighted to know that they think the database is a good idea as long as privacy is protected.


----------



## ashambles (11 Sep 2013)

DNA matches as far as I know are given in probalistic terms, so the prosecution may say something like there's a 1 in 1 million probability of you matching the profile by chance. 

That's fine if the police have other evidence and use this as a clinching argument.

But if Gardai have a complete DNA database they may be tempted to base an entire prosecution around solely on DNA evidence. So the worry is they find there's a couple potential matches and you're one of them, perhaps you're even the most suspect because the true culprit has a better alibi. 

You're now risking being arrested and questioned, possibly being indirectly or directly identified to the press. If it's a DNA related crime chances are it's a serious offence.

Prosecutions have miscalculated the probability of DNA matches in the past. We could even have an extra problem here as Irish people are probably quite closely related relative to countries such as the US. 

Here's a line from a wiki article on prosecutor's fallacy which puts it better http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutor's_fallacy


> The size of the database elevates the likelihood of finding a match by pure chance alone; i.e., DNA evidence is soundest when a match is found after a single directed comparison because the existence of matches against a large database where the test sample is of poor quality may be less unlikely by mere chance.
> 
> The basic fallacy results from misunderstanding conditional probability and neglecting the prior odds of a defendant being guilty before that evidence was introduced. When a prosecutor has collected some evidence (for instance a DNA match) and has an expert testify that the probability of finding this evidence if the accused were innocent is tiny, the fallacy occurs if it is concluded that the probability of the accused being innocent must be comparably tiny. If the DNA match is used to confirm guilt which is otherwise suspected then it is indeed strong evidence. However if the DNA evidence is the sole evidence against the accused and the accused was picked out of a large database of DNA profiles, the odds of the match being made at random may be reduced, and less damaging to the defendant. The odds in this scenario do not relate to the odds of being guilty, they relate to the odds of being picked at random.


----------



## RainyDay (11 Sep 2013)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Let's say  a Garda takes a personal dislike to me and wants to convict me of a crime, I have not committed.
> 
> He has my DNA profile on a database. How can he abuse that profile?


He could leak details of your profile to his former Garda Inspector who now works for the life insurance company, and suddenly you find the cost of your life insurance has dramatically increased given your genetic predisposition to certain illnesses.



Sunny said:


> Using that logic, why don't we all wear microchips so we can be tracked. You have nothing to fear unless you are up to no good.


We have them today. Here you go.


Betsy Og said:


> All good and laudable of course, but my point (and bear in mind our discussion is solely on the criminal side) is that they seem to be the criminal's biggest ally.
> 
> My experience of them was solely in relation to criminals but thank you for enlightening me as to their other good work.





Sunny said:


> Well then you will be delighted to know that they think the database is a good idea as long as privacy is protected.


Too funny.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (11 Sep 2013)

Vanilla said:


> I strongly believe in freedom, privacy and the right to bodily integrity in the absence of having been proven to have committed a crime ( or having been charged with a crime in some circumstances) and I would not agree with a generic database being kept of DNA or other records by the State that would fundamentally undermine those rights.



If I give a saliva swab, I don't see how it's compromising my freedom, privace or bodily integrity.  Only a few specialists could use the data in any way.  It is not the same as being microchipped where my privacy would be seriously compromised. 





> Mandlebrot, your leap from my not wanting a DNA database to not allowing the State to exercise power of any sort is so far fetched that I don't think I need to answer it.



Mandlebrot's argument was in response to your post "In a nutshell because we cannot trust the state or its agents not to abuse their power."  Power is open to abuse. The Revenue could easily abuse their power.  It is much more difficult to abuse the "DNA" power. 




> At the risk of being very far-fetched and I'm saying this with a smile on my face- could a Guard abuse this database? I'm not a forensic scientist, but would it be possible for them to 'plant' evidence, conclusively linking a suspect through their DNA to a crime scene? Ie Jimmy's DNA is on the database, Garda takes Jimmy's hair ( or whatever) and plants it at the scene.



That is the point of this thread.  How could the database be abused other than through some vague notion of an invasion of privacy?

If a Garda wants to incriminate me, he can do it anyway without the DNA database.  He can get a lock of my hair and plant it at the scene of the crime.  I can't see how a DNA database could be abused.  If there is some way in which it can be widely and simply abused by malevolent Gardai, I would not agree to the database. But if it can't be abused or if it is extremely difficult to abuse, I don't see that we have anything to lose.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (11 Sep 2013)

> He could leak details of your profile to his former Garda Inspector who  now works for the life insurance company, and suddenly you find the cost  of your life insurance has dramatically increased given your genetic  predisposition to certain illnesses.



