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?

13

Comments

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


    Lu Tze wrote: »
    If you dont want to answer the question just say so!
    Why would I want to answer stupid questions?


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


    Can we set up a live webcam in your sitting room? If you've nothing to hide whats the problem?
    Weldoninhio might want to spare you the feeling of being inadequate in certain body parts ;) so they might be cruel to be kind! :pac:


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


    Why would I want to answer stupid questions?

    Beacuse you are a fuckin retard? Is that a stupid question?

    You are in catch 22 now :pac:


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,235 ✭✭✭Bosco boy


    I think if doo gooders had a family member or friend who was murdered or raped and DNA could help catch the culprit they wouldn't be long changing their attitude towards a DNA database.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 182 ✭✭whatsyourquota


    I think everyones DNA should be taken at birth. It would help in a lot of cases.

    I dont see why people are complaining, what difference would it make if the government had your DNA?? Or even if someone got information on your DNA?
    Dont think it would affect your life at all


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,750 ✭✭✭liah


    The "What's the problem if you have nothing to hide?" argument falls apart pretty quickly once the government starts making laws you don't agree with.

    The reason innocent people would have a problem with this clear invasion of privacy is because we don't want an invasive government; invasive government is incredibly dangerous and giving the government too much information about yourself is incredibly dangerous, as the Nazi party so kindly demonstrated to us over half a century ago.

    It usually starts with things like this - it's how it started in America, anyway, though not with DNA but rather free speech - with the Patriot Act, the government was allowed to monitor basically everything and has effectively kidnapped completely innocent people with no prior warning or reason on multiple occasions. Since the Patriot Act, the United States has been notable in its consistent infringements on human rights - corrupt cops, kidnapping innocent people, adding innocent people (including children) to travel blacklists, TSA screening, phone call monitoring, Gitmo.. the list is exhaustive. The U.S. is a perfect example of why you should not give up your liberty to the government in exchange for empty promises of fleeting security.
    And nevermind the sex offender register, which alongside serial rapists and child molesters contains people who committed the 'offense' of having consensual sex with their girlfriend who may have only been a year or even a month younger, and has ruined their job prospects, living prospects and reputation permanently. I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to tie this DNA business with convicting sex offenders here in Ireland at all.

    With DNA, it's only a matter of time before it's not only for hardened criminals, but your average pot smoker, or people who've been caught peeing in public. And then who knows? And what happens if, come a few elections down the road, you're stuck choosing between governments who want to impose laws you don't agree with and want to use this DNA data to convict those 'criminals'? Would you still be trotting out the same lines then?

    It boggles my mind the amount of trust some of you seem to have for your government, especially when you've quite recent history of corruption, greed and lies. Perhaps it's because I'm from North America and I've had exposure to the United States most of my life and have a very raw awareness of the corruption this may lead to under the guise of controlling crime or promoting security, I don't know - but it's a bit disturbing to see a sort of blind faith in the idea that any law imposed by the government must be just therefore any length gone to uphold it must be justified, even when it infringes on our rights, and that any disagreement with this implicates oneself as a criminal. And I find it difficult to understand the apparent lack of foresight or even hindsight when it comes to understanding why governmental control or monitoring of our private information is dangerous to us and our ancestors in the long run.

    There's a much bigger picture here that the black and white statement of "if you've got nothing to hide, you shouldn't have a problem" simply does not account for.


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


    Lu Tze wrote: »
    Beacuse you are a fuckin retard? Is that a stupid question?

    You are in catch 22 now :pac:
    Reported. Resorting to personal abuse doesn't really add any merit to your argument.


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


    liah wrote: »

    It boggles my mind the amount of trust some of you seem to have for your government

    Quoted for truth.


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


    Reported. Resorting to personal abuse doesn't really add any merit to your argument.

    I was making a point in a facetious manner- but anyway continue not to answer the original question.


