New DNA rules may still breach human rights

I like traffic lights

Until The Sun gets hold of this story and can dumb it down enough for the oiks to understand we are going to continue to be harrased by the people who supposedly work for us.

Mr Policeman: Is that a camera you're holding towards me?

J.Public : No, it's my phone

Mr Policeman: I am arresting you under s44 of the fear act, let me put this swab in your mouth. Welcome to the database sonny.

J.Public : But I haven't done anything wrong!

Mr Policeman: Not yet you haven't, but by the time we've scraped your home computer for random data and ask you for the key to decrypt it you'll be spending the next 10 years in chokey.

J.Public : Oh, ok. Well, as long as it's for THE GREATER GOOD, I have nothing to hide.

What's beyond despair?

No doubt

Some idiot will post the usual "nothing to fear, nothing to hide" line soon, so in a probably futile attempt to discourage them...

Please, for the love of freedom, look that phrase up on a search engine, and read about it. If you still think DNA retention of the information of the innocent is ok, then read it again more carefully, because you really have not understood it.

If you continue to think it's ok, then please send me a copy of your passport and credit card bills, take down all your curtains, and install a webcam in your bedroom. (Oh, and shave your head and call yourself "Winston" too while you're at it)

Mine's the one with pockets full of dust collected from public transport - never know when you might want to "seed" a scene...

WTF

What part of " you may not retain the DNA of innocent people" does this idiot government not understand ?

Time for sanctions to be applied until NuLab get the message

Laws yet to come

Speeding used to require a police car in pursuit for 2/3 mile with lights flashing, and the penalties were set within this context. Unfortunately "conviction creep" has now made this an automated and massively enforced revenue stream.

Who is to say that in response to public disgust over discarded cigarette ends, the DNA database will be used to identify the social pariahs responsible and to serve them with a hefty fine (now standing at £75 i believe)

The sad thing is, most people would probably think it was a good thing, blind to the chains they bind themselves with.

Well if you've nothing to hide, then you've nothing to fear have you?

Sorry, It's the medication....

The white coat with the long strappy arms please.

Nothing to hide, nothing to fear

Only when I have nothing to fear will I have nothing to hide.

Dear Labour Politicians ....

As Members of Parliament you are supposed to be representing the public, not ruling over them. We are not your subjects you are our representatives.

Why do you seem only to want to listen to the authoritarian police and the sales guys of the identity card systems?

Perhaps this system is needed because to want to track the 1 in 11 people living in the UK who were not born in this country?

Even the EC say you have got it wrong.

Fingers too

The ECHR ruling covered, er, finger fingerprints as well as DNA fingerprints. Why do reporters so seldom mention this? It's probably more significant than the DNA story.

fear or no fear that is the question...

I don’t know which way to go with this.... one side of me thinks that if everyone’s DNA was taken at birth and held in a database then the ability to get away with crime may be reduced,,, well, for a short while anyway... until everyone becomes more forensically aware...

Personally, I would run the database on a two tear system.... run by two separate agencies. The DNA database would be referenced by a number only... any queries would be run against the database and the supplied reference number would be issued if there was a match. Only then would they be able to look up and retrieve the identity of the sample.. A lot of messing about i know, but it would keep the data a little more secure than the usual gubbermint fiasco..

But on the other hand.... unless you have been found guilty of something then why should you be on any database. I believe if you have been found guilty of a crime, then your right to have human rights should be withdrawn, and you should suffer the consequences...

The police these days are relying far too much on DNA to solve crime. It’s far from perfect and has many holes in the way samples are tested and compared that a guilty person can go free and even worse, a innocent person goes to the gallows... gross miscarriages of justice would take place just because the person on data input had a bit of a heavy weekend on the apple juice and enters some data incorrectly.... the database cannot tell lies can it?

I think I just decided which way to go.... let’s get the placards out “DNA database NO NO NO” this has to be stopped NOW

(c) Me

I consider my own DNA copyright, and I don't assign that copyright to anyone, for any reason. Therefore by copying my code, they are in violation of my copyright. In which case, every law they bring in to protect against piracy applies against government plans to steal and exploit our DNA.

Checkmate.

As they want to keep creating ever more Big Brother laws, then its time to use their own laws against them. ;)

If they complain, then thats the signal to move to phase 2, which is to also invoke their Regulation of Investigatory Powers act to spy on their communications of our DNA. ;)

No smoke without fire

@ACs 9-Dec 13:06 & 13:32

Yes, but the trouble is that in Plod's mind, all that {a .. e} have demonstrated is their lack of involvement _in that particular crime_. And statistically, someone who comes to Plod's attention once is more likely to do so again in future than is some randomly-chosen man in the street, and, reasons Plod, if there's a next time they may not be so innocent - so keeping the DNA profile on record for a while is - to Plod - simply good sense. And because anyone whose presence in the vicinity was really, truely, scout's honour genuinely coincidental isn't all _that_ likely to come under suspicion again before their profile is erased[*], Plod and his in-house lobbyists at the Home Office will say "the innocent have little to fear" - and probably even believe what they're saying.

That the retention of DNA profiles of individuals who have not been charged with any crime drives a coach and horses over the common-law presumption of innocence until proven guilty is, I'm afraid, a concept that now has little weight or relevance in the day-to-day work of security services and Home Office administrators, if, indeed, it ever had. A strong Home Secretary with a clear grasp of his duties can reign in the innate authoritarianism of his bailiwick for a while; unfortunately most occupants of the office in the last few decades (honourable exception imho: the late Roy Jenkins) have been naturally predisposed to be illiberal or have rapidly "gone native" after appointment.

It's a poor reflection of the rule of law in contemporary England that it's being left to an international body to try and inject some understanding of basic principles of justice into our would-be lords and masters.

[*]Well, at least until Plod & Co. have agitated to extend the retention period so that it eventually becomes to all intents and purposes indefinite.