Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Is it right to have a national DNA database to tackle crime?

24

Comments

  • #52
    old_aussie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,410 ✭✭✭old_aussie


    Dave! wrote: »
    I'll just quote the article from thejournal.ie:

    So Dave, what are you actually contributing to this thread you started?

    What is your opinion on this DNA database?


  • #53
    amen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,781 ✭✭✭amen


    You should only have DNA taken if you are convicted of a crime not arrested.
    If you've nothing to hide what's the problem

    If you really believe this then a sample of everyones DNA should be taken at birth and then if there is a crime matched. After all if you are innocent then you have nothing to hide.


  • #54
    orourkeda
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,918 ✭✭✭✭orourkeda


    amen wrote: »
    You should only have DNA taken if you are convicted of a crime not arrested.



    If you really believe this then a sample of everyones DNA should be taken at birth and then if there is a crime matched. After all if you are innocent then you have nothing to hide.

    Wouldnt the presence of your DNA at a crime scene be used to imply or suggest guilt regardless of whether you were there or not. There could be any number of reasons your DNA got there.


  • #55
    old_aussie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,410 ✭✭✭old_aussie


    amen wrote: »
    You should only have DNA taken if you are convicted of a crime not arrested.

    Therefore, people who are driving and have a crash and kill someone should only be asked to have an alcohol test after they are convicted??? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:


  • #56
    Lu Tze
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,495 ✭✭✭Lu Tze


    Biggins wrote: »
    The important word above should be the underlined one.
    If you are not breaking the law - what the hell have you got to worry about?
    If your breaking the law, well ye reap as ye sow!

    Presumably you are also then in favour of random house searches, phone tappings and internet monitoring?

    After all - if you arent breaking the law what the hell would you have to worry about!?


  • #57
    aN.Droid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,911 ✭✭✭aN.Droid


    weldoninhio wrote: »
    I'd go even further and have it so that anyone that is arrested has their DNA taken and held on file. If you've nothing to hide what's the problem??

    I would go even further and have it so everyone that is arrested has to wear a monitored camera 24/7.If you have nothign to hide what's the problem? :rolleyes:


  • #58
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    old_aussie wrote: »
    So Dave, what are you actually contributing to this thread you started?

    What is your opinion on this DNA database?
    I'm all for it. I'm happy to give up a bit of personal freedom/integrity because in the grand scheme of things I think that crime is more of a threat to me than 'Big Brother'. If it makes it easier to secure prosecution against murderers, then happy days. I don't buy the slippery slope argument that, if we allow this, then we're heading towards an Orwellian situation! We can say 'enough', we still live in a democracy.

    I would expect that prosecution wouldn't be possible based on DNA evidence alone, but it could be used as another factor along with fingerprints, eye-witnesses, etc. If several lines of evidence converge on the same person, then we can be pretty confident. DNA can just be another line of evidence to use.


  • #59
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Lu Tze wrote: »
    Presumably you are also then in favour of random house searches, phone tappings and internet monitoring?

    After all - if you arent breaking the law what the hell would you have to worry about!?
    Lame argument. We're talking about a DNA database for convicted criminals and for people arrested for specific crimes. You're talking about something completely different.


  • #60
    Fremen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,481 ✭✭✭Fremen


    Biggins wrote: »
    If you are not breaking the law - what the hell have you got to worry about?
    If your breaking the law, well ye reap as ye sow!

    The law is so complicated that we have a whole industry dedicated to interpreting it. During a protest there's often a very large grey area.

    I don't really buy the "what have you to worry about" argument. I've never committed a major crime, but I've committed plenty of minor ones. I'm betting everyone who reads this has too. I never intend to commit a major crime, but someday I might. Besides, as a citizen in a democracy, it's my responsibility to see that criminals get treated fairly (I'm talking in generalities here, not in regard to a DNA database). Not all laws are just, and someday I may have to disobey one on those grounds. The government makes laws - it's trustworthy now, but history shows just how badly things can turn out if the wrong people are elected into power.

    No-one has really explained what's involved in a DNA database so far in the thread. It's not clear what is stored, or what the advantages would be, or what the potential for abuse is (there are some more far-out claims, but it's impossible to say how such a database could be abused until you actually know what's in it).