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


    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.
    And you're saying 100% that a fault can't occur within the system and that an innocent person can't be put in jail because of a mistake or otherwise. A man named Alan Gell in America was on death row for 5 years, even though the prosecution had the evidence before the trial that could free him... you know what that evidence was? he was already in jail at the time of the murder. He remained on death row for 2 more years before they released him. you're saying something like that could never happen here?

    And let me get this straight, you think that someone caught smoking a joint should have his/her DNA put in a database?

    I love the way you've steered clear of the idea of purposefully planting evidence.
    Biggins wrote: »
    Never said anything of the kind so please don't infer it.
    You clearly mis-read my post.
    No, I didn't miss read your post, my entire point was that I don't completely trust the government or a system put in place by the government that could jeopardise the freedom of the individual, the first thing you said was "over-reactionary rubbish", yet it was I who clearly misunderstood.
    Biggins wrote: »
    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!
    You're acting as if its absolute when you clearly pulled the "trillion" odds out of your ass, you don't know what the odds are that evidence can be mixed up. it's certainly not trillion. I'm not saying evidence gets mixed up all the time, but the fact is, it has happened with normal evidence, it could happen with DNA evidence and it probably will.

    Both of you dodged the question of purposefully planting evidence. do you think that it's just not possible?

    If it happened what would you think? would it be OK with you?


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,454 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Biggins wrote: »
    The chances are approx 1 in 2/3 trillion! The odds are in your favour!
    Please read the quote you quoted again

    It's like the lottery, your chances of winning are practically nil, but most weeks someone wins

    ...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.
    If you compare every crime scene against every person in the database the odds drop a lot

    if the database was to include everyone on the planet (7 billion) then you'd get one in a trillion hit every 143 crime scenes - and that's under ideal conditions , uniform distribution of differences, uncontaminated DNA etc.

    and again I would dispute the one in a trillion figure without more public info on which enzymes are used, which parts of DNA they work on and the likely frequency of them in the general population.



    There has to be a balance between the "CSI effect" and reliance on one piece of evidence.


    Also there was a case of a twin raping someone and neither being jailed because they couldn't prove which one it was.


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


    ...No, I didn't miss read your post, my entire point was that I don't completely trust the government or a system put in place by the government that could jeopardise the freedom of the individual...
    Everything on this earth is a risk or danger to an individual.
    The best one can do is keep your nose clean, stay off the radar of the Gardi and crime units.
    If not, what can you expect or deserve!
    ...You're acting as if its absolute when you clearly pulled the "trillion" odds out of your ass...
    Really? Seriously?
    Are you that blind you didn't see the previous links I provided?
    One of the most stupidest statements I've seen this morning so far.
    ...I'm not saying evidence gets mixed up all the time, but the fact is, it has happened with normal evidence...
    ...On the extreme rare occassion and whats more with NO DNA evidence to back the innocent person up!
    YES, DNA can actually prove INNOCENCE as well as guilt but hey, lets all thrown reason out the window and speed over that equal fact in order to portray an argument of there might be widescale corruption and the Gardi is all out to get you and everyone!
    ...More stupidity and lack of foresight!
    ...Both of you dodged the question of purposefully planting evidence. do you think that it's just not possible?

    If it happened what would you think? would it be OK with you?
    Planting evidence is ALWAYS possible but as hinted to above, with DNA, even that is now MUCH, MUCH harder given the variables of alibis, other evidence, etc that can equally swing in the direction of an innocents direction!
    ...But hey, lets skip over that too to portray the impression also that only DNA proves guilt! :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,213 ✭✭✭Mrmoe


    I think the infrastructure is already there for a DNA database particularly for those born in the last 20 years. I think the heel prick test samples are still kept on file which could be used. I think certain records before some year in the 1980s awere destroyed.

    Personally, I do not see any problems with it's introduction. People who think the government are out to get the public are just scaremongering. Sure there will be unfortunate cases caused by either incompetence , corruption or greed but these will exist anyway. If someone sets out to screw you they will find a way regardless. The overwhelming benefits will far outweigh any potential downside.

    Corruption in this country is usually related to greed rather than an attempt to destroy a persons life through wroungful conviction. You only need to see the case in Donegal to realise that this is possible already without a DNA database. The sooner it is brought in the better.