It seems to me that the only objections to this database are based on massive conspiracy theories and abstract ideas of privacy.


----------



## ashambles (11 Sep 2013)

> It seems to me that the only objections to this database are based on massive conspiracy theories and abstract ideas of privacy.


Also mathematics. I don't mind a database existing but I'd need a  lot of reassurance that the gardai could correctly use the database.

DNA matching does not provide a 100% reliable answer. 

If a match could only provide 99.9999% certainty, then simply picking matches from an Irish database could produce 5 matches. I'd need  reassurance that gardai wouldn't blindly chase DNA matches without supporting evidence.


----------



## Vanilla (11 Sep 2013)

Brendan Burgess said:


> If a Garda wants to incriminate me, he can do it anyway without the DNA database. He can get a lock of my hair and plant it at the scene of the crime. I can't see how a DNA database could be abused.


 
Because without the DNA database you need something else to link Jimmy to the scene of the crime in order to connect the hair to Jimmy. Jimmy doesnt have to give a sample of DNA. But if he is already on the database...

BTW I can't see any 'massive conspiracy theories' on this thread. You asked for examples of how it could a database could be abused and you were given some.

And as for the phrase 'abstract ideas of privacy'- is it meant to discredit the idea of wanting to protect privacy?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (11 Sep 2013)

Vanilla said:


> And as for the phrase 'abstract ideas of privacy'- is it meant to discredit the idea of wanting to protect privacy?






Vanilla said:


> I strongly believe in freedom, privacy and the right to bodily integrity in the absence of having been proven to have committed a crime ( or having been charged with a crime in some circumstances) and I would not agree with a generic database being kept of DNA or other records by the State that would fundamentally undermine those rights.
> 
> .



I don't use phrases to "discredit" other people's ideas. 

You have an abstract or theoretical belief in a concept of privacy.  I share it.

But you have not shown how my privacy is in anyway compromised by being on a database.


----------



## The_Banker (11 Sep 2013)

Long before we 'discovered' DNA people called for a database of fingerprints. Now with DNA technology in place people would prefer DNA.

Has there ever been a country where either everyones finger prints or DNA has been stored?

If this was implemented in Ireland would we be the first country to do it?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (11 Sep 2013)

Vanilla said:


> Because without the DNA database you need something else to link Jimmy to the scene of the crime in order to connect the hair to Jimmy. Jimmy doesnt have to give a sample of DNA. But if he is already on the database...



I just don't see how a DNA database makes it any easier. 

If a malevolent Garda wants to incriminate me, he can plant evidence and then arrange some other evidence. He does not need a DNA database to do it, and I don't think that such a database makes it any easier. 

What it would do would be very clear. If they had everyone's DNA, then they could collect DNA evidence from a crime scene and come up with a suspect very quickly.   There would be a few false matches, but these could be eliminated through other evidence and alibis. But for every false match and for every rogue Garda, there would be thousands of crimes solved quickly , freeing up Garda resources.


----------



## Betsy Og (11 Sep 2013)

Vanilla said:


> Jimmy doesnt have to give a sample of DNA. But if he is already on the database...


 
Do you mean suspects cannot be required to give a DNA sample? 

(I wont even bother going off on one, in the faint hope that I've misunderstood you, but that's where I'm going with this....   Or are we still in the realms of the Garda wanting to frame you and using the database (how?) to make you a suspect in the first place?)


----------



## so-crates (11 Sep 2013)

What fun it would be when they start trying to get samples from the so-called "free men"  I can see news stories now.


----------



## jhegarty (11 Sep 2013)

Brendan Burgess said:


> It seems to me that the only objections to this database are based on massive conspiracy theories and abstract ideas of privacy.



Given all the problems found when they audited pulse usage I don't think we are reaching the level of conspiracy theories.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (11 Sep 2013)

jhegarty said:


> Given all the problems found when they audited pulse usage I don't think we are reaching the level of conspiracy theories.



Hi J

Other than Rainyday's suggestion that a rogue Garda will pass on my data to life insurance companies, how can they use this data? 

There is plenty of data in Pulse which could be abused.  I just can't see any realistic misuse of DNA data.


----------



## michaelm (12 Sep 2013)

It's just a distraction from the fact that the criminal justice system is criminally under resourced.  There are too few guards, the courts are inefficient and there are not enough prison places.  This is designed to convince Joe public that the state is doing something about crime, which it isn't.


----------



## TarfHead (12 Sep 2013)

blueband said:


> .. that way they could track us from the minute we left our homes..


