Strathclyde Police, Scotland,
March 20, 2001 4:02 AM Subscribe
Sir John Orr, Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police, denied that compulsory testing would infringe people's human rights. He said: "The tests are not invasive, not intrusive and not against civil liberties. The vast majority of people will be asked only to give a simple mouth swab, which can be done in seconds. This is a magnificent tool which will help detect crime and the public should be very pleased."
Read: you have nothing to fear if you're innocent...
Maybe it isn't. Of course one could always say that dna is easier to database and mine than fingerprints are (could be wrong here - I don't read Fingerprint Whorld often). And that dna tells so much more about a person than
simply name and address.
But hey, I'm no expert. I figured you guys were.
posted by methylsalicylate at 5:13 AM on March 20, 2001
Animal testing?
posted by frednorman at 5:13 AM on March 20, 2001
posted by darren at 5:30 AM on March 20, 2001
Because if someone with enough knowledge has your dna, they can (or very soon will be able to) clone you. But why would anyone want to clone people that have been arrested? Paranoid thought of the day - what if some criminal mastermind somehow gets his hands on a database full of murderer and rapist DNA? A modern-day Fagan with his gang of genetically-selected evil clones?!
A bit silly, I know....and in fact I think the database would contain genetic markers rather than the full dna code of a person. If this is the case, I would agree with it for suspected rapists, etc. But not for someone who was jaywalking or some such thing. It seems like there should be a very, very good reason to be forced to give up something as private and personal as your DNA to the government!!
posted by u.n. owen at 5:46 AM on March 20, 2001
Not all suspected rapists turn out to be rapists (not all rapists are convicted, either; but that's another conversation). It seems quite a different thing to take dna samples from *convicted* felons, as in darren's Virginia example, vs. anyone who is arrested.
posted by methylsalicylate at 6:14 AM on March 20, 2001
At this point, the police have the name of a suspect from which they can continue to check on means, motive, opportunity and all that. If DNA is the only evidence that they have then with a suspect in hand, they could do a direct comparison and destroy the suspect's sample afterwards since it's the results that matter.
posted by plinth at 6:36 AM on March 20, 2001
I think what they do when they do DNA tests in criminal cases is they analyze a sample of DNA by chopping it up using these enzymes ("restriction enzymes") that specifically cut DNA at short, defined sequences of nucleotides. Then they analyze the relative sizes of the various fragments. Since everyone has different DNA, everyone will have a different cleavage pattern.
And even if they did have your genetic sequence in some database, they still wouldn't be able to clone you. We can only synthesize sequences of DNA about 100 nucleotides long right now--maybe splice a few dozen of these together if you use some newer tricks. But there's no way you'd be able to synthesize something the size of a mammalian genome.
posted by shylock at 9:54 AM on March 20, 2001
posted by xammerboy at 10:04 AM on March 20, 2001
posted by Skot at 10:22 AM on March 20, 2001
posted by thirteen at 3:09 PM on March 20, 2001
-Mars
posted by Mars Saxman at 4:22 PM on March 20, 2001
posted by rodii at 4:52 PM on March 20, 2001
posted by shylock at 6:07 PM on March 20, 2001
If it makes you feel any better, I'm just as uncomfortable about the fact that my fingerprints are on file with the FBI (thanks a lot, mom and dad) as I am about the idea of having identifiable bits of my genes on file there too. I *don't* like fingerprinting or any other form of biometrics. Leave me alone and let me be anonymous, please.
-Mars
posted by Mars Saxman at 6:35 PM on March 20, 2001
They most certainly can't clone you....perhaps not now. But the human genome project has caused the entire genome to be mapped, and every day scientists are at work to map those genes to personality. Recently a pair of genes for schizophrenia was discovered. And according to a quote from that link to wired magazine, 'the hunt for culpable genes is still on'.
I'm not saying that right now someone can clone us or understand our personalities from our dna. But they're working on it.