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


    ...It's like the lottery, your chances of winning are practically nil, but most weeks someone wins
    Indeed but all those lottery winners if it came to DNA and matching up... have they all be in the exact same place, at the same time, with the exact ticket, been seen by the same witnesses (staff), etc to beat the odds and win? Every time?

    No, they were all over the place and that means (indicates) there are many other variables at play too that most here are clearly not taking into account.


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


    And you're saying 100% that a fault can't occur within the system and that an innocent person can't be put in jail because of a mistake or otherwise. A man named Alan Gell in America was on death row for 5 years, even though the prosecution had the evidence before the trial that could free him... you know what that evidence was? he was already in jail at the time of the murder. He remained on death row for 2 more years before they released him. you're saying something like that could never happen here?

    Are you under some naive assumption that the current judicial system is foolproof or something? Mistakes happen, it's a fact of life, sorry to break it to you.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,536 ✭✭✭Mark200


    Daegerty wrote: »
    Why should you have to give a sample just for being arrested. Anyone can get arrested and not have done anything wrong

    Well it's not much good having a DNA database if it can only be used after a person has been found guilty of the crime in question.

    Also on the argument about reliability - how does the reliability of DNA compare with the reliability of fingerprints...?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,234 ✭✭✭sdanseo


    Fremen wrote: »
    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?

    You decided to leave out, in your quote, the line which justified my statement. DNA is not data which can be easily interpreted by anyone outside of a forensic lab.

    It's not like stealing someone's photographic ID or bank statement.

    Please don't quote me out of context like that again.


  • Posts: 3,505 [Deleted User]


    I think people are running away with this a bit. DNA can place a person at a crime scene, or show that they touched something. Unless it's a rape, and someone's DNA is actually found inside the victim (in which case it would be very incriminating but not absolute), it's just not going to happen that someone is convicted purely for having their DNA at a crime scene.

    As far as I can see, there's no harm in having your DNA on a database. There's been suggestions that it will be used as a screening criteria for visas/insurance, but that's an entirely different matter. The matter at hand is a DNA database for the use of the Gardai. If the database did get leaked, no insurance company could legally use it, so that's not an issue. It's not a credit card number. What are they going to do, clone us? Worst case scenario, some computer geek in the middle of nowhere finds out through extensive research into genomics that someone he doesn't know has a genetic disorder.

    DNA can only be used in this context as identification, and yes, someone else would be able to put your DNA at certain locations, but there's no possibility of identity theft, and as for planting evidence, you'd get placed at the scene of a crime, but no one would get convicted purely for being somewhere.


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


    Mark200 wrote: »
    Well it's not much good having a DNA database if it can only be used after a person has been found guilty of the crime in question.
    Thus the appeals process, re-examination of evidence, more testing by independent testers, collaborating evidence also re-examined ...the list goes on...
    Mark200 wrote: »
    ...Also on the argument about reliability - how does the reliability of DNA compare with the reliability of fingerprints...?
    See the statics HERE and compare them to HERE and HERE for example.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,454 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    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!
    look at the laws that have changed in your lifetime

    a husband can now be found guilty of raping his wife
    homosexuality is no longer a crime
    using contraceptives is no longer a crime
    the list of prohibited substances has changed

    look at the old archaic laws that were got rid of a few years back

    look at the patriot act and it's ilk in the US

    or the change in the right to silence in the UK

    look at the special powers act 1922 as used up north
    (I've heard it said that the Police chief in South Africa said he'd give up all of the Apartide Laws just for a few provisions of the 1922 act)

    down here the Emergency Powers Act that were given during "The Emergency" (world war II) were technically still in place until 1976 - things like complete control of the nmedia and suspension of Habeous Corpus


    Also most drivers are guilty of speeding ( > 95% on inter urban roads - measured by the RAS (IIRC it was 99% but cba looking it up )) - driving on the hatched white lines means one penalty point BTW.
    most people here have broken copyright law at some time in the past (at one stage 90% of software used in irish businesses was pirated, legit downloads account for maybe 1.5% of music online , and just don't get me started on software licensing gotcha's )