 
Who is 'they' ?  An Garda Siochana, many of whom have to use their own phones and their own laptops to do their job ?  Visions of some version of Minority Report are far removed from the day to day of policing in Ireland in 2013.

FWIW, I'd have no problem with my DNA being on file.


----------



## blueband (12 Sep 2013)

then by all means give them your DNA. but I wont be joining you!..not beause I have anything to hide, because I just don't trust them with my DNA. and if that makes me paranoid so be it.


----------



## mandelbrot (12 Sep 2013)

blueband said:


> then by all means give them your DNA. but I wont be joining you!..not beause I have anything to hide, because I just don't trust them with my DNA. and if that makes me paranoid so be it.



IMHO yes, it does make you paranoid! - "excessive distrust of others".


----------



## michaelm (12 Sep 2013)

blueband said:


> then by all means give them your DNA. but I wont be joining you!..not beause I have anything to hide, because I just don't trust them with my DNA. and if that makes me paranoid so be it.


Me neither.  Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they're not out to get you.


----------



## blueband (12 Sep 2013)

IMHO it would be wonderfull to be able to trust everyone. however every walk of life and profession is made up of both honest and dishonest people, that also includes those who work for the state. of course we would like to think that the majority of people we come in contact with are honest, but thinking that everyone is honest is just being very naïve. for me it comes down to this....if you don't have to take a risk why take one!


----------



## blueband (12 Sep 2013)

michaelm said:


> Me neither. Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they're not out to get you.


something like that


----------



## Brendan Burgess (12 Sep 2013)

blueband said:


> ...if you don't have to take a risk why take one!



1) You are not taking any risk. No one has shown how a Garda or anyone else can misuse this data. 

2)  There is a huge benefit to society. If a friend of yours gets raped, the Gardai would have  a good chance of identifying the culprit quickly.  This is good for catching rapists and it frees up the Gardai to do other duties.


----------



## blueband (12 Sep 2013)

Brendan Burgess said:


> 1) You are not taking any risk. No one has shown how a Garda or anyone else can misuse this data.
> 
> 2)


well of course...what do you expect!


----------



## RainyDay (12 Sep 2013)

We've seen how others states will grab data through PRISM and use it for their own purposes. We've seen cases of Gardai and social protection staff feeding information to insurance companies for money. I don't think it takes a massive conspiracy theory to see how this kind of data could be sold or abused.

There is also a very practical issue around how they build the database. Are they going to tie down every adult in the state who refuses to give a sample and take a sample by force? Are they going to take a sample from every visitor, or immigrant? Is there a significant number of rape cases or violent crimes that are going unsolved for lack of resources? What specific problem are we trying to solve here? Will this encourage violent criminals to proceed to kill and dispose of the body in a way that destroys DNA evidence after raping? Will it encourage criminals to be more DNA aware, like the rapist who forced the victim to shower after the attack?


----------



## Delboy (12 Sep 2013)

From what I saw on the news, the DNA samples will only be identifiable by barcode in the lab. There is also a committee overseeing the project with a Judge as chairman.

I have no problem whatsoever with a national DNA database. Instead of seeing all the negatives that have being espoused on this thread, I'd rather look at the positives.
-Solving crimes much quicker 
-Solving cold cases
-Just solving cases that might never otherwise be solved
-Preventing crime (I heard the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre on the radio yesterday talking about the huge number of rapes never solved, and how international evidence points to repeat offenders who don't get caught for ages as being a major issue)

I'd hazard a guess that if you polled victims (or their families) of serious crimes over the past 20 years, they'd be overwhelmingly in favour.

I'd say if AAM (just to use it as an example) was around when the wheel was invented, there'd be people on here saying it was a bad thing as it means the Gardai would be too quick to go after people they did'nt like for crimes they did'nt commit!!!


----------



## Betsy Og (12 Sep 2013)

Delboy said:


> I'd say if AAM (just to use it as an example) was around when the wheel was invented, there'd be people on here saying it was a bad thing as it means the Gardai would be too quick to go after people they did'nt like for crimes they did'nt commit!!!


 
I'd say that complaint would be well down the queue behind such staples as blaming the public service for having held up it's invention, castigating all those who paid in cash for their wheel etc etc


----------



## Brendan Burgess (12 Sep 2013)

Delboy said:


> I'd say if AAM (just to use it as an example) was around when the wheel was invented, there'd be people on here saying it was a bad thing as it means the Gardai would be too quick to go after people they did'nt like for crimes they did'nt commit!!!



 

That is brilliant.


----------



## MrMan (13 Sep 2013)

Brendan Burgess said:


> 1) You are not taking any risk. No one has shown how a Garda or anyone else can misuse this data.
> 
> 2)  There is a huge benefit to society. If a friend of yours gets raped, the Gardai would have  a good chance of identifying the culprit quickly.  This is good for catching rapists and it frees up the Gardai to do other duties.



