On any other thread half this stuff being said would get laughed out of town as CT nutter 'tin foil hat' type stuff.
I'm not for a second saying that is right, but seems a bit weird that people talking about govt conspiracies. evil corporations or megalomaniac regimes taking over and/or ruining your lives/ sending you to prison for crimes you didn't commit from bit's of poo left on a seat etc.. are generally deemed ok and accepted as pretty reasonable assumptions round here.
I hear a lot of 'oh my privacy, my privacy' type stuff but not much in the way of what this actually means in a practical sense. How do people think having their DNA on a database will actually affect them day to day if at all?
For me the potential pros don't just outweigh the cons, they annihilate them.
Would you be happy for the police (or any other organisation) to have free access to your bank records, track your daily activities or, at worst, just install CCTV cameras in your home?
If the answer to any of that is "no" (as I'd assume would be the case for any right-thinking person) then you have to concede that there comes a point where the right to privacy outweighs the possibility of helping catch criminals.
Once you accept that there is a balance to be struck, and it isn't just a case of anything that can help solve crimes is worthwhile, then you can, perhaps, begin to understand people's reluctance.
Let's face it, even if we put aside the possibility of such a database being used for nefarious purposes, the possibility of it being expanded for other purposes or the possibility of sensitive information being allowed into the public domain via incompetence (none of which are particularly far-fetched, given the type of stuff we already know goes on), the police don't exactly have an unblemished record with regard to their current use of DNA and it seems likely that things would only get worse if they had access to everybody's DNA.
On any other thread half this stuff being said would get laughed out of town as CT nutter 'tin foil hat' type stuff.
I'm not for a second saying that is right, but seems a bit weird that people talking about govt conspiracies. evil corporations or megalomaniac regimes taking over and/or ruining your lives/ sending you to prison for crimes you didn't commit from bit's of poo left on a seat etc.. are generally deemed ok and accepted as pretty reasonable assumptions round here.
Just seems a bit inconsistent.
It wasn't that long ago that if you said that the government was listening into everyone's phone calls and reading their emails you would be dismissed as a CT nutter. Then Edward Snowden came along and showed that the government was listening to our phone calls and watching what we do on the internet. Wikileaks also showed that the government was picking people off the streets and flying them half way around the world to be tortured, again something that was dismissed as a conspiracy theory.
Would you be happy for the police (or any other organisation) to have free access to your bank records, track your daily activities or, at worst, just install CCTV cameras in your home?.
If the answer to any of that is "no" (as I'd assume would be the case for any right-thinking person) then you have to concede that there comes a point where the right to privacy outweighs the possibility of helping catch criminals.
Once you accept that there is a balance to be struck, and it isn't just a case of anything that can help solve crimes is worthwhile, then you can, perhaps, begin to understand people's reluctance.
Let's face it, even if we put aside the possibility of such a database being used for nefarious purposes, the possibility of it being expanded for other purposes or the possibility of sensitive information being allowed into the public domain via incompetence (none of which are particularly far-fetched, given the type of stuff we already know goes on), the police don't exactly have an unblemished record with regard to their current use of DNA and it seems likely that things would only get worse if they had access to everybody's DNA.
I think it's a little naive to assume that most of the BIB (and indeed other stuff) doesn't happen to an extent already. (well maybe the cameras in my home aside;-)).
I'd have a problem with cameras in my house, yes, but for me I can give a hundred and one reasons why that would be an invasion of my privacy, however I'd struggle to come up with many (if any) legitimate reasons why I'd have any issues at all with my DNA being on a database.
It really doesn't invade my privacy wheras a camera checking me out butt naked in the shower, would.
Perhaps you can explain why Governments will always be benign?
Governments always have everyone's best interests at heart. Nobody would ever even dream of getting into power so they could feather their own nests and those of their friends. Never in history has there been a case of governments turning against their own people or doing everything they can to stay in power.
It wasn't that long ago that if you said that the government was listening into everyone's phone calls and reading their emails you would be dismissed as a CT nutter. Then Edward Snowden came along and showed that the government was listening to our phone calls and watching what we do on the internet. Wikileaks also showed that the government was picking people off the streets and flying them half way around the world to be tortured, again something that was dismissed as a conspiracy theory.