    Only the guilty need fear

    “If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him"
    attributed to Cardinal Richelieu


    We live in a country where a murderer was found in the Aturney Generals house. What about the arms trials ? Or the many bizzare miscarriges of justice and people getting off on technicalities.


    many people will die because of reduced funding for health and policing because of the banking crisis those who broke the law and the spirit of the law won't get prosecuted :mad:


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


    ...many people will die because of reduced funding for health and policing because of the banking crisis those who broke the law and the spirit of the law won't get prosecuted :mad:

    I hear what your saying and I agree totally that all is still not fair.
    However the best we can do is at least try and further introduce more tools which might cut down in time, resources and innocent people becoming victims.
    ..And if something don't work and its exposed as such, as a relative still free country, we have the right to protest and do something about it.
    It boils down to the fact that we have to try.

    Not to try at all, would be a greater mistake I feel.


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


    Biggins wrote: »
    Everything on this earth is a risk or danger to an individual.
    The best one can do is keep your nose clean, stay off the radar of the Gardi and crime units.
    If not, what can you expect or deserve!
    I was beaten up on my 18th birthday whilst going to the hospital to see a stupid friend of mine who drank too much, on the way to see him I realised I had lost my wallet, and in a stupid moment, i made the futile decision to go back and look for it. I was beaten up by a guy I used to go to school with, I didn't know him very well but I was happy (as it was my birthday) and decided to say hello to him, He was drunk with is mates and decided to start on me as I was on my own with nobody around, him and his mates broke the top of my jaw and knocked a tooth out. I went to the police about it.

    The guy who did it got a load of his bouncer friends to say that I started his sister in a nearby pub which I had never even been to and because I was on my own I didn't have an alibi and had to drop the charges, if DNA laws were in place and he decided to be a bigger d1ckhead than he already was and taken it further, My DNA would have ended up on record.

    but by your standards that would be no more than I deserved...
    Biggins wrote: »
    Really? Seriously?
    Are you that blind you didn't see the previous links I provided?
    One of the most stupidest statements I've seen this morning so far.
    68% of statistics are bull****, there I pulled a statistic out of my ass too. who are you to take second-hand information and make it gospel truth without having carried out statistical analysis on the data set yourself? and as someone already pointed out, the larger the data set the larger the chance of someone getting the finger pointed at them by accident.
    Biggins wrote: »
    ...On the extreme rare occassion and whats more with NO DNA evidence to back the innocent person up!
    YES, DNA can actually prove INNOCENCE as well as guilt but hey, lets all thrown reason out the window and speed over that equal fact in order to portray an argument of there might be widescale corruption and the Gardi is all out to get you and everyone!
    ...More stupidity and lack of foresight!
    I know this already but DNA evidence doesn't have to be on record to prove someone's innocence.

    You are acting like I don't agree with DNA evidence.....


    I could think of a way to frame someone, you'd need a combination of surveillance cameras, facial recognition software, and DNA on a database.

    The night of a murder, someone who has a criminal record runs past a surveillance camera perhaps he's just out for a run, he's on his own, no alibi, his name is recognised by facial recognition software, someone need only have access to this sort of technology to be able to misuse it, coupled with having DNA on record it's a recipe for disaster.

    Now lets see, what we have here, surveillance cameras? check. Facial recognition software? check. now all we need is DNA evidence on record, and anyone who has access to the system with a little thought could frame anyone.

    You really think if I could think of a way to frame someone, that people much smarter than me won't actually go ahead and do it?
    Biggins wrote: »
    Planting evidence is ALWAYS possible but as hinted to above, with DNA, even that is now MUCH, MUCH harder given the variables of alibis, other evidence, etc that can equally swing in the direction of an innocents direction!
    ...But hey, lets skip over that too to portray the impression also that only DNA proves guilt! :rolleyes:
    Now who's making assumptions about the meaning of peoples words, I agree with DNA evidence, but if someone is accused based on fact first, then DNA should taken, the problem arises when DNA is already in a Database... then what?