    Until you know these three things, it's impossible to come to a rational decision.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    Fremen wrote: »
    The law is so complicated that we have a whole industry dedicated to interpreting it. During a protest there's often a very large grey area.
    Which is why we have courts and juries to decided upon whats a crime and how guilty a person is.
    ...And if your found guilty, guess what? The consequences are imposed upon you.
    Thus your details then might be further taken and input into a DNA database!
    Subsequently, if you have previously been up to no good - expect to be possibly be caught out.
    If you have done nothing bad previously - you have nothing to fear! End of story.


  • #62
    Catsmokinpot
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,622 ✭✭✭Catsmokinpot


    weldoninhio wrote: »
    I'd go even further and have it so that anyone that is arrested has their DNA taken and held on file. If you've nothing to hide what's the problem??
    My god, it's statements like this that make me cringe, you do realise that these databases are being controlled people, fallible people... what if your DNA got mixed up with someone else's? Then what?? Your DNA that's On record, gets mixed up with a murderer's DNA, you get put in prison, but you had nothing to hide in the first place, oh yeah, lets just become full on cattle at the whim of the state. **** it, I have nothing to hide.

    I agree with taking DNA When a crime is committed, you find suspects and test their DNA. but storing DNA on a database? we couldn't even secure the ****ing voting system, how do you think we could secure a DNA database?

    Oh yeah I forgot we just cast a lvl 11ty firewall spell to protect us all forever.

    god it just makes me want to go FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Did the film minority report not strike a chord with you in any way?


  • #63
    AudreyHepburn
    Registered Users Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    I think it's absolutly right.

    If it results murderers/rapists etc spending their lives behind bars then I'm all for it.

    I don't by the arguments that it is intrusive or violates civil rights. If you have done nothing wrong then you have nothing to worry about and if you have comitted a crime then you reap the consequences.


  • #64
    Lu Tze
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,495 ✭✭✭Lu Tze


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    Lame argument. We're talking about a DNA database for convicted criminals and for people arrested for specific crimes. You're talking about something completely different.

    You see no problem with this? All that is needed is an arrest?


    This would not be the first step beyond the line of a right to privacy by the way. Random breathalysing was the first.


  • #65
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Catsmokinpot wrote: »
    My god, it's statements like this that make me cringe, you do realise that these databases are being controlled people, fallible people... what if your DNA got mixed up with someone else's? Then what?? Your DNA that's On record, gets mixed up with a murderer's DNA, you get put in prison, but you had nothing to hide in the first place, oh yeah, lets just become full on cattle at the whim of the state. **** it, I have nothing to hide.

    If only it were possible to take more than one sample of DNA..... oh, wait.
    Catsmokinpot wrote: »
    Did the film minority report not strike a chord with you in any way?

    Yes, it was shít.


  • #66
    galwayrush
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,815 ✭✭✭✭galwayrush


    About time we had that database.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    AudreyHepburn
    Registered Users Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    k_mac wrote: »
    They take the DNA of the mother and child to confirm that they are in fact mother and child. You don't get welfare payments unless you submit to the test.

    If you knew your child was yours why wouldn't you submit?


  • #68
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    Catsmokinpot wrote: »
    My god, it's statements like this that make me cringe, you do realise that these databases are being controlled people, fallible people... what if your DNA got mixed up with someone else's? Then what?? Your DNA that's On record, gets mixed up with a murderer's DNA, you get put in prison...

    Over-reactionary rubbish.
    First of all - IF your DNA defies the billions of odds and is mistaken, you could have the right to have retests done (any lawyer worth his/her money and salt, will evoke this application to the court as first priority!).
    Secondly, After your found guilty - there is still another round of appeals process.
    So to say that your just put into prison is blatant circumventing the legal process and stages just for the sake of (falsely) portraying the legal process as entirely wrong.
    No legal system is infallible but there are stages and safeguards that are at least in our country, progressively getting better.
    (We might not like the speed of such progression but its moving in the right direction most of the time too)


  • #69
    Fremen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,481 ✭✭✭Fremen


    Maybe someone could answer this, at least.
    If I have a DNA sample that I take from a crime scene, and I compare it against a database of a million people, how many false positives will I get?


