Illustration by Jordan Pote
|
Police officers are now routinely arresting people in order to add their DNA sample to the national police database, an inquiry alleged…
The human genetics commission report, Nothing to hide, nothing to fear?, says the national DNA database for England and Wales is already the largest in the world, at 5 million profiles and growing, yet has no clear statutory basis or independent oversight…
The commission says the policy of routinely adding the DNA profiles of all those arrested has led to a highly disproportionate impact on different ethnic groups and the stigmatisation of young black men, with the danger of their being seen as “an ‘alien wedge’ of criminality”…
The chairman of the commission, Prof Jonathan Montgomery, said: “It’s now become pretty routine to take DNA samples on arrest. So large numbers of people on the DNA database will be there not because they have been convicted, but because they’ve been arrested.”
He said the commission had received evidence from a former police superintendent that it was now the norm to arrest offenders for everything possible. “It is apparently understood by serving police officers that one of the reasons, if not the reason, for the change in practice is so that the DNA of the offender can be obtained,” said Montgomery, adding that it would be a matter of very great concern if this was now a widespread practice.
This is a chilling admission of how far – everything that civil liberties campaigners feared – has come. A cabal of neo-Nazi police superintendents wasn’t required. Dopey useless politicians – not slimey right-wing nationalists – provided the framework.
There’s even a bit of techno-jargon to cover the process. Function creep.
#26- Bobbo.
I don’t think I was being unclear at all.
I had already expanded the discussion, plausible, potential for the state to collect and store most details about our daily lives.
Let “things” refer to “all non-capital crimes” or simply “deeds,” if you like.
Friendships, through social networking sites; commonly visited locations, through cell phone records; driving habits, through a combination of traffic cameras and license plate recognition software; commercial habits, through credit card records: all can be stored forever when digital storage costs are reduced enough.
Instead of tackling my choice of words, I’m horrendously informal with language, why not address the main point?
Real privacy, which I DO believe is a constitutionally guaranteed right, might disappear in our lifetimes.
That’s big stuff.
Do you think a technological capability should be ignored or do you think the balance of people and government should be radically shifted? It isn’t Sophistry…
“Real” privacy is already gone for all practical purposes.
For some reason I’m reminded of the old joke: In Communism, man exploits man; in Capitalism, it is the exact opposite.
*rimshot*
#32–Chris:
#26- Bobbo.
I don’t think I was being unclear at all.//// Of course you were being fatally vague. Don’t be so defensive.
I had already expanded the discussion, plausible, potential for the state to collect and store most details about our daily lives. /// My point was the expansion of the idea generating the discussion, but I quibble for the point you are groping for.
Let “things” refer to “all non-capital crimes” or simply “deeds,” if you like. /// Ok, lets. Such meaning and the post using that meaning then has NO RELEVANCE to dna testing. So, if you don’t like the term “unclear” how about self-contradicting, garbled, inconsistent, nonsense, illogical, etc?
Friendships, through social networking sites; commonly visited locations, through cell phone records; driving habits, through a combination of traffic cameras and license plate recognition software; commercial habits, through credit card records: all can be stored forever when digital storage costs are reduced enough. /// True.
Instead of tackling my choice of words, I’m horrendously informal with language, why not address the main point? /// Because your choice of words actually “IS” your main point, in this case unclear, illogical – – etc as stated. WE THINK AND COMMUNICATE WITH WORDS. Poo poo your words and you have also labeled and likewise condemned your thinking and your communication. You cannot throw out a jumble of crap and then leave it to your readers to form it into something elegant and relevant.
Real privacy, which I DO believe is a constitutionally guaranteed right, might disappear in our lifetimes. /// I agree, thats why discussing the difference between objective and subjective evidence, the difference between anonymity and privacy, is so important. “Things” you miss completely.
That’s big stuff./// I agree.
Do you think a technological capability should be ignored or do you think the balance of people and government should be radically shifted? //// I think I CLEARLY posted the advocacy position that technology should be utilized to the maximum. How do you square that with “ignoring it?”
It isn’t Sophistry… /// Its not even the application of high school reading skills. I think basic reading/writing/comprehension/composition skills must be commanded before we head off into Sophist country.
Chris–you obviously can do better. Maybe you just need a little more practice?
Jeez Bobbo, now you’re not making sense. Maybe you should go back to bed.
#36–Monster==I’m not???? I hate it when that happens. Care to be more specific? I do recognize that all of us can be better people, better bloggers, especially with the help of our friends and opponents.
BTW, JC–I apologize for calling you an idiot. I should have limited my grumpiness to “you are being illogical and totally ineffective.” Same thing, but “you know.”
Bobbo, I think we are closer to agreement than not on most issues. That is why I am confused why you choose to pounce on people as you do sometimes.
I went away from DNA earlier in the thread, because I think it is the larger issue at play. Data collection, to me, is a much bigger issue. When endless data collection is feasible, how much data should the state collect? All of it, right?
A highly popular stat, don’t know if it is true, is that modern man would find more data in the NYT than primitive man could find in an entire lifetime.
Go further than DNA tests, and this is the bloody issue! If everything can be saved(economically) then when shouldn’t you save it?