    You still didn't answer the question, what would you personally think if it came to light that someone had spent 60 years in jail, (or worse in other countries) because they were framed by stored DNA evidence, or the DNA evidence was mixed up?


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


    Are you under some naive assumption that the current judicial system is foolproof or something? Mistakes happen, it's a fact of life, sorry to break it to you.
    Are you trying to wind me up? or did you just not see that I already said I don't trust the government. I would have thought that it clearly already meant that I feel the judicial system is flawed also.

    Let me get this straight, you agree with me that the judicial system isn't foolproof, yet you still want to hand the government more power?

    The word foolish comes to mind, sorry to break it to you.


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


    ...if DNA laws were in place and he decided to be a bigger d1ckhead than he already was and taken it further, My DNA would have ended up on record...
    BUT!!!
    Were you charge with anything?
    Was there enough doubt that the legal authorities let the case go?
    You walked - and by the way, we don't know yet to what lever of crime collection of DNA will happen so its still impossible to say that your DNA would have been taken.
    68% of statistics are bull****, there I pulled a statistic out of my ass too.
    Seems to be a trend with you!
    ...who are you to take second-hand information and make it gospel truth without having carried out statistical analysis on the data set yourself?
    I didn't but once agin your trying to infer something!
    A GOOD number of people have separately come up with the same approximate figures - but hey, don't let fact come in the way of a good rant!
    ..I could think of a way to frame someone, you'd need a combination of surveillance cameras, facial recognition software, and DNA on a database.

    The night of a murder, someone who has a criminal record runs past a surveillance camera perhaps he's just out for a run, he's on his own, no alibi, his name is recognised by facial recognition software, someone need only have access to this sort of technology to be able to misuse it, coupled with having DNA on record it's a recipe for disaster.

    Now lets see, what we have here, surveillance cameras? check. Facial recognition software? check. now all we need is DNA evidence on record, and anyone who has access to the system with a little thought could frame anyone.

    I think your bordering on pananoira here and you think a whole system is going to be used, by people at all levels because they just want to get you!
    Talk about a serious stretch of the imagination and frankly self-indulgent to make yourself out to be that important!
    A threat to international security are we?
    ...You still didn't answer the question, what would you personally think if it came to light that someone had spent 60 years in jail, (or worse in other countries) because they were framed by stored DNA evidence, or the DNA evidence was mixed up?

    I can't answer a question you didn't ask of me! You might have put it to someone else!
    ...However I will reply to your question here:
    What do I think? It think it would be an absolute disgrace and that those responsible should be without question, be held accountable.
    What I am not going to do is throw "the baby out with the bath water" and ditch the whole system.
    I might re-enforce it with better methods and learn from such unfortunate errors.

    ...O' and by the way, there has been many cases now reported in the media around the world where DNA has actually proved the innocence of people in jail - not sent them there!
    Go figure!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,674 ✭✭✭Dangerous Man


    Daegerty wrote: »
    No. Huge invasion of privacy. Very big brother / minority report like.

    The DPP has already used DNA evidence in court in this country. They used the UK's database which had DNA evidence on file for a criminal being prosecuted in Ireland. That a supposedly modern police force doesn't have a DNA database or even the ability to gather, store and process DNA for evidence is pathetic. This shouldn't even be a question. We have a fingerprint database. We have a database of various types of information whether that be photographic, DOB, addresses, phone numbers etc. All of which points back to individuals - as does DNA.


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


    The DPP has already used DNA evidence in court in this country. They used the UK's database which had DNA evidence on file for a criminal being prosecuted in Ireland. That a supposedly modern police force doesn't have a DNA database or even the ability to gather, store and process DNA for evidence is pathetic. This shouldn't even be a question. We have a fingerprint database. We have a database of various types of information whether that be photographic, DOB, addresses, phone numbers etc. All of which points back to individuals - as does DNA.
    Indeed. Its just one more tool in the toolbox.
    Its up to us then to see how its used and whos using it.