  • #70
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    Stall the database for a sec…….. punishments befitting the crime would be a better start, along with a 3 strikes rule.
    Then get back to me.


  • #71
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Lu Tze wrote: »
    You see no problem with this? All that is needed is an arrest?

    An arrest for certain crimes, yes.

    Are you also against searching someone's house before they're convicted of a crime?
    Lu Tze wrote: »
    This would not be the first step beyond the line of a right to privacy by the way. Random breathalysing was the first.

    lol, you have a problem with random breath tests?


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    sdanseo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,234 ✭✭✭sdanseo


    Robbing someone's facebook password is an invasion of privacy. Maybe stealing their passport, too.

    Having their DNA profile on a protected Garda-only computer is not an invasion of privacy. The government have hundreds of pieces of information about you on their computers already and all of those can be interpreted by Joe Soap. DNA is not generally interperatable by your average data criminal.

    I cannot understand the hippy-like soapbox of those who think this is not a good idea.

    Should it be needed? No. In an ideal world, with happy music playing and bunnies and fairies.

    Is it a great idea? Yes.


  • #73
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    Fremen wrote: »
    Maybe someone could answer this, at least.
    If I have a DNA sample that I take from a crime scene, and I compare it against a database of a million people, how many false positives will I get?

    * http://dna-view.com/profile.htm
    * http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100329140223AAWyhn5
    * http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/henryporter/2009/may/25/dna-database-false-positive
    ...Costello says that it is accepted that under ideal conditions there will be one false match per one trillion checks. He calculates that about 2.5tn comparisons have been made (500,000 [crime scene samples] x 5,000,000 [subject samples] = 2,500,000,000,000) so it is reasonable to expect that at least two errors have occurred.

    * http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-310089.html

    ----

    The chances are approx 1 in 2/3 trillion! The odds are in your favour!


  • #74
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    *Coughs*

    http://www.independent.ie/national-news/alert-as-170000-blood-donor-files-are-stolen-1294079.html
    A laptop with the confidential records of more than 170,000 Irish blood donors and 3,200 patients has been stolen in New York.

    The IBTS will be writing to all donors concerned this week, warning that their information could be accessed by criminals who made off with the laptop.

    But last night, a leading data- protection expert warned that the IBTS could be open to a flood of lawsuits if the confidential records are made public.

    He also questioned why the data was taken out of the country and out of the possession of the board in the first place.

    The expert queried why personal data was used during a software update when other less sensitive material might have sufficed.

    The information stolen includes names, genders, dates and places of birth, telephone numbers and the blood groups of all those who made donations during a three-month period last year.


    A police investigation has so far failed to recover the missing computer and those affected have not yet been informed.

    The files relate to 174,324 donor records and 3,294 patient blood group records made between July 2 and October 11 last year.

    This latest breach comes after the Irish Independent revealed earlier this month that more than 80 Government laptops have either been stolen or are missing.

    The Government denied that any personal data had been lost in those instances.

    However, Britain has been rocked by recent data protection scandals including the Ministry of Defence loss of three laptops, and the loss of Child Benefit data, containing personal information on millions of people.

    The IBTS was forced to issue a statement on the lost blood records on foot of a series of questions put to it by the Irish Independent yesterday.



    Data Protection Commissioner Billy Hawkes was alerted to the breach of security four days after the robbery. However, those donors and patients affected by the blunder will only be alerted two weeks after the fact ,with letters due to be posted on Friday. The board had sent the data to the New York Blood Centre (NYBC), a public service blood bank, in order to upgrade the software used to analyse donor information.

    An agreement between the two sides set out details of the "robust measures" which the NYBC was supposed to take to ensure its safety. It was, however, allowed to store the information on laptops which could then be taken outside the centre.



    "Why did it (the information) go to the US in the first place? Were the appropriate legal safeguards in place? Why was the laptop transferred to someone else and not still in the possession of the IBTS? "


    Donors can also contact an information line 1850 731 137.

    Still, at least there is an information line.....


