"GeorgiePorgiePuddingAndPie" wrote in message
...
"The Todal" wrote in message
...

I won't give any lectures of the sort you have mentioned, but I assume
you
have also considered whether it might be a good thing to help catch a
murderer who might still be a danger to society, and of course if the
murderer is proved to be dead the police might be able to devote more of
their efforts to solving other crimes.

I have already said that if the government changes the law so that there
is
statutory protection for people who give DNA samples voluntarily then I
would consent to the sample being taken. It rather depends on how much
the
state wants to clear up old cases versus its desire to build the DNA
database by stealth.

And I am curious to know whether you
would want to protect your father and your family from the possibility of
a
disgraceful revelation, or whether you see it only as a DNA personal data
issue.

I am long time campaigner on privacy issues so I am sort of expecting that
people will make unwarranted implications, as you have done.

No, it wasn't an implication nor was it unwarranted. I merely wondered
whether that had entered into your decision-making process.

That is one
very powerful reason for resisting. But really, this could all be settled
fairly amicably if the state were to grant unconvicted people rights over
the disposition of their DNA profiles. If it won't do that then it can
hardly be surprised if people take the stance I have taken.

I am one of those rash fools who don't actually care if the government has a
sample of my DNA on its system. I really don't care in the least. Maybe one
day it will enable the police to identify my remains after a terrorist
explosion or plane crash.

When I went on holiday to Florida and the Americans took my fingerprints at
every possible opportunity (eg when passing through passport control, when
entering any children's theme park and when entering museums) that didn't
worry me either and I didn't demand that my fingerprints be destroyed for
fear that I might be framed for a murder that I hadn't committed.

Nevertheless, if there are people who are worried about DNA records, I
respect their views. I just don't share them. Yet. Maybe one day I will.
Meanwhile, if the police were to ask me for a DNA sample and the process was
quick and painless, I'd placidly comply with their wishes.

The Todal wrote:

Nevertheless, if there are people who are worried about DNA records, I
respect their views. I just don't share them. Yet. Maybe one day I will.

By then it would probably be too late. I'm sure that at one time in
places like Germany, Argentina and Chile there were people who weren't
at all concerned by the records that the governments each maintained on
their citizens.

And if someone has a sample of DNA, the possibility of "seeding" a crime
scene with DNA also exists, however remote the probability that
possibility can be a cause for genuine concern.

It's so obvious and mind-numbingly simple to seed a crime scene with DNA
that I don't think it can be considered a remote possibility.

lid wrote:

And if someone has a sample of DNA, the possibility of "seeding" a crime
scene with DNA also exists, however remote the probability that
possibility can be a cause for genuine concern.

It's so obvious and mind-numbingly simple to seed a crime scene with DNA
that I don't think it can be considered a remote possibility.

What I consider to be a remote possibility is someone obtaining a DNA
sample from what should be a secure store, adequately protected from
inapropriate access. But then again given the carelessness with which
government employees and contractors have treated personal data, and the
light (or zero) punishment handed out it's possible that my faith in
adequate security is misplaced.

On 2008-09-24, Steve Firth wrote:

The Todal wrote:

Nevertheless, if there are people who are worried about DNA records, I
respect their views. I just don't share them. Yet. Maybe one day I will.

By then it would probably be too late. I'm sure that at one time in
places like Germany, Argentina and Chile there were people who weren't
at all concerned by the records that the governments each maintained on
their citizens.

Even if you can trust your current government with the information,
who knows who will get it next?

GeorgiePorgiePuddingAndPie wrote:

I am long time campaigner on privacy issues so I am sort of expecting that
people will make unwarranted implications, as you have done. That is one
very powerful reason for resisting. But really, this could all be settled
fairly amicably if the state were to grant unconvicted people rights over
the disposition of their DNA profiles. If it won't do that then it can
hardly be surprised if people take the stance I have taken.

I agree with you and suggest you may start at Googling for Tor which
will help you protect your anonymity online. For extra anonymity, set
up your internet connection to act as a Tor server too as it increases
your plausible deniability (someone else accessed my internet
connection to say such-and-such).

There are more snitches and snoops watching Usenet than you might
think. I once asked a simple tax question and got an email from Inland
Revenue the next day telling me I had overpaid my tax so could I
please fill out my personal details and email them back. I'm PAYE and
have no other income stream so I'm certain it was a fishing
expedition...