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


    The argument is becoming a little ambiguous now. Are people still debating whether or not records should be stored for anyone convicted of a serious offence (as per the OP), or has it moved on to be about storing everybody's DNA regardless of a crime being committed or not?

    I'm not sure why anyone would be against the former.


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


    The argument is becoming a little ambiguous now. Are people still debating whether or not records should be stored for anyone convicted of a serious offence (as per the OP), or has it moved on to be about storing everybody's DNA regardless of a crime being committed or not?

    I'm not sure why anyone would be against the former.

    I would be against the storing of everyone's DNA from birth.
    I would be for the storing of DNA for serious convicted criminals and/or consistently habitual ones.


  • Posts: 17,378 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    The argument is becoming a little ambiguous now. Are people still debating whether or not records should be stored for anyone convicted of a serious offence (as per the OP), or has it moved on to be about storing everybody's DNA regardless of a crime being committed or not?

    I'm not sure why anyone would be against the former.
    I'm not sure why anyone would be against the latter either.. Fuk it. What can they do with my DNA except convict me of a crime I committed.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,280 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    no , this is entirely wrong in every way , i even hate going to the US as they take your fingerprint. I think if you had to bring it in the dna evidence should only be taken upon conviction of a violent / sex crime and if your conviction is overturned then the information deleted

    dna data on any person should not be taken in any other circumstance


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,564 ✭✭✭Naikon


    No. Next thing you know and it will be introduced for non criminals. Then what? You must have a certain gene profile or no insurance? **** that. The abuse potential is too great. DNA samples are just wrong. No question.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,731 ✭✭✭Bullseye1


    If it's for convincted criminals yes. For everyone else no.


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


    Naikon wrote: »
    ...The abuse potential is too great.
    But in reality, is it?
    Is there ANY other cases/examples in the world where it has even been proved slightly to be true?

    Genuine question.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,731 ✭✭✭Bullseye1


    Look at what banks and other institutions do with our personal financial information.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,564 ✭✭✭Naikon


    Biggins wrote: »
    But in reality, is it?
    Is there ANY other cases/examples in the world where is has even proved slightly to be true?

    Genuine question.

    The problem is once your very genetic makeup is exposed, any genetic indications present in that sample could be potentially used to discriminate people. Imagine trying to get a job working in a bank where the "agression" gene is outlawed. The abuse potential is pretty high. Whatever can be said about criminal profiling, if this concept ever spills over into civil life, you can count me out.


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


    Bullseye1 wrote: »
    Look at what banks and other institutions do with our personal financial information.
    Thats private enterprise and yes, you have a point but the Gardi are not out to make profits.
    I get to what you alluding though.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,280 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    Biggins wrote: »
    Thats private enterprise and yes, you have a point but the Gardi are not out to make profits.

    have ye seen traffic core lately ?


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


    Biggins wrote: »
    BUT!!!
    Were you charge with anything?
    Was there enough doubt that the legal authorities let the case go?
    You walked - and by the way, we don't know yet to what lever of crime collection of DNA will happen so its still impossible to say that your DNA would have been taken.
    No, I wasn't charged with anything, but I was advised by the police that the evidence wasn't in my favour. my point is, false evidence was used against me by someone who wasn't even in the system. imagine what could be done by someone who was part of the system?
    Biggins wrote: »
    Seems to be a trend with you!
    You're the one who quoted statistics, people can use statistics to prove anything they want.
    Biggins wrote: »
    I didn't but once agin your trying to infer something!
    A GOOD number of people have separately come up with the same approximate figures - but hey, don't let fact come in the way of a good rant!
    I didn't even look at your links, I have just looked, and I came across this (which was my first thought when you mentioned odds...) and there are probably a lot more variables that come in to play with a bigger database. a statistic is a condensed model of data to try to predict trends, and is not a model of truth.
    But he adds, "Unfortunately, a simple mathematical analysis will not give the true picture. Two factors will increase the probability of adventitious matches: firstly, the condition of crime scene samples may lead to incomplete profiles; and secondly, individuals who are related are more likely to share the same profile than unrelated individuals."
    Biggins wrote: »
    I think your bordering on pananoira here and you think a whole system is going to be used, by people at all levels because they just want to get you!
    Talk about a serious stretch of the imagination and frankly self-indulgent to make yourself out to be that important!
    A threat to international security are we?
    lol, do you think I'm stupid? in reality this will probably never affect me, but it will affect someone.