1. Risk is generally attached to what we can't be sure about, and what we know now isn't definitive.

2. If there is DNA evidence found on any victim as it stands it can be used against a suspect when they are caught, but how many are caught this way? I would have thought that any serial offender would take adequate precautions to eliminate this risk.

Furthermore, people want to exercise their own right to privacy, and if I want to remain a private individual without being tagged like an animal, I would wish that that right was respected.


----------



## Betsy Og (13 Sep 2013)

I think Inda should roll out his social contract again. Citizens are free to do what they want as long as they dont break the law (&that includes pay their taxes and charges).

Beyond that IF they want anything from the State they should "play ball", so if you want:

Social Welfare (including childrens allowances) you help the State in any reasonable way you might - e.g. giving a DNA sample.

Same goes for public health etc.

If on the other hand you stray over the line and are convicted of a serious offence(s) you start to lose rights, so your right to withold a DNA sample goes, your right to SW, your right to health care. If you're happy to roll in and out of jail, or just sit at home doing nothing but draw the dole, then you're living in a consequence-free country !!

We all want the bits that suit us, no-one wants to pay or help, so the State has to do its best to marshall the unruly mob. It's not perfect, but neither are we.


----------



## RainyDay (13 Sep 2013)

Betsy Og said:


> I think Inda should roll out his social contract again. Citizens are free to do what they want as long as they dont break the law (&that includes pay their taxes and charges).
> 
> Beyond that IF they want anything from the State they should "play ball", so if you want:
> 
> ...



I presume you'd suggest that the same rules apply to anyone getting mortgage interest relief from the State, or any business getting support from their local Country Enterprise Board or Enterprise Ireland, or any farmer getting a State subsidy - they lose all their rights to withhold a DNA sample too, right?


----------



## Betsy Og (13 Sep 2013)

RainyDay said:


> I presume you'd suggest that the same rules apply to anyone getting mortgage interest relief from the State, or any business getting support from their local Country Enterprise Board or Enterprise Ireland, or any farmer getting a State subsidy - they lose all their rights to withhold a DNA sample too, right?


 
Yes, you're either in or you're out, as long as the request is reasonable. A la cart is grand, but I think the honest people are getting sick of getting leeched off. It wont cost anyone anything to give a DNA sample, enforce your rights if you want but dont then come looking for a handout when it suits you.


----------



## Latrade (13 Sep 2013)

Using these two points together:



Delboy said:


> From what I saw on the news, the DNA samples will only be identifiable by barcode in the lab. There is also a committee overseeing the project with a Judge as chairman.
> 
> I have no problem whatsoever with a national DNA database. Instead of seeing all the negatives that have being espoused on this thread, I'd rather look at the positives.
> -Solving crimes much quicker
> ...


 


Brendan Burgess said:


> 1) You are not taking any risk. No one has shown how a Garda or anyone else can misuse this data.
> 
> 2) There is a huge benefit to society. If a friend of yours gets raped, the Gardai would have a good chance of identifying the culprit quickly. This is good for catching rapists and it frees up the Gardai to do other duties.




The rape argument seems to be the most emotive, as does murder. But, I've yet to see any figures on what the database would add to successful conviction. 

What proportion of rape cases return a not guilty verdict on the basis of the difficulties with consent rather than an unknown or unproven rapist? We could have all the DNA in the world, but if most cases hinge on whether or not it was consentual rather than if it was the accused or not, then that seems to indicate we won't have a huge increase in convictions from the database.

Similarly murder, we don't have serial murderers here. We might, we could, but most murders are linked to criminal activity and domestic/family issues/feuds. So who did the crime isn't really in doubt, it is their motives.

So for me, before we are asked to give up privacy (and I understand some are more protective of theirs than others and that does not imply guilt, just, like me, I want the state out of my personal life as much as possible), what actual benefit will follow from this. Just how much Gardai time will be free now as a result of super fast convictions and what will they be doing with that time? If we can currently organise for Gardai to patrol roads to give tickets to cyclists and people using bus lanes, then surely we can free up time for investigating serious crime? 

Is solving one rape case that would have never .

The system needs to be tested first. Not based on computer models or judicial oversight (PRISM has judicial oversight too), but like good tech companies who hand over new devices and systems to professional hackers to see what the exploits are. We know the was and is corruption with the Gardai, we need to know the system is 100% secure.