Big Les Wade wrote:

Steve Firth posted
AFAIK it is policy that *all* profiles from volunteers will be loaded
onto the database and once there it will be extremely difficult to get
the sample removed.

Do you have a good source for this?

Yes the NDNAD annual report 2005/6

"Most volunteer samples are obtained from
victims, third parties or a member of a
population identified for an intelligence-led
screen, for elimination purposes in relation to
the investigation of a specific offence. Prior to
2001 they could only be used for that purpose
and the profiles could not be added to the
NDNAD. The CJPA 2001 for England, Wales and
Nothern Ireland changed that. These profiles
can now be added to the NDNAD, but only if the
person provides separate written consent, and
the consent form explains that once such
consent is given it cannot then be withdrawn."

(Page 30)

The requirement for consent is often fudged by the police who ask
volunteers to sign the consent form while pressuring them not to read
it.

"Adam Funk" wrote in message
...
On 2008-09-24, Steve Firth wrote:

The Todal wrote:

Nevertheless, if there are people who are worried about DNA records, I
respect their views. I just don't share them. Yet. Maybe one day I will.

By then it would probably be too late. I'm sure that at one time in
places like Germany, Argentina and Chile there were people who weren't
at all concerned by the records that the governments each maintained on
their citizens.

Even if you can trust your current government with the information,
who knows who will get it next?

I daresay there are many who would say it is the citizen's right to remain
totally anonymous and that we should always refuse to answer a census, or
supply our name or date of birth or mother's maiden name if requested to do
so.

Unfortunately in these modern times, it seems unavoidable. You won't be able
to open a bank account or even withdraw a large sum of money from your
account, without having to answer impertinent questions. You may have to
produce photo-id and you can't demand that if your face is caught on a CCTV
camera in the bank, all copies of that image must be destroyed.

I'm sorry but I think it is risible to suggest that if you give a sample of
DNA the end result might be that you get framed for a crime. "We're
arresting you for the murder of old Mrs Smeggins, who was strangled at her
home in Hove on 29th April. Yes, we know you were actually in Carlisle that
day and have no motive whatsoever that we can find, but your DNA is a
perfect match and that's enough for a court of law".

The Todal wrote:

I'm sorry but I think it is risible to suggest that if you give a sample of
DNA the end result might be that you get framed for a crime.

I used to think it was risibile that British police officers would hold
a man down on the floor of a train and empty a clip of bullets into the
back of his head.

The Todal wrote:
"Adam Funk" wrote in message
...
On 2008-09-24, Steve Firth wrote:

The Todal wrote:

Nevertheless, if there are people who are worried about DNA records, I
respect their views. I just don't share them. Yet. Maybe one day I will.
By then it would probably be too late. I'm sure that at one time in
places like Germany, Argentina and Chile there were people who weren't
at all concerned by the records that the governments each maintained on
their citizens.
Even if you can trust your current government with the information,
who knows who will get it next?

I daresay there are many who would say it is the citizen's right to remain
totally anonymous and that we should always refuse to answer a census, or
supply our name or date of birth or mother's maiden name if requested to do
so.

Unfortunately in these modern times, it seems unavoidable. You won't be able
to open a bank account or even withdraw a large sum of money from your
account, without having to answer impertinent questions. You may have to
produce photo-id and you can't demand that if your face is caught on a CCTV
camera in the bank, all copies of that image must be destroyed.

I'm sorry but I think it is risible to suggest that if you give a sample of
DNA the end result might be that you get framed for a crime. "We're
arresting you for the murder of old Mrs Smeggins, who was strangled at her
home in Hove on 29th April. Yes, we know you were actually in Carlisle that
day and have no motive whatsoever that we can find, but your DNA is a
perfect match and that's enough for a court of law".


I have made it clear that one of my main reasons for wanting to keep my
DNA off the database is because I may wish to commit a crime or crimes
in the future. A crime or crime that may not yet exist on the statute
book, although, quite frankly, I'm not exactly over the moon by some
that are there at the moment.

You do realise what happens, at the moment, to failed asylum-seeking
families whose countries refuse to take them back, I assume?

--
Sue