    What if someone makes a law that does effect me, or you for that matter, and wants our DNA for that?

    I'd rather not be part of a system that is as capable of putting innocent people in prison as it is murderers. and what if the government does become tyrannical? How are you so sure that this will never happen again? we've already given up so much power to the European union ( I agree with the European union by the way, I'm not a xenophobe) but I believe all power should have its limits.
    Biggins wrote: »
    I can't answer a question you didn't ask of me! You might have put it to someone else!
    ...However I will reply to your question here:
    What do I think? It think it would be an absolute disgrace and that those responsible should be without question, be held accountable.
    What I am not going to do is throw "the baby out with the bath water" and ditch the whole system.
    I might re-enforce it with better methods and learn from such unfortunate errors.
    Both of you dodged the question of purposefully planting evidence. do you think that it's just not possible?
    If it happened what would you think? would it be OK with you?
    I did once in a roundabout way, and the second time for definite.

    Thanks for answering this time, but I'm not suggesting we do throw the baby out with the bathwater, I'm suggesting we don't use a database to store DNA evidence on, I agree with using DNA evidence. it's obviously the most powerful tool ever discovered for crime investigation, but, I am always reminded of this Benjamin franklin quote, "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."

    Sure, you might enforce better methods, but you wouldn't be in control. that's my point.

    In my opinion we are giving up liberty like its nothing. did we learn nothing about man and his obvious wanton abuse of power over the last few thousand years? you act like it's only something that happens in 3rd world countries, it happens all over the place, people with power have and will eventually abuse their power if we give it to them.
    Biggins wrote: »
    ...O' and by the way, there has been many cases now reported in the media around the world where DNA has actually proved the innocence of people in jail - not sent them there!
    Go figure!
    Yes, and DNA evidence can just as easily be used to prove innocence without being on a database, go figure!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    have ye seen traffic core lately ?

    A garda gets paid the same wether he gives one ticket or one hundred


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


    Naikon wrote: »
    The problem is once your very genetic makeup is exposed, any genetic indications present in that sample could be potentially used to discriminate people. Imagine trying to get a job working in a bank where the "agression" gene is outlawed. The abuse potential is pretty high. Whatever can be said about criminal profiling, if this concept ever spills over into civil life, you can count me out.

    I will try find some evidence to back up what I am saying in the meantime...
    Fair enough but I don't think we are at the levels of "Gattaca" yet.
    Thats a long, LONG way off and many safeguards can be equally dreamed up of in the meanwhile.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,564 ✭✭✭Naikon


    Biggins wrote: »
    Fair enough but I don't think we are at the levels of "Gattaca" yet.
    Thats a long, LONG way off and many safeguards can be equally dreamed up of in the meanwhile.

    True enough. It's a long way off but the risk is always there. If criminal DNA profiling can be proven to reduce crime for instance, you could have a situation where some asshat in power declares "it's a good thing" thus signing a bill into law which allows companies to potentially abuse genetic information.

    Not to say it could not happen without Criminal profiling, but the extra momentum could work in their favour. IE - An insurance company could charge paddy 10x what Mary has to pay, simply because the "risk auditors" decide people with whatever interesting gene paddy has is "shown" to be bad.


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


    No, I wasn't charged with anything, but I was advised by the police that the evidence wasn't in my favour. my point is, false evidence was used against me by someone who wasn't even in the system. imagine what could be done by someone who was part of the system?
    You mean by someone that was already in the system and making a claim against you?
    Which would mean that they were a criminal already - and if so, who's words are Gardi naturally going to have more immediate faith in?
    Yours, who so far has a clean record or a criminal with a record bad enough that he/she is on a DNA database?
    ...And regarding your case, there also was not enough evidence either to proceed against you too!

