Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Your Rights Online

DNA Fingerprinting Of All UK Criminals 17

Posted by michael from the gattaca dept.
mapryan writes: "Here's a link to a story that's in today's Independent (UK) newspaper. Apparently, the goverment is planning to DNA fingerprint all criminals. How long before DNA fingerprinting of *all* new born babies is routine, and logged away in some National Police computer?" Not long. Rudy Giuliani, a U.S. politician, has already suggested that all infants have DNA samples taken at birth.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

DNA fingerprinting of all UK criminals More

DNA fingerprinting of all UK criminals

Comments Filter:
  • Could I have a source for the Giuliani comment? Thanks.

    I bet you thought this was going to be a flame, didn't you?
  • "Could I have a source for the Giuliani comment?"

    A quick Google search on Giuliani DNA [google.com] turns up a lot of hits. The comment seems to have been reported in the New York Times in December 1998, for which no free online record exists, but, the New York Civil Liberties Union [nyclu.org] mentions it in a very dry paper about DNA, if that's reputable enough for you:

    "The rounding up of a whole class of people, the collection of physical samples, and the extraction of DNA information from those samples are illegal in the United States of America. Or so we had thought.

    "New York Governor George Pataki wants to expand the state DNA databank from violent felons to all felons. New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani wants to include all newborn children. Meanwhile, the New York City Police Department has been collecting DNA samples from suspects without their consent or their knowledge, and without the benefit of court orders."

    This news report [newstrolls.com] references thi s 404 NYT page [nytimes.com].

    And this message-board post [mail-archive.com] gives a specific date in the NYT, which is as close as I could get in five minutes:

    "When asked whether all children should have DNA tests at birth, the Mayor said: "...I would have no problem with that, or fingerprinting all children...There is absolutely no reason why people should be afraid of being identified..." It's not invasive," the Mayor said. "It doesn't invade any right of privacy. You don't have a right not to be identified. I don't remember a constitutional amendment that gives you the right not to be identified."-N.Y. Times 12/17/98 "Giuliani Backs DNA Testing of Newborns for Identification"

    Finally, check out more of Robert Lederman's comments [nyfma.tao.ca]. As someone who's been falsely arrested over 40 times for painting unflattering portraits of Giuliani, he has a special interest in DNA fingerprinting.

    Jamie McCarthy

  • Mr Blair also stressed that he was in favour of so-called zero tolerance and wanted a society based on respect for others.

    How very typical of a politician to contradict himself in a single sentence. Does he mean that if he doesn't respect your lifestyle, he won't have to tolerate it? Sounds like the Criminal Justice Act all over again, but who is he wishing to persecute now? I don't believe for a moment that this is aimed at Organised Crime.

  • Brave New World... (Score:3)

    by Brazilian Geek ( 25299 ) on Friday September 01, 2000 @05:18AM (#812054) Journal
    Aldus Huxley would have been proud of us, in so little time we - as a society - have already started to walk down the path he wrote...

    Damn, I can imagine several good things from DNA fingerprinting (unrefutable signatures, perfect identity tests, possible location of lost/missing people, etc.) but I can also see ONE single argument as to why this is bad:

    Man (as in species, not male) wants power. The ultimate power one person can have over others is the power to take their lives away - not by killing them, but to take away ANY and ALL freedom to do as they please. Think of it, would you prefer to be dead or to be a mindless minion? DNA fingerprinting takes away any means to keep yourself anonymous - that's why I think this is terrible. Normal folks (Janes, Johns and Rupauls) shouldn't have to do this - never.

    One may argue that criminals deserve this and on some levels I'd agree - life sentance, repeat rapists or murders (some escape jail you know) and other VERY dangerous prisoners may deserve this but the legal system would have to be VERY VERY VERY trustworthy and apply this sentance only ocassionaly. It's a definate violation of privacy but this could be an intresting form of punishment for the repeat muderer - but not for the average pickpocket!

    That's my rant... Mod as you wish.

  • They don't take a babies finger prints at brith. I think (but do not have eveidence other then a failing memory) that courts have not allowed it. DNA should fall under the same laws.

    Either way vote against the congressmen who wants this.

  • Does it strike anyone else as an odd assumption US citizens only have rights if they are written in the constitution?

    This assumption is only made by those who wish to to take them away, and those stupid enough to buy the catch all boogey man arguement. 'If we don't do X criminals will hurt OUR CHILDREN' blah blah blah...

    Let me remind you of a little something...

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    That's the 9th Amendment to the US Constitution.

    LK

  • Re:Brave New World... (Score:3)

    by Weezul ( 52464 ) on Friday September 01, 2000 @07:33AM (#812057)
    Criminals rights need not be central to the discussion. Searchable DNA database are just plain stupid no matter how you look at it for simple statistical reasons. I will explain:

    Case 1: I'm a cop and I have a suspect. I take a DNA sample from the suspect and a DNA sample from the crime sceane. It is unlikely that I will get a false positive, but far from impossible.