My point remains that some things are mocked and derided as CT nutter stuff and others aren't.
The validity of each is not in question here, more the inconsistency.
My point remains that some things are mocked and derided as CT nutter stuff and others aren't.
The validity of each is not in question here, more the inconsistency.
Normally those who do the mocking have this weird delusion that governments only ever do good things and have everyone's best interests at heart. It has been shown time and again that the more power you give to a government the more likely they are to abuse it so I don't understand why people are so ready to hand over their most intimate details to someone who would sell it to the highest bidder in a heartbeat.
Normally those who do the mocking have this weird delusion that governments only ever do good things and have everyone's best interests at heart. It has been shown time and again that the more power you give to a government the more likely they are to abuse it so I don't understand why people are so ready to hand over their most intimate details to someone who would sell it to the highest bidder in a heartbeat.
I am normally the guy saying the above kind of things so it feels a bit weird to almost be the other side of the fence for now.
Sure I believe there are bad people out there and nasty govt. types do all sorts of dastardly things. I also believe there are those in positions of power who oppose this kind of thing. In amongst the detritus, there will always still be the good, decent politicians and decent journalists, police types etc. It's not ALL bad.
I still don't really see how my DNA on a database would affect me in any real way whatsoever.
I am not saying I can't accept others have a different view, I just disagree with it, that's all.
Your point was a bit of a misrepresentation of what people have said. What assumption have I made then? And what "does [me] no favours"?
You tell me in your post that the government/ police have never done any wrong which implies you think I don;'t already know this. You are wrong. You also ask me to talk about why I think governments are benign which clearly totally misses the points I've been making and misrepresents my stance.
That is the assumption.
As for what does you no favours, I'll start with the condescending nature and tone of the post and the misrepresentation. I could go on but I think that just about covers it for now.
I am normally the guy saying the above kind of things so it feels a bit weird to almost be the other side of the fence for now.
Sure I believe there are bad people out there and nasty govt. types do all sorts of dastardly things. I also believe there are those in positions of power who oppose this kind of thing. In amongst the detritus, there will always still be the good, decent politicians and decent journalists, police types etc. It's not ALL bad.
I still don't really see how my DNA on a database would affect me in any real way whatsoever.
I am not saying I can't accept others have a different view, I just disagree with it, that's all.
The problem isn't so much with the government itself, it is when they decide to make a quick profit by selling off the DNA database to private companies, which they would do eventually. Your DNA could be used to show if you are likely to have any medical problems, your racial profile, and a whole host of other information that would be useful to everyone from advertising agencies to insurance companies.
Insurers already use everything they can find out about you to mitigate their risks, so to think they wouldn't want to get their hands on your DNA profile is just naive. Millions of people would see their insurance policies get more expensive simply because of who their parents were.
It may affect you it may not affect you but it will definitely effect some people in a myriad of ways some of which have been mentioned already
I guess it comes down to the point I made earlier which is that for me the pros don't just outweigh the cons, they absolutely blow them out of the water. Personally it's not even close.
I also think some of the reasons given by some (not all) are a little bit hyperbolic.
If people were consistent and were similarly up in arms over driving licences/ passports/ CCTV etc then at least it would seem a bit more consistent.
That wasn't the only evidence the police used, though. Another was CCTV footage of a taxi similar to the one Butler drove in the area at the time. There might be more but I haven't read the full trial transcript. Agreed, it was a flimsy case but the jury saw through it and found him not guilty.
If people were consistent and were similarly up in arms over driving licences/ passports/ CCTV etc then at least it would seem a bit more consistent.
Your driving licence cannot be used to predict future illness and discriminate against you - your DNA can.
1) The insurance companies already use genetic test results under certain circumstances. There's an agreed limitation on this that is up for review this year. The rules around that are freely available from the ABI
2) DNA from the national database has already been used for racial and religious profiling and even analysing in-breeding in certain "regions" of England and Wales to see if it can have an impact on the false positive results. The DNA samples have been handed over to private companies who kept them in their own databases and conducted their own research.
3) The government are doing their best to flog medical data to anyone with a quid.
So far this is history rather than science fiction or paranoia. My paranoia kicks in when I think "so what happens when you combine 1,2 & 3?"
Your driving licence cannot be used to predict future illness and discriminate against you - your DNA can.