  • #75
    unknownlegend
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 375 ✭✭unknownlegend


    Biggins wrote: »
    * http://dna-view.com/profile.htm
    * http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100329140223AAWyhn5
    * http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/henryporter/2009/may/25/dna-database-false-positive


    * http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-310089.html

    ----

    The chances are approx 1 in 2/3 trillion! The odds are in your favour!

    that's big odds! Used in conjunction with corroborative detective work it could be as foolproof as it gets.


  • #76
    Fremen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,481 ✭✭✭Fremen


    sdonn wrote: »
    Having their DNA profile on a protected Garda-only computer is not an invasion of privacy.

    In the age of the internet, computers leak like sieves. Look at wikileaks. Gary McKinnon hacked into the pentagon even though he had minimal expertise. MI5 can't keep their computers in order, so what chance do the gardai have?


  • #77
    My name is URL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,069 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    I'd be all for keeping DNA records of people convicted of more serious crimes, but the idea of storing DNA records for all citizens for the purpose of reducing crime doesn't sit well with me.

    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"

    Maybe proper and consistent sentencing would be a better starting point for crime reduction.


  • #78
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    unknownlegend wrote: »
    that's big odds! Used in conjunction with corroborative detective work it could be as foolproof as it gets.
    Indeed. If you lawyer can't best those odds in your favour - they don't deserve their qualifications, never mind their right to represent you.

    (There is approx 6 to 8 Billion on our planet at present!)


  • #79
    AudreyHepburn
    Registered Users Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    My name is URL wrote: »
    I'd be all for keeping DNA records of people convicted of more serious crimes, but the idea of storing DNA records for all citizens for the purpose of reducing crime doesn't sit well with me.

    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"

    Maybe proper and consistent sentencing would be a better starting point for crime reduction.

    If you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear from submitting you DNA.

    But yes I do agree we also seriously need to change are laws as well.


  • #80
    Fremen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,481 ✭✭✭Fremen


    Biggins wrote: »
    The chances are approx 1 in 2/3 trillion! The odds are in your favour!

    Did you not read that guardian article? The conclusion was that they'd probably had two or three false matches already.

    Granted, for a given person the chances of a false positive are low, but with a large number of people, that probability grows very quickly.


  • #81
    Hookah
    Closed Accounts Posts: 850 ✭✭✭Hookah


    It's real easy to plant somebodies DNA at a crime scene, and have them convicted for a crime they didn't commit.

    I'll vote No on this one.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Lu Tze
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,495 ✭✭✭Lu Tze


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    An arrest for certain crimes, yes.

    Are you also against searching someone's house before they're convicted of a crime?



    lol, you have a problem with random breath tests?

    Searching someone's house, who is innocent isn't going to negatively incriminate themselves in the future (through putting them on a database).

    Would you have a problem with everybody being tested and compiled into a database?

    If not - why the difference between and innocent person accused and you?

    If yes, then why not random house searches as i proposed earlier? It would catch out alot of criminals - and innocents obviously have nothing to fear?

    I have a problem with the principle - i am not in favour of drink driving. But it is the first instance as far as i know in this state where a ''search'' may be carried out without due cause or suspicion of any illegal activity.


  • #83
    My name is URL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,069 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    If you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear from submitting you DNA.

    But yes I do agree we also seriously need to change are laws as well.

    Well by that same token, people who have not broken the law would have nothing to fear by allowing their e-mails and phone-calls to be monitored, but it still isn't something that I'd support simply for the purpose of making the world a slightly safer place to live in.


  • #84
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Fremen wrote: »
    Did you not read that article? The conclusion was that they'd probably had two or three false matches already.

    Granted, for a given person the chances of a false positive are low, but with a large number of people, that probability grows very quickly.
    How many people have been wrongly convicted in general? I'd say substantially more than 2 or 3, shall we just scrap the judicial system completely?


  • #85
    Howard Future Whirlpool
    Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Howard Future Whirlpool


    weldoninhio wrote: »
    I'd go even further and have it so that anyone that is arrested has their DNA taken and held on file. If you've nothing to hide what's the problem??

    Oh lord, not this nothing to hide argument again :rolleyes:


    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565


  • #86
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    Hookah wrote: »
    It's real easy to plant somebodies DNA at a crime scene, and have them convicted for a crime they didn't commit.