    Case 2: I'm a cop without a suspect. I take a DNA sample from the crime sceane and do a database search based on the sample. It is now about a million time more likely that I get a false positive. If I do this for 1000 case per year it is now 1 billion times more likely that I get a false positive sometime during the year. Ultimatly, I end up convicting a lot of innocent people based on bullshit.

    There are two solution to this problem: (1) do not build finger print, DNA, etc. databases or (2) do not allow ANY evidence used as part of a search to enter into conviction, i.e. If a DNA search is used to identify suspects then DNA may not be used in court period.

    Anyway, the U.S. already has a erious problem with false convictions based on DNA evidence from databases. There really needs to be some kind of reform of the policy allowing DNA evidence to be used both for locating suspects and for convictions.
  • Case 2: I'm a cop without a suspect. I take a DNA sample from the crime sceane and do a database search based on the sample. It is now about a million time more likely that I get a false positive. If I do this for 1000 case per year it is now 1 billion times more likely that I get a false positive sometime during the year. Ultimatly, I end up convicting a lot of innocent people based on bullshit.

    This is actually a +5 Insightful comment. Cryptography has the concept of "collisions", that is, the odds when generating a hash of some sort that your random hash will be the same as the hash of something else. They call it the birthday problem: what are the odds someone else in the room has the same birthday as you? Relatively low. What are the odds any two people in the room have the same birthday? Much higher - so much higher that it's worth betting on in any large group (where "large" is "23 people or more").

    Essentially, if your database of DNA values is large enough (like, the whole population) it's extremely likely that you'll find a match with a random sample. Now, prove you didn't commit that murder - after all, "your" DNA is at the scene...

    --
    Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org

  • I read with interest a number of articles on the Blair Initiative in taking DNA samples, yet there two classes of criminal that is getting away scot free:&nbspthe politicians and the civil servents. No mention at all about taking DNA samples from those that partake of the public teat.

    Another thing:they should take DNA samples from every member of law enforcement. The rationale is that the labs would then have DNA samples "for exclusionary purposes" when investigators have taken DNA samples from a less-than-perfect crime scene.

  • No, but they do take foot prints don't they.
  • Huh? You mean to say Tony Blair hasn't got round to making himself life president of the Republic of New Labour's England yet?
  • No mention at all about taking DNA samples from those that partake of the public teat.

    A very good point. If a person with any level of power has criminal tendencies then it should be viewed much more seriously than if a normal person is a criminal purely because of the extra harm they could do.
  • It gets worse. Everyone's DNA is unique, but DNA fingerprints aren't. In a population the size of Britain, there is a real chance that your DNA fingerprint will be very similar to someone elses.

    When you remember that the criminals DNA has to be scraped off the handle of a gun, a doorknob or whatever (so there's a good chance forensics will only get partial DNA) you could end up matching 10 or 20 people in the country.

    But most juries are really, really impressed by DNA evidence and tend to forget that there are 19 other people out there who fit the evidence as well as you do.

    Especially if you have a history of convictions for drunken brawling outside pubs, or shoplifting

    Also there's no special tag in DNA that says "This person committed a crime today". If you collect DNA from a bank right after a bank robbery, you'll get every person who went into the bank that day.

    And if Olympic atheletes can switch samples without being caught I reckon the cops might be able to as well. In a number of countries there is a tradition of the cops "helping justice along". DNA testing is so impressive that many people think it couldn't possibly be wrong.

  • sadly the US has all ready started figerprining. All US military service members have dna samples taken in boot camp. This is being done under the guies of remains identification reasons ie: so that no one else must be inturned in the tomb of the unknown soldier. Which that into itself is not a bad thing but it sets a precident and could easly spill out into the civillian world. And dna samples taken while i the military could be used against a service member after the get out of the service. With the human genome almost completly docummented the potiental for genetic discrimination is a real one; think the movie GATTAC there must be legislation setforth before dna figerprinting is done wholescale. As a service member I would hate to have my service to my country rewarded by being discriminated because a gentic defect that was only known because of the military's dna record of me. I shall step off my soap box now and get back to work.
  • ... suspects too. Not good.

  • [I've submitted this as a story, but I wanted to post here as well in case it doesn't get accepted]

    http://www.abc .net.au/news/politics/2000/09/item20000908085054_1 .htm [abc.net.au]

    A National Party senator (Sandy MacDonald) is planning to lobby the Federal Government to legislate for DNA profiles to be taken from all babies at birth for use in a national database.

    The NSW senator, Sandy MacDonald, says it should be part of a bill before the Parliament, which would allow samples to be taken from some convicted criminals.

    Senator MacDonald says a comprehensive database would save police time, with enormous advantages to the community.

    "It's about providing, from day one when we're born, a DNA profile that would be of benefit to the community," she said.

    "It would only be used to identify where we were at a certain time if it were necessary.

    "It would also provide some assistance if necessary for things like perhaps tracing congenital diseases and things like that."

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close