1) The insurance companies already use genetic test results under certain circumstances. There's an agreed limitation on this that is up for review this year. The rules around that are freely available from the ABI
2) DNA from the national database has already been used for racial and religious profiling and even analysing in-breeding in certain "regions" of England and Wales to see if it can have an impact on the false positive results. The DNA samples have been handed over to private companies who kept them in their own databases and conducted their own research.
3) The government are doing their best to flog medical data to anyone with a quid.
So far this is history rather than science fiction or paranoia. My paranoia kicks in when I think "so what happens when you combine 1,2 & 3?"
My point re driving licences and passports is more to do with the disparity of people who seem to cry about privacy at the drop of a hat yet only about certain things. For me it lacks consistency.
I am not saying they are like for like and I accept the very plausible and real concerns that some may have.
Having said all that I still maintain the pros vastly outweigh the perceived cons.
I don't know, it sounds really quite extreme to me. I err on the side of no, but can understand how it could be of benefit when serious crimes take place such as rape and murder.
I'm actually really pro-less tracking/massive databases/etc. for us ordinary folk. I really just want to go waltzing through my everyday life buying chips and such with as little monitoring etc. as possible.
I accept some stuff as "just the way it is" and it doesn't keep me awake at night or anything (e.g. CCTV). But I really do not want my DNA in a database very much. As far as I am concerned, I'm not a criminal, never will be, so I'd basically have to go out of my way to have my DNA collected for, in my case, no good reason. And then there are all the issues about security, a laptop getting lost on a train etc. with a copy of the database backup on it and such like.
No ta. Just easier to avoid. Think of it like this...
a) if you're innocent, then you probably see no good reason for your DNA to be stored on a database.
b) if you're a criminal, then you most definitely do not want your DNA stored on a database.
It therefore seems a lot of expense and hassle and controversy for something which very people in life really actually want. I guess people who have had a family member or friend murdered/raped/whatever might be more "pro", but for us ordinary everyday folk without any experience of that sort of thing, I don't really know anyone that cares for it.
I should say that I am not very "anti" either. i wouldn't flee the country or protest or anything it became law. I just don't think it should in the first place, is all. But nothing to get worked up over.
As a gay male I don't find females attractive either, but I don't want them all shooting I guess I am on the "no" side of the fence but not in a "more than making a post on a forum" kinda way.
My point remains that some things are mocked and derided as CT nutter stuff and others aren't.
The validity of each is not in question here, more the inconsistency.
It does a disservice to label things as conspiracy theory because of the negative associations with that words. I've seen documentaries claiming to give an impartial investigation but they still say things like "Conspiracy theorists like to believe something else happened". The original meaning of the phrase has long been lost and now it instantly makes you think of paranoid schizophrenics with completely crackpot ideas so applying it to people who bring up legitimate talking points is wrong. Governments seem quite keen on branding something they don't want to talk about as conspiracy theory nonsense.
The reason I don't want a compulsory database is because the government can't be trusted not to abuse it. The Snowden leaks prove my point. Right now the average person might not have a problem with GCHQ monitoring what they do online now because they aren't going to care that he's pirated a few songs and looked at some weird legal porn. But later in life that person might become active in politics and campaign for government surveillance powers to be curtailed. Those in power can go through everything this guy has ever done online and find material to either blackmail him with or leak to the press to discredit him. No one should have that level of power. I accept passports and driving licenses as necessary but I don't want any expansion of the big brother state. There are other countries like China who are much worse than us and any step that goes in that direction however small should be resisted all the way.
It does a disservice to label things as conspiracy theory because of the negative associations with that words. I've seen documentaries claiming to give an impartial investigation but they still say things like "Conspiracy theorists like to believe something else happened". The original meaning of the phrase has long been lost and now it instantly makes you think of paranoid schizophrenics with completely crackpot ideas so applying it to people who bring up legitimate talking points is wrong. Governments seem quite keen on branding something they don't want to talk about as conspiracy theory nonsense.