    ...But we're getting off topic.

    We will just have to agree, to disagree.


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


    Naikon wrote: »
    True enough. It's a long way off but the risk is always there. If criminal DNA profiling can be proven to reduce crime for instance, you could have a situation where some asshat in power declares "it's a good thing" thus signing a bill into law which allows companies to potentially abuse genetic information.

    Not to say it could not happen without Criminal profiling, but the extra momentum could work in their favour. IE - An insurance company could charge paddy 10x what Mary has to pay, simply because the "risk auditors" decide people with whatever interesting gene paddy has is "shown" to be bad.
    Its us to us then to inherently work for the greater good and with the best safeguards possible.
    They won't be perfect but for a greater good, we should at least strive towards them for trying to see more successful results - and that can only be a good thing in the long run when it comes to public safety and security.


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


    Biggins wrote: »
    But in reality, is it?
    Is there ANY other cases/examples in the world where it has even been proved slightly to be true?

    Genuine question.

    I guess the issue is that you can't put the genie back in the bottle. A few decades from now, it is likely that a huge amount of information will be obtainable from your DNA cheaply and easily. Some of this information will probably be pretty sensitive. The fact is that we don't know what's in there, at least not completely. It's not really a matter of what has happened, it's a matter of what could happen.


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


    Fremen wrote: »
    ...It's not really a matter of what has happened, it's a matter of what could happen.
    Again, another good point made but I would also say that just because we fear something, don't mean we should also back away from it.
    We can take precautions, and if need be again and again take more and more as the occasion arises.
    If we feared every future step and did nothing, we'd still be back in the Stone Age!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,564 ✭✭✭Naikon


    Biggins wrote: »
    Its us to us then to inherently work for the greater good and with the best safeguards possible.
    They won't be perfect but for a greater good, we should at least strive towards them for trying to see more successful results - and that can only be a good thing in the long run when it comes to public safety and security.

    For ordinary citizens, I agree 100% For massive faceless corporations though, no. These corporations have very close ties with governments(especially in the US). You just can't trust an entity of substantial size to be ethical all the time.

    IBM is a good example *I am not trying to sell this book, nor do I have any affiliation, it's just a good investigative analysis into the whole mess*


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭strobe


    Naikon wrote: »
    For ordinary citizens, I agree 100% For massive faceless corporations though, no. These corporations have very close ties with governments(especially in the US). You just can't trust an entity of substantial size to be ethical all the time.

    If that's the case won't the government backed faceless corporations just buy up Peter Marks and the like and then collect your hair and match it to the photos of your face that they take with the hidden cameras behind the mirrors and use facial recognition to match them to the security footage from ATMs they buy from the banks to get your name and then secretly genetically profile you in anyway?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,564 ✭✭✭Naikon


    strobe wrote: »
    If that's the case won't the government backed faceless corporations just buy up Peter Marks and the like and then collect your hair and match it to the photos of your face that they take with the hidden cameras behind the mirrors and use facial recognition to match them to the security footage from ATMs they buy from the banks to get your name and then secretly genetically profile you in anyway?

    Practically anything is possible given enough money and influence. Meh, paranoia is better than blind faith I guess.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,933 ✭✭✭Logical Fallacy


    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??

    lol


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


    Biggins wrote: »
    Again, another good point made but I would also say that just because we fear something, don't mean we should also back away from it.
    We can take precautions, and if need be again and again take more and more as the occasion arises.
    If we feared every future step and did nothing, we'd still be back in the Stone Age!

    Indeed. Every new system, every change in the way things are done is open to being abused. You cannot demand an infallible system of any kind because it just isn't humanly possible imo.

    People will always find ways and means of beating the system. The best anyone can do is try to stay a step ahead as much as is possible.

    If we shied away from every change, every new method then nothing would ever change.


Advertisement