Proving I'm me!

[kwackers]

Another reason not to have it is because it would become a massive target for hackers and, once the security is breached, I understand that it would make DNA almost useless for criminal evidence because anyone could synthesise any desired profile.

Not really. Very few people could. It requires specialised equipment and knowledge.

Even if copying DNA were straightforward its an irrelevance anyway. To copy it you need some and if you've got some then you've already got it so no need to copy it.

Probably more difficult is that DNA is usually extracted from organic samples, i.e. sperm.
Free floating DNA simply doesn't exist so you'd need not only to get the DNA you'd need to be able to replace it in the cells that forensics would be looking at and that's beyond trivial or even possible in the foreseeable.

[thirdcrank]

Unless it's changed, DNA for profiles is taken from a swab of saliva. Much less intrusive than the blood specimens already taken from most babies to identify their blood group.

I believe there are potential benefits from DNA analysis eg predicting a vulnerability to certain diseases, and social consequences of everybody knowing who was whose daddy. In evidential terms, I believe the weaknesses involve things like poor handling of specimens eg cross-contamination.

I haven't the faintest idea about the present state of the technology in terms of immediate identification. There's DNA in minute traces of sweat, but it might be some time before it will unlock phone or get cash from an ATM, if it ever comes at all.

[bovlomov]

Unless it's changed, DNA for profiles is taken from a swab of saliva. Much less intrusive than the blood specimens already taken from most babies to identify their blood group.

Those specimens are taken without anything like informed consent. How can it be informed, when no one could say where the information would be stored, or for how long, and who would have access to it? I spent several months looking for answers to those questions, but could find nothing. At the time there were, literally, no published procedures. That was several years ago, but I doubt whether things are any better now.

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,

We should all be chipped.
One of our cats has one, so why shouldn't I?

You never know, I could be found in a ditch somewhere having been there months, but at least they'd know who the body was.

Nah! I’d just take the bike

[thirdcrank]

... Those specimens are taken without anything like informed consent. How can it be informed, when no one could say where the information would be stored, or for how long, and who would have access to it? I spent several months looking for answers to those questions, but could find nothing. At the time there were, literally, no published procedures. That was several years ago, but I doubt whether things are any better now.

My fault for not making a clear difference between the current system of samples being taken under some compulsion brought about by the circumstances (arrest, Child Support Agency investigation) and a non-existent universal national ID system. I don't think I've suggested informed consent, just that a saliva swab is less intrusive than a blood sample.

I think I've mentioned further up that the DNA recording system - especially the retention/destruction of the profiles of people who have been arrested then cleared - has developed with little debate. eg I have a pretty clear memory from some years ago when a big extension of DNA profile retention was reported and The Times had it in one of those little snippets without any discussion and I was amazed it didn't provoke a bigger reaction.

My reason for mentioning DNA is because it's there, and on purely technical measures, it's very effective.

[bovlomov]

My fault for not making a clear difference between the current system of samples being taken under some compulsion brought about by the circumstances (arrest, Child Support Agency investigation) and a non-existent universal national ID system. I don't think I've suggested informed consent, just that a saliva swab is less intrusive than a blood sample.

I was (and I thought you were) referring to the heel prick tests. It seemed to me that this was a de facto DNA database, that had been established without any debate.

[thirdcrank]

... I was (and I thought you were) referring to the heel prick tests. It seemed to me that this was a de facto DNA database, that had been established without any debate.

I'm afraid not. All I know about the heel prick test dates from my days as a new dad in the early 1970's. IIRC, in those days it was to detect a dangerous blood group, rhesus something - which could only be corrected with a prompt blood transfusion. As an aside, I remember seeing a documentary which said that only a few blood donors had been identified whose blood was suitable to achieve what was in those days was a miracle. FWIW, One of these in the UK was a policeman.

In terms of the gradual extension of DNA records, I was only talking about the samples taken from adults. Of course, if there are preserved blood samples from pre-DNA days, they can be retrospectively analysed.

If there is a database being surreptitiously assembled using shady samples from babies, then if it's put to any longer-term use eg crime suspect identification, then we'll all know about it. It might be back to the goodies and baddies I mentioned. If it detected a murder, it might get through on a show of hands. Or it might not. Another possibility is that what you are talking about has a purely clinical purpose, in which case, sooner or later some other organ of the State might become keen to use it.

We may be in agreement that transparency is preferable to decisions by drift.

[Mick F]

Hi,

We should all be chipped.
One of our cats has one, so why shouldn't I?
You never know, I could be found in a ditch somewhere having been there months, but at least they'd know who the body was.

Nah! I’d just take the bike

How do know I had been riding a bike?

Walking home from a fancy dress party some (many) years ago, dressed as a fairy complete with wings and frilly skirt, I fell over rather the worse for wear. Nettle stings were all I can remember except Mrs Mick F laughing her her head off and helping me out!

[mjr]

Walking home from a fancy dress party some (many) years ago, dressed as a fairy complete with wings and frilly skirt, I fell over rather the worse for wear. Nettle stings were all I can remember except Mrs Mick F laughing her her head off and helping me out!

Aha! Gotcha with our spells!

[thirdcrank]

Home secretary apologises for immigrant DNA tests

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45979359

[bovlomov]

We may be in agreement that transparency is preferable to decisions by drift.

Yes, but... strangely, that very lack of transparency, rather than principled objections, is often the cause of the failure. The defensiveness and secrecy around these schemes keeps naysayers such as me away, but it also keeps away the people who might have constructive suggestions - the 'experts'.

Perhaps I should be happy the way things are, with a scrapyard full of half built databases. But in the long run, I'd tolerate most of these schemes, if only they were proportionate and well executed.

[thirdcrank]

Proportionate seems to be the hard one there. What's proportionate?

In terms of DNA, if you are establishing a database, you don't know why it may be accessed. One person's serious offence is somebody else's larking about. And the boundaries change over time, as we've seen with personal violence.

If there's anything in favour of a universal database it's that it eliminates discrimination: what I've referred to as goodies and baddies. And quasi-baddies (see my link about the Home Office above.)

[bovlomov]

If there's anything in favour of a universal database it's that it eliminates discrimination...

Not necessarily in the way it is used. Laws are for everyone*, but they aren't always applied equally [see tax law, stop-and-search, etc.]. There's no reason to think that a universal DNA database would counter institutional bias, and it may even exacerbate it, facilitating the harassment of unpopular groups.

* “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”: Anatole France:

[thirdcrank]

There's a difference between the reasons for establishing a database and its implementation. If a database is unjustified, that's the end of it.

I'm saying that if it's justified, then it should be universal, rather than selective. Anything may be abused, but an initial selection seems to me to have discrimination built in.

[bovlomov]

There's a difference between the reasons for establishing a database and its implementation. If a database is unjustified, that's the end of it.

I'm saying that if it's justified, then it should be universal, rather than selective. Anything may be abused, but an initial selection seems to me to have discrimination built in.

Yes, I can see that.

And I can see the attraction of universal and centralised databases, but for me the dangers far exceed the benefits. Any law can be misapplied, but the damage done by a single racist official, or even a racist department, is tiny compared to the damage that could be done by (God forbid!) a racist Home Secretary with such a tool.

It would be possible to develop a universal DNA database that contained structural protections against abuse, but in this country that would be unthinkable.