The reason I don't want a compulsory database is because the government can't be trusted not to abuse it. The Snowden leaks prove my point. Right now the average person might not have a problem with GCHQ monitoring what they do online now because they aren't going to care that he's pirated a few songs and looked at some weird legal porn. But later in life that person might become active in politics and campaign for government surveillance powers to be curtailed. Those in power can go through everything this guy has ever done online and find material to either blackmail him with or leak to the press to discredit him. No one should have that level of power. I accept passports and driving licenses as necessary but I don't want any expansion of the big brother state. There are other countries like China who are much worse than us and any step that goes in that direction however small should be resisted all the way.
Oh don't get me wrong, I am as critical of the lazy use of the 'oh they're just a crazy 'CT'er' type thing as anyone. I'm merely saying on other things that are similar to this, people would have rolled that banner out long before page 5.
I'm certainly not dismissing the points that you and indeed others have made re the negative implications, just saying I have a different view on how important I deem that to be in comparison to the benefits.
No. It makes my brain hurt because statistics and probabilities aren't intuitive, but the bottom line is that it's too easy to be found guilty from a false positive.
Yup, my thoughts exactly too.
I think it will take the investigative element out of crime. The first thing they will do is a DNA test. THEN they arrest the person with the most DNA, and construct a case round that.
Comments
I'm not for a second saying that is right, but seems a bit weird that people talking about govt conspiracies. evil corporations or megalomaniac regimes taking over and/or ruining your lives/ sending you to prison for crimes you didn't commit from bit's of poo left on a seat etc.. are generally deemed ok and accepted as pretty reasonable assumptions round here.
Just seems a bit inconsistent.
Would you be happy for the police (or any other organisation) to have free access to your bank records, track your daily activities or, at worst, just install CCTV cameras in your home?
If the answer to any of that is "no" (as I'd assume would be the case for any right-thinking person) then you have to concede that there comes a point where the right to privacy outweighs the possibility of helping catch criminals.
Once you accept that there is a balance to be struck, and it isn't just a case of anything that can help solve crimes is worthwhile, then you can, perhaps, begin to understand people's reluctance.
Let's face it, even if we put aside the possibility of such a database being used for nefarious purposes, the possibility of it being expanded for other purposes or the possibility of sensitive information being allowed into the public domain via incompetence (none of which are particularly far-fetched, given the type of stuff we already know goes on), the police don't exactly have an unblemished record with regard to their current use of DNA and it seems likely that things would only get worse if they had access to everybody's DNA.
You might want to look up function creep.
Perhaps you can explain why Governments will always be benign?
I think it's a little naive to assume that most of the BIB (and indeed other stuff) doesn't happen to an extent already. (well maybe the cameras in my home aside;-)).
I'd have a problem with cameras in my house, yes, but for me I can give a hundred and one reasons why that would be an invasion of my privacy, however I'd struggle to come up with many (if any) legitimate reasons why I'd have any issues at all with my DNA being on a database.
It really doesn't invade my privacy wheras a camera checking me out butt naked in the shower, would.
You miss my point, and your assumption here does you no favours.
My point remains that some things are mocked and derided as CT nutter stuff and others aren't.
The validity of each is not in question here, more the inconsistency.
Normally those who do the mocking have this weird delusion that governments only ever do good things and have everyone's best interests at heart. It has been shown time and again that the more power you give to a government the more likely they are to abuse it so I don't understand why people are so ready to hand over their most intimate details to someone who would sell it to the highest bidder in a heartbeat.
I am normally the guy saying the above kind of things so it feels a bit weird to almost be the other side of the fence for now.
Sure I believe there are bad people out there and nasty govt. types do all sorts of dastardly things. I also believe there are those in positions of power who oppose this kind of thing. In amongst the detritus, there will always still be the good, decent politicians and decent journalists, police types etc. It's not ALL bad.
I still don't really see how my DNA on a database would affect me in any real way whatsoever.
I am not saying I can't accept others have a different view, I just disagree with it, that's all.
You tell me in your post that the government/ police have never done any wrong which implies you think I don;'t already know this. You are wrong. You also ask me to talk about why I think governments are benign which clearly totally misses the points I've been making and misrepresents my stance.
That is the assumption.
As for what does you no favours, I'll start with the condescending nature and tone of the post and the misrepresentation. I could go on but I think that just about covers it for now.
Insurers already use everything they can find out about you to mitigate their risks, so to think they wouldn't want to get their hands on your DNA profile is just naive. Millions of people would see their insurance policies get more expensive simply because of who their parents were.
