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

[Sunny]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

Too funny.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

.. 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]

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]

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]

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]

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!