----------



## MrMan (13 Sep 2013)

Betsy Og said:


> I think Inda should roll out his social contract again. Citizens are free to do what they want as long as they dont break the law (&that includes pay their taxes and charges).
> 
> Beyond that IF they want anything from the State they should "play ball", so if you want:
> 
> ...



Do we not 'help the state' through taxes, household charges, motor tax, water rates etc? If I loss my job and need SW for a month or two between jobs, I would suggest that I have earned the right to claim SW without having to lose my right to privacy. 
I find the idea of pensioners and the unemployed being seperated into a different class from those able and employed crass to say the least.


----------



## michaelm (13 Sep 2013)

Betsy Og said:


> A la cart is grand, but I think the honest people are getting sick of getting leeched off. It wont cost anyone anything to give a DNA sample, enforce your rights if you want but dont then come looking for a handout when it suits you.


Where does it end?  Maybe you're kids can't attend school unless you agree to whatever vaccinations the state demands.  This happens in some American states.  Narcolepsy anyone?  This DNA database is ultimately to be shared with all EU countries.  I'll not be giving any DNA, legal requirements notwithstanding.


----------



## Vanilla (13 Sep 2013)

Here's a link to an article from Genewatch UK about this topic:

http://www.genewatch.org/uploads/f03c6d66a9b354535738483c1c3d49e4/infopack_fin.pdf

(4)


----------



## Betsy Og (13 Sep 2013)

MrMan said:


> I find the idea of pensioners and the unemployed being seperated into a different class from those able and employed crass to say the least.


 
It's only you making that distinction - you'll notice I said childrens allowance, claimable by the uber-rich to those not in employment - in a nutshell I'm saying if you want all the good stuff you should be prepared to help out - not subject yourself to medical trials - just have a cotton swab collected - not the end of the world.

On the positives of the database, maybe it'll prevent you from inadvertenly marrying your half sister/brother, as this country slides into GerrySpringer-dom I'm sure it's regularly happening, maybe when you give your 6 months notice they'll do a cross-check and let you know !!


----------



## Black Sheep (13 Sep 2013)

I'm just uncomfortable with this whole DNA idea mainly because of the storage and the access to same. 
We've had incidents where unauthorized persons accessed information. There is no system which is completely secure


----------



## Brendan Burgess (13 Sep 2013)

Black Sheep said:


> I'm just uncomfortable with this whole DNA idea mainly because of the storage and the access to same.
> We've had incidents where unauthorized persons accessed information. There is no system which is completely secure



This is a vague notion of lack of comfort. 

The information cannot be used against you, other than to identify you as a suspect in a serious crime. 

People have this vague idea of privacy.  Privacy in any reasonable use of the word, is not remotely affected by this, unless people mean the privacy of not answering to crimes.


----------



## Delboy (13 Sep 2013)

People don't seem to have a privacy issue when it comes to mobile phones...in theory it's the same as being micro-chipped. All your movements can be tracked by authorities if they have a reason to.
It seems privacy issues only come to the fore if the system being proposed has no direct or apparent benefits to the some people!


----------



## blueband (13 Sep 2013)

compairing a mobile phone to handing over your personal DNA to the state to be used as they see fit is laughable. your mobile phone is hardly likely to turn up at the scene of a crime unless you drop it there yourself!


----------



## Sunny (13 Sep 2013)

Delboy said:


> People don't seem to have a privacy issue when it comes to mobile phones...in theory it's the same as being micro-chipped. All your movements can be tracked by authorities if they have a reason to.
> It seems privacy issues only come to the fore if the system being proposed has no direct or apparent benefits to the some people!



You just said it yourself. IF THEY HAVE A REASON TO. They can't get hold of my mobile records without a court order. At the moment, we have a system where everyone is innocent until proven guilty. You go down the road of having everyone's DNA on file, everyones mobile and email traffic monitored and you are basically going down the road of saying everyone is guilty until proved innocent. 

Why should I have Police turn up at my door just because my DNA was somehow found at a crime scene even though there is nothing else to link me to a crime. Why am I suddenly in a position where I have to prove my innocence?


----------



## Delboy (13 Sep 2013)

blueband said:


> compairing a mobile phone to handing over your personal DNA to the state to be used as they see fit is laughable. your mobile phone is hardly likely to turn up at the scene of a crime unless you drop it there yourself!



I dont see how. People are talking here about their privacy and the state monitoring them. Someone even mentioned micro-chipping!
The DNA database has a strict set of governing rules, an overseeing committee. Some on here make it sound like a drive-thru for the Gardai to take samples out and use as they see fit. 

