Post by Steve Gardner on Feb 23, 2008 8:58:12 GMT
This is one of those examples where the case for an infringement on our civil liberties is a rather easy one to make, especially after murder suspects have been identified on the strength of DNA evidence. And especially when the authorities appear to be compiling a database by stealth anyway.
I know the article talks about the Home Office rejection of proposals for a DNA database, but rest assured, that's going to change. And we must resist it, in my view.
Yes, of course there will be circumstances such as those described below, that demonstrate a potential case-by-case value in such a database, but I believe the potential for widespread abuse outweighs those considerations.
What happens when corporate bodies get hold of the data? And they will; potential abuse almost always translates into actual - it's just a matter of time. The obvious example is insurance companies that, once aware that an individual has some sort of genetic susceptibility, will charge exorbitant premiums as a way of mitigating risk. And we're not just talking about health insurance - motor vehicle insurance premiums will be similarly be affected.
And what about companies more generally? In this increasingly security-conscious age - driven, by the way, by a phony War on Terror - employee screening is becoming de rigeur. How will they use any information they might obtain from a genetic screen?
Bad decisions are often made because we have our attention focussed on the often tragic human story. But we need to look beyond that to the bigger picture.
Source: BBC
I know the article talks about the Home Office rejection of proposals for a DNA database, but rest assured, that's going to change. And we must resist it, in my view.
Yes, of course there will be circumstances such as those described below, that demonstrate a potential case-by-case value in such a database, but I believe the potential for widespread abuse outweighs those considerations.
What happens when corporate bodies get hold of the data? And they will; potential abuse almost always translates into actual - it's just a matter of time. The obvious example is insurance companies that, once aware that an individual has some sort of genetic susceptibility, will charge exorbitant premiums as a way of mitigating risk. And we're not just talking about health insurance - motor vehicle insurance premiums will be similarly be affected.
And what about companies more generally? In this increasingly security-conscious age - driven, by the way, by a phony War on Terror - employee screening is becoming de rigeur. How will they use any information they might obtain from a genetic screen?
Bad decisions are often made because we have our attention focussed on the often tragic human story. But we need to look beyond that to the bigger picture.
Source: BBC
There are no plans to extend the DNA database to contain information from all people, the Home Office has said.
Calls for its content to be made universal have followed the conviction of two murderers using DNA evidence.
Suffolk serial killer Steve Wright and Sally Anne Bowman's murderer, Mark Dixie were both captured because their DNA was taken after unrelated offences.
But the Home Office said a mandatory database "would raise significant practical and ethical issues".
The DNA database, which covers England and Wales, currently contains around 4.5m profiles - routinely taken from criminal suspects after most arrests.
However, it could be threatened when European judges are asked to rule next week on a test case of two Britons who want their details removed from the database.
The applicants say their human rights have been infringed by the decision to leave their details on the database, despite the fact that they had never been found guilty of a crime.
Debate call
Steve Wright's profile was on the system after being convicted of theft in 2003.
When police found his DNA on the bodies of some of his victims they matched it with his profile.
But Mark Dixie was not on the system at the time of Sally Anne Bowman's murder.
It was only when he was arrested for assault after a fight in a bar that his DNA was taken and he was linked to the murder.
He was arrested within five hours.
Det Supt Stuart Cundy, who led the murder hunt, said: "It is my opinion that a national DNA register - with all its appropriate safeguards - could have identified Sally Anne's murderer within 24 hours.
"Instead it took nearly nine months before Mark Dixie was identified and almost two and a half years for justice to be done."
The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) is also calling for a debate on the issue.
'Vital role'
The Chief Constable of Lincolnshire, Tony Lake, speaks for the association on DNA.
He said: "If there was a national database of everybody then we would solve more crime, of that there is absolutely no doubt.
"In the conviction of Steve Wright - and today of Mark Dixie - you've heard about the vital importance that DNA played. But any database that we hold has to be reasonable and proportionate in the eyes of the public."
The statement issued by the Home Office said: "There are no government plans to introduce a universal compulsory, or voluntary, national DNA Database and to do so would raise significant practical and ethical issues."
The Times estimates if the two applicants succeed in their EU bid to have their records removed, 13% of the profiles on the database may have to be destroyed.
The pair, from Sheffield, had their DNA taken after they were arrested in 2001, but charges were not pressed.
They asked for their data to be removed from the DNA database but this was refused.
They are appealing on the grounds that Article Eight of the European Convention on Human Rights, the right to respect for private life, and Article 14, the prohibition of discrimination, have been violated.