    I'll vote No on this one.
    ...Which is why I suspect the use of DNA on its own will not be allowed just to be used to convict anyone in most cases (we will have to wait and see).
    Collaborating evidence such as witness statements, alibis, examination of clothing and many other factors will come into play.

    Your entitled to vote "no" (if there is a vote, I suspect there will not be but could be wrong) put please do so having a full awareness of the legal process, how its carried out and further proposed regulations and safeguards.
    Thats all. :)


  • #87
    Fremen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,481 ✭✭✭Fremen


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    How many people have been wrongly convicted in general? I'd say substantially more than 2 or 3, shall we just scrap the judicial system completely?

    Tu quoque.


  • #88
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    Fremen wrote: »
    Did you not read that guardian article? The conclusion was that they'd probably had two or three false matches already.

    Granted, for a given person the chances of a false positive are low, but with a large number of people, that probability grows very quickly.
    I did but not just that but others too - and all come to the same approx' mathematical conclusion.
    Given not just the statistical improbability of those odds in relation to ones-self but also the other many variables incorporating into a trial as it further progresses, any one person would have to be a walking miracle in all honestly to be caught and sentenced wrongly.
    There is always the possibility but to beat those odds? I won't lose any sleep yet.


  • #89
    Catsmokinpot
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,622 ✭✭✭Catsmokinpot


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    If only it were possible to take more than one sample of DNA..... oh, wait.
    facepalm, I'm talking about if the evidence DNA get's mixed up, then a retest won't mean ****.
    MagicMarker wrote: »
    Yes, it was shít.
    Yes, it was ****, but the message was clear, allowing the government absolute power over determining who committed a crime allows for people to frame one another, you think someone in the police has never framed someone else? you obviously think mistakes can't be made either.
    Biggins wrote: »
    Over-reactionary rubbish.
    I love that, I'm over reacting by not trusting authority absolutely.
    Biggins wrote: »
    First of all - IF your DNA defies the billions of odds and is mistaken, you could have the right to have retests done (any lawyer worth his/her money and salt, will evoke this application to the court as first priority!).
    What if someone within the police has committed a crime and has decided to just frame some poor sod? you think this has never happened? seriously?

    Then it doesn't matter what retest you have done. you or whoever it is, is f**ked.
    Biggins wrote: »
    Secondly, After your found guilty - there is still another round of appeals process.
    So to say that your just put into prison is blatant circumventing the legal process and stages just for the sake of (falsely) portraying the legal process as entirely wrong.
    No legal system is infallible but there are stages and safeguards that are at least in our country, progressively getting better.
    (We might not like the speed of such progression but its moving in the right direction most of the time too)
    I'm not saying the legal system is entirely wrong, There's a lot I agree with, and the only illegal thing I might do from time to time is smoke a J, but that wont come within a 1000 miles near the realm of Violent crime. the OP I quoted suggested that my DNA be taken if I am caught smoking a joint.

    It's nothing to do with not wanting progress, there's probably many things that could be considered progressive that I agree with (like genetic modification) that you might consider completely unsafe and I would say the same about you.

    Imagine this scenario; someone does get convicted of a murder, they go into prison at 20 years of age, an police officer frames that person, or there is a right mix-up that occurs which inadvertently get the poor sod sentenced to life, 50 years pass, and it comes to light, that this man was framed or there was a huge error in the system.

    If you can guarantee that this wont happen, then I will agree with the system, if you cant, then why are you supporting such a system?

    Oh it's just one person you say? it's OK, as long as we can safeguard the population from crime isn't it...

    Yeah, just one person who had his life taken from him and throw in to rot amongst the scum of the earth.. you'd be no worse than a murderer yourself for saying that.


  • #90
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Lu Tze wrote: »
    Searching someone's house, who is innocent isn't going to negatively incriminate themselves in the future (through putting them on a database).

    How is having a sample of DNA going to negatively incriminate someone in the future?
    Lu Tze wrote: »
    Would you have a problem with everybody being tested and compiled into a database?