Having a mobile phone means your every move could be tracked if the State so wished. But people don't have an issue with that as I said earlier because practically everyone has one and benefits directly.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (13 Sep 2013)

Sunny said:


> Why should I have Police turn up at my door just because my DNA was somehow found at a crime scene even though there is nothing else to link me to a crime. Why am I suddenly in a position where I have to prove my innocence?



You don't have to prove your innocence.  You are innocent until proven guilty.  

But if your DNA is found at the scene, I think that that Gardai are fully entitled to ask you how it got there. 

You could well have been at the scene but not involved in the crime. 

And it's remotely possible that it is a false positive. 

Brendan


----------



## MrMan (14 Sep 2013)

Betsy Og said:


> It's only you making that distinction - you'll notice I said childrens allowance, claimable by the uber-rich to those not in employment - in a nutshell I'm saying if you want all the good stuff you should be prepared to help out - not subject yourself to medical trials - just have a cotton swab collected - not the end of the world.
> 
> On the positives of the database, maybe it'll prevent you from inadvertenly marrying your half sister/brother, as this country slides into GerrySpringer-dom I'm sure it's regularly happening, maybe when you give your 6 months notice they'll do a cross-check and let you know !!



*Beyond that IF they want anything from the State they should "play ball", so if you want:*

That's actually what you said, and you didn't mention uber rich, just childrens allowance. 
I'm already married so I'll just have to cross my fingers that my OH isn't a relation, even though I'm sure cross referencing our DNA results would have added to the early stages romance.


----------



## MrMan (14 Sep 2013)

Delboy said:


> I dont see how. People are talking here about their privacy and the state monitoring them. Someone even mentioned micro-chipping!
> The DNA database has a strict set of governing rules, an overseeing committee. Some on here make it sound like a drive-thru for the Gardai to take samples out and use as they see fit.
> 
> Having a mobile phone means your every move could be tracked if the State so wished. But people don't have an issue with that as I said earlier because practically everyone has one and benefits directly.



I can chose to not have a mobile phone though, so why shouldn't I chose not to have my DNA taken?


----------



## Delboy (14 Sep 2013)

MrMan said:


> I can chose to not have a mobile phone though, so why shouldn't I chose not to have my DNA taken?



And do you not have a mobile!!! There's more mobile phones than people in this country...95%+ 'choose' to have them


----------



## blueband (15 Sep 2013)

the hint is in the word choose......meaning a matter of choice, not something forced upon you by state or government.


----------



## ashambles (15 Sep 2013)

> Originally Posted by *Delboy* http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?p=1350329#post1350329
> I dont see how. People are talking  here about their privacy and the state monitoring them. Someone even  mentioned micro-chipping!
> The DNA database has a strict set of governing rules, an overseeing  committee. Some on here make it sound like a drive-thru for the Gardai  to take samples out and use as they see fit.


You may be mistaking the proposed database for serious offenders which is relatively common versus a theoretical universal database which no country has so far been stupid enough to create. 

There is no committee meeting on a universal database, if there was the last person I'd want heading it up would be a judge, you need someone independent with an understanding of the mathematics involved - a maths or statistics professor would be my choice.

Also I believe the ECHR would block a universal database, based on complaints they had on the UK's system where they stored DNA a little too freely.

A possible solution for those who can't understand the problems of a universal database would be an opt in process where they could sign up to add their samples to the serious offenders database. 
Clearly they'd have nothing to fear and indeed it would simply lead to a better quality of database.  Indeed they should be demanding the government share their sample with Europol, FBI etc. Maybe a few governments who'd be happy say with 7 loci matches etc.


----------



## Ceist Beag (16 Sep 2013)

Brendan Burgess said:


> You don't have to prove your innocence.  You are innocent until proven guilty.
> 
> But if your DNA is found at the scene, I think that that Gardai are fully entitled to ask you how it got there.
> 
> ...



And if you cannot remember how it got there Brendan? Are the Gardai then fully entitled to consider you a suspect? So you do have to prove you are at least innocent of being at the crime scene at the time of the crime in your book? Should the Gardai not have to have at least some further evidence before being allowed to play the DNA card  - I think so.


----------



## Leo (16 Sep 2013)

blueband said:


> your mobile phone is hardly likely to turn up at the scene of a crime unless you drop it there yourself!



So are you suggesting that someone could extract your DNA profile from a database and then generate a piece of evidence to be planted at a crime scene?


----------



## RainyDay (16 Sep 2013)

I'm wondering what database of 'everybody' will the DNA be based on? Do we have a list of 'everybody' in the country to work from?


----------



## Purple (17 Sep 2013)

I’m with the pinko’s on this one; I’m not comfortable with the state having a file of everyone’s DNA.
I don’t trust them not to misuse it and I don’t trust them not to give other countries access to it. 

