Home› Archived Forums› Politics
Options

Can DNA be encrypted?

deptfordbakerdeptfordbaker Posts: 22,368
Forum Member
✭✭✭
in Politics #1
I was watching question time the other night, when innocent people on the DNA database, was being debated.

A member of the audience held up his passport and said that he had no problem with the government holding his DNA, because it was no different to a photo ID in his view.

It got me thinking and I realised he was wrong. For me, the really big deal, was the information that would be contained in the sample, not an identity in itself.

Why should the government be able to hold this private information, how do we know they won't start scanning it for extra data, once science finds out what it all means.

What I would like to know is, can the DNA sequence be encrypted using military grade encryption, unbreakable by anyone, using a one one way encryption algorithm. In other words the process would not be reversible and no decryption will be possible.

If all the samples were held like this, then when a crime took place, the evidence sample could also be encrypted and if the samples were originally identical, their encrypted results should be the same as well.

That way the samples could only be used for identification reasons and no other purpose.

I just wondered what people thought as I have not heard anyone suggest this concept before.

Comments

  • Options
    andyknandykn Posts: 66,849
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #2
    It's an interesting idea.

    I would suggest, though, that today's military grade encryption can be broken by tomorrow's games PC.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 683
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #3
    You could do something like that - re encryption. Its entirely possible.
  • Options
    Jellied EelJellied Eel Posts: 33,091
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #4
    ItJustMyOpinion wrote: »
    A member of the audience held up his passport and said that he had no problem with the government holding his DNA, because it was no different to a photo ID in his view.

    Ignorance is bliss.
    If all the samples were held like this, then when a crime took place, the evidence sample could also be encrypted and if the samples were originally identical, their encrypted results should be the same as well.

    It is already, sort of. Same with most biometrics, mainly as a cost/performance thing. Mapping and storing all the DNA sequence takes a lot of time and money, so the database just holds 10 key chunks of DNA converted to codes. More on that here-

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SGM%2B

    But the original sample is also retained and linked to the database, so additional sequencing can be performed if needed. Some researchers recently reconstructed DNA fragments from the codes, but isn't an easy task and wouldn't reconstruct the rest of the DNA in a suspects sample.

    The US use more loci, so should be more accurate at matching.
    That way the samples could only be used for identification reasons and no other purpose.

    People have already been given access to the database for research purposes. See-

    http://www.genewatch.org/sub-539491

    Current risks would be what the SGM+ loci actually identify, which isn't too controversial. Bigger risk is expanding the database to look for more genetic sequences. Given the privatisation of the forensic services, there'd likely be many customers looking for expanded access to our DNA.
  • Options
    LostFoolLostFool Posts: 90,660
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #5
    ItJustMyOpinion wrote: »
    A member of the audience held up his passport and said that he had no problem with the government holding his DNA, because it was no different to a photo ID in his view.

    Waving your passport around on national TV is a rather silly thing to do.

    I wonder if anyone watching in HD got a good screen capture? Starting with his photo, full name, date of birth and passport number you could do quite a bit of identity theft.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 912
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #6
    Your DNA is basically your body's software and the software of your ancestors. There is untold dangers in the state gathering our DNA. It is madness that they can now take your DNA over something as little as swearing....

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/6542083/Grandfather-arrested-for-using-swear-word.html
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 12,725
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #7
    Interesting facts regarding DNA:
    • We still do not know the function of about 80% of our genes.
    • Genetic similarity. Human beings share 7% of genes with E. coli bacterium, 21% with worms, 90% with mice and 98% with chimpanzees.
    • Human beings differ only in 0.1% of the genetic material, in the other 99.9%, they are identical. That is to say that the entire human race is around 95% genetically identical.

    Yikes. :eek:
  • Options
    Deep PurpleDeep Purple Posts: 63,255
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #8
    Pr1s0n 13reak wrote: »
    Interesting facts regarding DNA:
    • We still do not know the function of about 80% of our genes.
    • Genetic similarity. Human beings share 7% of genes with E. coli bacterium, 21% with worms, 90% with mice and 98% with chimpanzees.
    • Human beings differ only in 0.1% of the genetic material, in the other 99.9%, they are identical. That is to say that the entire human race is around 95% genetically identical.

    Yikes. :eek:

    As long as it helps catch murderers, and other villains, then good.
  • Options
    Ethel_FredEthel_Fred Posts: 34,127
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #9
    Deep Purple wrote: »
    As long as it helps catch murderers, and other villains, then good.
    Lots of things help catch murderers etc, but we don't do them. DNA seems to be one of the less effective means UNLESS the person is already a criminal - and in the case of murder DNA evidence is rarely the evidence that leads to arrests let alone convictions as most murders are committed by someone who lives with the victim

    Perhaps you should be campaigning for everyone to have a tracker device installed so that we know where everyone is when a crime is committed.

    At least with that we would know that a person WAS at a crime scene when a crime was committed.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 18,071
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #10
    Ethel_Fred wrote: »
    At least with that we would know that a person WAS at a crime scene when a crime was committed.
    But when? ;) Only really helpful if it's on or in a victim or an object that minimises the temporal problem. :)
  • Options
    Ethel_FredEthel_Fred Posts: 34,127
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #11
    Doc Shmok wrote: »
    But when? ;) Only really helpful if it's on or in a victim or an object that minimises the temporal problem. :)
    When the crime was committed - therefore the person was assailant, victim, eyewitness or dead drunk
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 18,071
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #12
    Ethel_Fred wrote: »
    When the crime was committed - therefore the person was assailant, victim, eyewitness or dead drunk

    DNA at a crime scene means nothing unless it can be proven that it was on something that was at that crime scene when the offense happened..

    Like the firearms residue in the case of Barry George.
    1. the single particle of firearm discharge residue (FDR) found, about a year after the murder, in George's overcoat.
    The prosecution had called expert witnesses at the trial whose evidence suggested that it was likely that the particle of FDR came from a gun fired by Barry George rather than from some other source
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_George
Sign In or Register to comment.