We can only synthesize sequences of DNA about 100 nucleotides long right now--maybe splice a few dozen of these together if you use some newer tricks.
I think the key word in that statement is 'right now'. I think we also need to make laws that look forward into the future.
posted by u.n. owen at 12:30 AM on March 21, 2001
posted by u.n. owen at 12:52 AM on March 21, 2001
I don't know. I may be playing into some smoke-veiled bad-ass-ness as I type this. And let me just say in my defense that I will never, ever submit to a "required" drug test, but that's mainly because I think it's a complete inversion of the presumption of innocence. But another part of me doesn't actually believe that the government or whatever boneheaded group of global conspiracists is quite capable of pulling off the types of things being discussed. Individuals can be scary-smart. Vast groups are hostage to their weakest link. And those weak links are usually bureaucrats. When was the last time you met a scary-smart bureaucrat?
In sum, I see where you folks are coming from. I guess I just don't share the paranoia (I know, that's a loaded term, and I don't mean it to offend--I just couldn't think of a better one).
posted by Skot at 1:07 AM on March 21, 2001
But I do think that an ounce of 'paranoia' about these types of issues is worth more than a pound of 'oh shit, we should've thought about that before it was too late'. And I definitely don't believe in trustingly putting this kind of power into the hands of government.
posted by u.n. owen at 2:27 AM on March 21, 2001
After all, the Bill is simply an attempt to clear the police after the fact, given that they currently hold thousands of samples illegally.
posted by holgate at 4:53 AM on March 21, 2001
1) Plain old civil liberties. You shouldn't willingly hand over to the government any more power than the minimum necessary for it to carry out its prescribed functions. Remember: Once you cede a liberty or a right to your government, you will never get it back, no matter how bad a decision that may turn out to have been umpteen years down the line.
2) Rational technology fears. Fingerprints aren't good for much besides fingering suspects. They can have your prints on file, but those aren't of a whole lot of use until something illegal occurs and the cops go in and start lifting prints from the crime scene. No matter how corrupt the police and/or government might get, they won't be able to eke out many other sneaky uses for fingerprint files. But there's any number of things they could do with DNA profiles, and the possibilities get broader every day. Just one example: They could start cross-referencing the DNA data with known markers for genetic diseases, and then sell the results to insurance companies and potential employers to make a few bucks. And the insurance companies and employers will then use that information against you. (Or, in the UK, use it to cut down on NHS expenses.) Slippery slope.
Sure, they say they don't do such things. And maybe they don't right this moment. But eventually someone, somewhere in the whole bureaucracy of government, will do such a thing. And once they do it, it's done and they will never try to put the genie back in the bottle. Look at holgate's link; the government MO is always to do first and find a way to make it legal later. So we shouldn't even give them the opportunity.
posted by aaron at 6:25 AM on March 21, 2001
As Simon Hughes of the Lib Dems said:
"We have not faced the question whether it is appropriate to move to a society in which the police can, without the individual's consent, hold such information. It is a large debate and goes to the heart of what information on the individual should be held by the authorities. Although I understand where the proposal comes from and the reason why the police and the National Criminal Intelligence Service would argue persuasively for its inclusion, that does not justify taking a decision of this magnitude in this way, at this time, without a wider debate."
One particular concern of the Criminal Justice Bill is that once consent is given to the taking of a "human sample", that consent is presumed to be given in perpetuo, for whatever use the relevant authorities deem fit. Also, the Bill amends existing law to allow unspecified international law-enforcement agencies to make profiling enquiries against the police database.
It's not as if Britain hasn't had enough scandal surrounding the surreptitious retention and supply of organs in hospitals. About time, I think, to embody Locke's "Every Man is a Property in his own Person" in law.
posted by holgate at 6:39 AM on March 21, 2001
« Older Boston area school divided | Here's your reparations money, now shut up! Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by m.polo at 4:51 AM on March 20, 2001