Even if they don’t misuse it the state should not have that sort of information on its citizens. Other than taxation there should be no master databases that are specific to individuals and encompass everyone. It’s too Big Brother.
What if they want to find out who is carrying a particular gene or prone to a particular behaviour? Remember that this is one of the faster moving areas of science and medicine and once instituted a genetic database would be in place forever (or forever in practical terms). Who knows what it could be used for in the future.


----------



## delgirl (17 Sep 2013)

I remember this terrible story of a female stalker falsifying DNA evidence against her victim by retrieving one of his condoms from a rubbish bin to back up claims he raped her. 

The poor man was charged and eventually cleared, but it turned his life upsidedown.

Scientists have also confirmed that they can construct a sample of DNA to match a person's profile _without obtaining any tissue from that person_. 

There have been other cases where DNA has been planted purposely, using hair, saliva from cups, etc. or through cross contamination by crime scene investigators.

It's certainly not 100% foolproof, but in cases like that of the conviction of John Crerar, it was DNA that eventually solved the case 23 years later.


----------



## blueband (17 Sep 2013)

Leo said:


> So are you suggesting that someone could extract your DNA profile from a database and then generate a piece of evidence to be planted at a crime scene?


only if you were stupid enough to volunteer your DNA to a data base in the first place..


----------



## Leo (17 Sep 2013)

blueband said:


> only if you were stupid enough to volunteer your DNA to a data base in the first place..



Why aren't they planting fingerprint evidence at all crime scenes so? I think you're giving the average Garda a lot of credit thinking they can somehow plant DNA evidence at a crime scene with only a DB entry to go on!


----------



## blueband (17 Sep 2013)

what it comes down to is the fact that we would have no idea who exactly would have access to such a database if it ever existed..as purple says the state could even give other countries access to it!...way too risky


----------



## RainyDay (18 Sep 2013)

Leo said:


> Why aren't they planting fingerprint evidence at all crime scenes so? I think you're giving the average Garda a lot of credit thinking they can somehow plant DNA evidence at a crime scene with only a DB entry to go on!



No need to plant evidence when you can just change the database entry to match the evidence that you've found.


----------



## dam099 (18 Sep 2013)

RainyDay said:


> No need to plant evidence when you can just change the database entry to match the evidence that you've found.


 
Exactly, or on the flip side alter the labs report on the DNA evidence to match the database entry. Some of the top computer companies in the world and the Pentagon can't keep hackers out of their systems so can we rely on the Irish government to keep theirs secure? Right now to frame someone by hacking, you would need access to the lab testing any DNA evidence and their DNA profile, which fortunately isn't on a database right now so short of physical access to your DNA they can't get it. If you were to create a universal database then both profiles needed are potentially available to a hacker.

Retesting by the defence for a trial might ultimately prove innocence but the State doesn't have a good track record on owning up to its mistakes so I'd be wary. Also sometimes there may only be enough of the DNA evidence sample for one test, if that test is altered the only way to prove it might be to find evidence of tampering with the computer systems.  

Also being arrested, questioned and perhaps spending time on remand for a serious crime are themselves pretty severe consequences even if an innocent person were to be ultimately exonerated by retesting.


----------



## Purple (18 Sep 2013)

I'm sure that if your DNA was found, based on a database entry, they would check you again to confirm that it was correct.


----------



## Latrade (18 Sep 2013)

dam099 said:


> Exactly, or on the flip side alter the labs report on the DNA evidence to match the database entry. Some of the top computer companies in the world and the Pentagon can't keep hackers out of their systems so can we rely on the Irish government to keep theirs secure? Right now to frame someone by hacking, you would need access to the lab testing any DNA evidence and their DNA profile, which fortunately isn't on a database right now so short of physical access to your DNA they can't get it. If you were to create a universal database then both profiles needed are potentially available to a hacker.


 
And Kevin Mitnick could launch nuclear missles just by a specific whistle down the phone*. 

Unfortunately no such hack has given access to the types of information you suspect. It's not to say there wouldn't have to be serious questions and precautions in place to protect the database, but that kind of access you fear is more a facet of Hollywood than reality.

Then Pentagon has suffered DNS attacks, which isn't hacking. Major corporations have had people access databases on passwords, credit cards etc which is a concern I'd agree, but easily secured.

The biggest concern would be the people in charge of the database. How trained are they on Social Engineering (not at all), but a better example would be the numerous breaches of Data Protection from HSE, Banks and Services from losing and disposing of laptops and USB Keys. 