Part of analysis is the end state. It isn’t just DNA: it’s everything that can be stored in a database. That means everything.
So what I’m getting at: Is there stuff that ought not to be saved? Which stuff? What if not saving said stuff causes a bother?(attack or crime)
This is an extraordinarily difficult social\legal problem. I welcome your thoughts.
Chris–I’ll come back in more detail should the thread progress and leave it here with two paramount “values” that I think resolve most questions:
1. Whats the truth?
2. How pragmatic is it.
Keys to the moral universe.
#19, Benjamin… if you had just quoted the next sentence of my post as as well…
“We finally have something that is indisputable, and serious evidence when combined with other more conventional evidence.”
Your scenario is not representative of my suggestion. I did not propose we dispose of all other investigative means and evidence. Quite the opposite. DNA would be invaluable in pinpointing suspects and in many cases solidifying a conviction.
Re #24, Phydeau …. read post #40. Ditto to you.
Chris, re: #32, …
“Friendships, through social networking sites; commonly visited locations, through cell phone records; driving habits, through a combination of traffic cameras and license plate recognition software; commercial habits, through credit card records…”
As population increases and personal interaction expands to global proportions, technology is providing “small town” familiarity. DNA is a necessary tool. Wanted posters hardly ever work any more.
People sound surprised. Why…?
If you didn’t see the writing on the wall that Britain was becoming a hardcore Hollywood style fascist state you can only be moron.
Of course if you don’t see the same about the US… same thing.
Sooner or later they will hand print you and DNA type you at birth. You can count on that.
People, WAKE UP, -stop with the cool-aid talk..and get a clue..
this is about DNA data aggregation and PROFILING for DNA discrimination/profiling of
“potential criminals” or potential “xxx” type people depending on what
class they are targeting for whatever the agenda of the day is.
Think Minority Report/pre-coggs
as some may not know, they have virtually isolated what is euphemistically called “the crime gene” as well as many “other traits”
This is a direct DNA harvest to be used by the UN/Global Government to
control every aspect of our lives.
(although it may be it bit more difficult now that the cat is out of the bag with man-made global warming hoax)
That was to be the primary source of funding for *everything* NWO related.
===
Now that CO2 hoax is out, i can’t wait until the truth about the centuries long fraud of primarily
Western/NASA/Einstein & Academia’s Space/Universe and Energy physics science.
-which like the CO2 hoax, is almost
exclusively based on [manipulated] computer models. -not observational evidence.
Now that will be the “real” scandal of the century.
Perfect way to usher in the new age.
-with the truth.
-expect a lot of sudden “suicides” and whistle blowers in the coming days and months as the PTB scramble like rats in a sinking ship to plug the “leaks” and others look to “buy” their innocence.
-s
I’ve been saying we live in a Mirror Image of the true Reality for a good reason.
Everything we have been taught in science and humanity’s history is inverted, backwards and upside down.
Why? Simple: because the real way things are would allow complete independence and autonomy of every human on the planet.
The simple knowledge reserved for the so-called “gods” would be known and taught in grade school.
It’s going to be one hell of a ride the next few years..
The Mirror Image Rule applies..
# 21 Benjamin:
“#20 So why did Obama not roll back the Patriot Act, the TSA BS, the no fly list, and other issues he criticized?”
I think he’s choosing his battles, budgeting how he spends his “political capital.”
46,
its a contract and cutting 10,000+ jobs ISNT going to help.
JimR, in # 15 you said: “3.5 billion people in the USA”.
You’re only off by AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE.
There are only 360 million people living in the US.
It makes the rest of your conclusions suspect.
Just saying.
step 1 – find a used beanie in a poor neighbourhood
step 2 – steal stuff
step 3 – leave beanie at scene
step 4 – profit!
#42 JimR- I don’t think DNA is non-useful. It is a tool, a probably (statistically) overrated one, but a tool nonetheless. I’m very wary of any technology based super-tool in any venue.
As an analogy let me suggest spy satellites. They get wonderful resolution and have that wow factor. But they describe structures and not full reality. Think Iraq War.
A good technology with spirited argument can achieve a bad result.
#39 Bobbo- There is the Platonic idea of “Truth” and then there is the real world, as determined by complex human systems, variety. I don’t think that the latter is entirely knowable.
Massive collection systems, now extending back beyond the initial DNA discussion, are dangerous BECAUSE of their seeming completeness.
Most people, of even the most recent generation, don’t really get technology. They don’t understand the promise and the sometimes silly simplicity of machines.
What people have that machines don’t is common sense. Machines, or models, often don’t work as advertised.
Look at the financial markets. Most people treat a few equations as if they were handed down from up on high. Combine that with human emotionality and everything falls apart with sickening regularity.
Anything that is really worth pursuing isn’t easy. Pretending it is often brings the worst of all worlds.
This DNA tracking could be a blessing in disguise. If anyone is injured by a defective product, the injured party has the right to seek financial compensation from the manufacturers of said product.
Your kid causes someone to be injured or killed, you as the manufacturer of that ‘product’ is responsible. Let the courts decide to what degree the ‘manufacturers’ can be held liable.