    I probably wouldn't actually.
    Lu Tze wrote: »
    If yes, then why not random house searches as i proposed earlier? It would catch out alot of criminals - and innocents obviously have nothing to fear?

    Because random house searches literally are an invasion of privacy that would impact on the day to day lives of people. One DNA sample taken would not effect anyone at all unless they've committed a crime.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Lu Tze
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,495 ✭✭✭Lu Tze


    MagicMarker wrote: »

    Because random house searches literally are an invasion of privacy that would impact on the day to day lives of people. One DNA sample taken would not effect anyone at all unless they've committed a crime.

    I am sure they would do it while you are at work. So its ok then?


  • #92
    Howard Future Whirlpool
    Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Howard Future Whirlpool


    MagicMarker wrote: »

    Because random house searches literally are an invasion of privacy that would impact on the day to day lives of people. One DNA sample taken would not effect anyone at all unless they've committed a crime.

    And if the data gets leaked, as it always does? Wouldn't we all be happy to see our health ins going up because they examined our dna?


  • #93
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Catsmokinpot wrote: »
    facepalm, I'm talking about if the evidence DNA get's mixed up, then a retest won't mean ****.

    Err, if your DNA is someone mixed up with a murderer's, who then goes and murders someone then the only way you would be identified is if the murderer left DNA at the scene. In which case ANOTHER sample of your DNA can be taken and compared to the DNA found at the scene thereby proving your innocence.

    Facepalm indeed.


  • #94
    Lu Tze
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,495 ✭✭✭Lu Tze


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    How is having a sample of DNA going to negatively incriminate someone in the future?

    Genome sequencing is not fool proof. My sister worked in a lab which got shut down for returning a false positive. They were using industry standard but it wasnt 100% effective.

    Edit: i cant find a link - its was relatively hush hush at the time (connected to one of the universities) and wasn't reported on.


  • #95
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Lu Tze wrote: »
    I am sure they would do it while you are at work. So its ok then?
    Oh, but what if I'm unemployed. :rolleyes:

    Seriously, you're clutching at straws now.


  • #96
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Lu Tze wrote: »
    Genome sequencing is not fool proof. My sister worked in a lab which got shut down for returning a false positive. They were using industry standard but it wasnt 100% effective.
    Which was obviously detected, hence the lab was shut down.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    Catsmokinpot wrote: »
    ...I love that, I'm over reacting by not trusting authority absolutely.
    Never said anything of the kind so please don't infer it.
    You clearly mis-read my post.
    Catsmokinpot wrote: »
    What if someone within the police has committed a crime and has decided to just frame some poor sod? you think this has never happened? seriously?...
    Short version: No law is perfect and is 100% secure but as mentioned already if you have a lawyer/solicitor/barrister with a modicum of working brain cells, then they should be able to defend you given the 'Trillion' odds and the other variables of evidence and alibis.
    Not only would an officer have to state that your DNA was there BUT they would also have to show AND PROVE too, how it got there!


  • #98
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    bluewolf wrote: »
    And if the data gets leaked, as it always does? Wouldn't we all be happy to see our health ins going up because they examined our dna?
    Well there's already plenty of data held about us, your medical records, phone record, fingerprints, internet usage and a crap load more, all of which has the potential to be stolen. We don't just stop holding data because of it, we just try and think of better ways to protect it. Something like a DNA sample shouldn't be treated differently because it potentially may be stolen.


  • #99
    Lu Tze
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,495 ✭✭✭Lu Tze


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    Which was obviously detected, hence the lab was shut down.

    No it wasnt - they paid for a second test. They dont sequence the entire genome (i dont even know if it is possible?)


  • #100
    Lu Tze
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,495 ✭✭✭Lu Tze


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    Oh, but what if I'm unemployed. :rolleyes:

    Seriously, you're clutching at straws now.

    If you dont want to answer the question just say so!


  • #101
    Fighting Irish
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,065 ✭✭✭Fighting Irish


    weldoninhio wrote: »
    I'd go even further and have it so that anyone that is arrested has their DNA taken and held on file. If you've nothing to hide what's the problem??

    Can we set up a live webcam in your sitting room? If you've nothing to hide whats the problem?


  • Advertisement
Advertisement