I share all concern about the state's ability or capability of securing the system. For example Gardai still, illegally, access PULSE, but also the falability of those in charge, the encryption of the information, etc. However, I wouldn't worry too much about the Hollywood style hackers (but Sneakers is still an awesome film).




*he couldn't, that was an absurd accusation from the prosecution that a Judge actually believed could happen.


----------



## Leo (18 Sep 2013)

RainyDay said:


> No need to plant evidence when you can just change the database entry to match the evidence that you've found.



But how would your average, or even well above average Garda get write access and change DB records and cover up the standard record versioning history? I have DBAs with 15+ years experience that couldn't do that to internal databases we have that aren't exposed to the internet, or hold data that anyone external would be interested in.

Why isn't this happening wholesale with fingerprints?


----------



## dam099 (18 Sep 2013)

Leo said:


> But how would your average, or even well above average Garda get write access and change DB records and cover up the standard record versioning history? I have DBAs with 15+ years experience that couldn't do that to internal databases we have that aren't exposed to the internet, or hold data that anyone external would be interested in.
> 
> Why isn't this happening wholesale with fingerprints?


 
Its not just Garda misuse we need to fear. What if for example the Chinese Government (who have teams of cyber warfare experts) want to discredit a dissident or human rights activist living in Ireland?  Being a suspect for a serious crime even if later exonerated would muddy their reputation, it might not be likely but those sorts of possibilities should be of concern.


----------



## dam099 (18 Sep 2013)

Latrade said:


> Then Pentagon has suffered DNS attacks, which isn't hacking.


 
The US Government themselves allege Gary McKinnon did more than just a DNS attack http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_McKinnon


----------



## dam099 (18 Sep 2013)

Latrade said:


> I share all concern about the state's ability or capability of securing the system. For example Gardai still, illegally, access PULSE, but also the falability of those in charge, the encryption of the information, etc. However, I wouldn't worry too much about the Hollywood style hackers (but Sneakers is still an awesome film).


 
To be honest this would be my concern more than hackers etc. Some underwriter in an insurance company bribing or otherwise influencing someone with access to get a profile so he can screen for genetic disorders etc a few years down the line when DNA mapping is cheaper and more easily done.


----------



## Leo (19 Sep 2013)

dam099 said:


> Its not just Garda misuse we need to fear. What if for example the Chinese Government (who have teams of cyber warfare experts) want to discredit a dissident or human rights activist living in Ireland?  Being a suspect for a serious crime even if later exonerated would muddy their reputation, it might not be likely but those sorts of possibilities should be of concern.



They do, but they're generally more focused on stealing military designs or other intellectual property. The effort and coordination required to do that is also very significant. They could steal data, but you just can't plant data without leaving a very big footprints.

What if the DB was never internet connected?


----------



## Time (22 Sep 2013)

In most of Europe in order to get a passport you have to present yourself at a police station to have your fingerprints taken, which are then stored on your passport and police records. 

Thankfully the UK and Ireland have opted out of this system.


----------



## bstop (30 Sep 2013)

The problem with DNA is that "your" DNA can be easily placed at the  scene of a crime by a clever criminal to divert the attention of the  Gardai to you. If the state had DNA samples of all its citizens consider  the following.

Anybody can collect DNA samples without  difficulty. Get access to the waste bins at Hairdressers or Barbers and  you can quickly amass a wide selection of random hair samples containing  DNA. These hairs can then be placed at the crime scene incriminating  you. 

Here is a good business plan. Collect waste hair from  thousands of Hairdressers bins worldwide. Mix it all together and  pulverise into microscopic particles. Sell this on the internet to would  be criminals. They can lightly sprinkle this dust at their crime scene  and implicate half of the planet in their crime. 

The taxpayer would have to pay for thousands of DNA tests after every crime.


----------



## Leo (30 Sep 2013)

bstop said:


> Anybody can collect DNA samples without  difficulty. Get access to the waste bins at Hairdressers or Barbers and  you can quickly amass a wide selection of random hair samples containing  DNA. These hairs can then be placed at the crime scene incriminating  you.



You do realise that cut hair is absolutely useless for the extraction of DNA? Even when the full root is present, DNA extraction is only 60-70% successful.


----------



## Sunny (30 Sep 2013)

I think some people have very active imaginations and are watching too much CSI.


----------



## TarfHead (30 Sep 2013)

Leo said:


> You do realise that cut hair is absolutely useless for the extraction of DNA? Even when the full root is present, DNA extraction is only 60-70% successful.


 
Yeah, but Nidge still shaves his head.



Coincidence ?


----------



## Leo (1 Oct 2013)

TarfHead said:


> Yeah, but Nidge still shaves his head.
> 
> 
> 
> Coincidence ?




Very good.


----------