It may affect you it may not affect you but it will definitely effect some people in a myriad of ways some of which have been mentioned already
I guess it comes down to the point I made earlier which is that for me the pros don't just outweigh the cons, they absolutely blow them out of the water. Personally it's not even close.
I also think some of the reasons given by some (not all) are a little bit hyperbolic.
If people were consistent and were similarly up in arms over driving licences/ passports/ CCTV etc then at least it would seem a bit more consistent.
Your driving licence cannot be used to predict future illness and discriminate against you - your DNA can.
1) The insurance companies already use genetic test results under certain circumstances. There's an agreed limitation on this that is up for review this year. The rules around that are freely available from the ABI
2) DNA from the national database has already been used for racial and religious profiling and even analysing in-breeding in certain "regions" of England and Wales to see if it can have an impact on the false positive results. The DNA samples have been handed over to private companies who kept them in their own databases and conducted their own research.
3) The government are doing their best to flog medical data to anyone with a quid.
So far this is history rather than science fiction or paranoia. My paranoia kicks in when I think "so what happens when you combine 1,2 & 3?"
My point re driving licences and passports is more to do with the disparity of people who seem to cry about privacy at the drop of a hat yet only about certain things. For me it lacks consistency.
I am not saying they are like for like and I accept the very plausible and real concerns that some may have.
Having said all that I still maintain the pros vastly outweigh the perceived cons.
I'm actually really pro-less tracking/massive databases/etc. for us ordinary folk. I really just want to go waltzing through my everyday life buying chips and such with as little monitoring etc. as possible.
I accept some stuff as "just the way it is" and it doesn't keep me awake at night or anything (e.g. CCTV). But I really do not want my DNA in a database very much. As far as I am concerned, I'm not a criminal, never will be, so I'd basically have to go out of my way to have my DNA collected for, in my case, no good reason. And then there are all the issues about security, a laptop getting lost on a train etc. with a copy of the database backup on it and such like.
No ta. Just easier to avoid. Think of it like this...
a) if you're innocent, then you probably see no good reason for your DNA to be stored on a database.
b) if you're a criminal, then you most definitely do not want your DNA stored on a database.
It therefore seems a lot of expense and hassle and controversy for something which very people in life really actually want. I guess people who have had a family member or friend murdered/raped/whatever might be more "pro", but for us ordinary everyday folk without any experience of that sort of thing, I don't really know anyone that cares for it.
I should say that I am not very "anti" either. i wouldn't flee the country or protest or anything it became law. I just don't think it should in the first place, is all. But nothing to get worked up over.
As a gay male I don't find females attractive either, but I don't want them all shooting
It does a disservice to label things as conspiracy theory because of the negative associations with that words. I've seen documentaries claiming to give an impartial investigation but they still say things like "Conspiracy theorists like to believe something else happened". The original meaning of the phrase has long been lost and now it instantly makes you think of paranoid schizophrenics with completely crackpot ideas so applying it to people who bring up legitimate talking points is wrong. Governments seem quite keen on branding something they don't want to talk about as conspiracy theory nonsense.
The reason I don't want a compulsory database is because the government can't be trusted not to abuse it. The Snowden leaks prove my point. Right now the average person might not have a problem with GCHQ monitoring what they do online now because they aren't going to care that he's pirated a few songs and looked at some weird legal porn. But later in life that person might become active in politics and campaign for government surveillance powers to be curtailed. Those in power can go through everything this guy has ever done online and find material to either blackmail him with or leak to the press to discredit him. No one should have that level of power. I accept passports and driving licenses as necessary but I don't want any expansion of the big brother state. There are other countries like China who are much worse than us and any step that goes in that direction however small should be resisted all the way.
Oh don't get me wrong, I am as critical of the lazy use of the 'oh they're just a crazy 'CT'er' type thing as anyone. I'm merely saying on other things that are similar to this, people would have rolled that banner out long before page 5.
I'm certainly not dismissing the points that you and indeed others have made re the negative implications, just saying I have a different view on how important I deem that to be in comparison to the benefits.
No more, no less.
I think it will take the investigative element out of crime. The first thing they will do is a DNA test. THEN they arrest the person with the most DNA, and construct a case round that.
Additionally, there's function creep...