Well then you will be delighted to know that they think the database is a good idea as long as privacy is protected.
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.
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.
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.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?
We have them today. Here you go.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.
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.
Too funny.Well then you will be delighted to know that they think the database is a good idea as long as privacy is protected.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.It seems to me that the only objections to this database are based on massive conspiracy theories and abstract ideas 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.
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.
.
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...
Jimmy doesnt have to give a sample of DNA. But if he is already on the database...
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.
.. that way they could track us from the minute we left our homes..
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.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?