Judge Says, Record DNA of Everyone In the UK

Many readers informed us about the opinion of Lord Justice Sedley, a senior UK Appeal Court judge, who said that everyone in the UK should have their DNA recorded in the national database — including visitors. Reader ChiefGeneralManager writes, "Sedley calls the current database 'indefensible' because it contains a hodge-podge mix of people, including children and those who have been in contact with the police. His view is that we should make it compulsory for all DNA to be recorded to remove this anomaly. The UK Information Commissioner has expressed some concerns, but not dismissed the idea outright." And reader john.wingfield adds, "Just under two weeks ago, the Independent reported that the Government has admitted that an eighth of all records on the DNA database are false, misspelled, or incorrect — over half a million records. This raises the possibility of a breach of the 4th data protection principle of the Data Protection Act 1998: 'Personal data shall be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date.'"

Identity card not needed anymore

[javilon (99157)]

You don't need an identity card when you have stored a sample of everyone's dna and dna analysis becomes very cheap, a la Gattacca.

This is what expects us.

Re:Identity card not needed anymore

[Aokubidaikon (942336)]

This is what expects us.

What you say !!
You have no chance to survive make your time.

Re:Identity card not needed anymore

[LiquidCoooled (634315)]

Then compare core samples through the brain.

Nothing wrong with that, and if you use a bore small enough people won't notice.

Re:Identity card not needed anymore

[psychicsword (1036852)]

Nothing wrong with that, and if you use a bore small enough people won't notice.

Or you could use one big enough that they don't know they notice.

Proving your innocence

[Potor (658520)]

I doubt extracting DNA and comparing it against a central database will become as fast as examining an identity card anytime in the near future.

That does not matter. If these loose words of the judge are ever put into law (unlikely, but given surveillance-mad Britain, who know...), this proposal would force every Briton - and visitor - to prove his or her innocence for every crime in the future. That will take time, but UK authorities don't care about that. Their abstract view of justice (catching criminals) has blinded them to the liberality upon which Western justice is based.

Speed be damned. This is about the slow constriction of society.

I already avoid traveling to America; now, perhaps I will need to avoid the UK as well. Although not perfect, at the least the EU has its privacy directive [google.com].

DNA samples tend to clear the innocent ...

[AHumbleOpinion (546848)]

this proposal would force every Briton - and visitor - to prove his or her innocence for every crime in the future

I apologize, I haven't had my morning coffee yet, but I don't understand. DNA samples tend to clear innocent suspects, not falsely implicate them. In the US numerous people suffering from false imprisonment, DNA tests were not available at the time of their trial, have been released as they managed to get DNA tests performed. Thank goodness for long term preservation of evidence.

Re:

[kannibal_klown (531544)]

I live across the pond, but my main grief with something like this is the way it would be used/abused. Once the data is somewhere, it's only a small step to expand its uses. Yes, DNA evidence is great for crime fighting and with it you can help exclude suspects or arrest criminals. But fortunately only a small percentage of the population has been arrested, so the current data storage isn't so massive. But what happens when this goes from 2% of the population to 100%?

Unlike fingerprints, which serve as

Insurance company screening a red herring ...

[AHumbleOpinion (546848)]

Once everyone's DNA is indexed somewhere then it opens up a can of worms. It's inevitable that at some point it will be misused. Perhaps it's opened up for other uses (Insurance companies, public domain, etc) or maybe someone just gets access to the data.

In the US, since the 1970s, government agencies have been restricted in terms of what information they can collect and what they can share even amongst each other and subcontractors. Since then privacy rules have become even more restrictive, in particular with respect to medical information.

The insurance company screening argument is a red herring to a degree. They could collect a DNA sample as part of a mandatory physical. Unless such profiling is outlawed, it will happen regardless of whether or not there is a national DNA database.

Re:

[ASBands (1087159)]

It didn't matter how much I lied on my resumè. My real resumè was in my cells. Of course, it's illegal to discriminate based on genetics - it's called genoism, but nobody follows the laws. They could take a sample from the doorknob, hair or even the saliva on my envelope. If in doubt, a legal drug test can easily turn into an illegal peek at my future in the company.

-Gattaca (not 100% exact, but the idea is there)

Re:

[RadioElectric (1060098)]

IANAMG (I am not a molecular geneticist) but I've taken an undergraduate module in genetics. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that the identifying information used in police databases of DNA does not contain the complete genetic code of the individual, only samples of where it tends to vary the most between individuals. Because of this, I don't THINK the data would be kept in such a way that would allow it to be analyzed to find anything except for a genetic match with a sample or to determine

Re:

[rtb61 (674572)]

The biggest problem with the whole concept is a excessive reliance on DNA evidence. When will they start supplying airtight suits so that you can ensure none of your cells are pilfered to be planted and then used in evidence against you or even transported accidentally by random contact with the true perpetrator. Every dead skin cell, every lost hair, every spit, each time you blow your nose, every stool and even taking a leak, all represent a moment where others can gain access to evidence that in the curr

Re:DNA samples tend to clear the innocent ...

[afidel (530433)]

Like all other evidence DNA can either convict people unfairly or free innocent people. It's all down to interpretation. First off not all DNA testing is done to the level where a specific individual can be positively identified, they generally pick N locations and compare the suspect to the sample and state that this combination of markers at these location are likely to occur in X percent of the population. The main reason this kind of testing is done is that it is MUCH quicker and quite a bit cheaper than a full genome workup. Second, just because your DNA is present does not mean you committed a crime, simply that it is likely you were present (your DNA can be planted or incidentally transfered). Also lack of DNA evidence does not mean you are innocent, only that you did not leave any detectable evidence behind.

Re:Identity card not needed anymore

[kebes (861706)]

Can you provide a reference for that? This is an honest request, because I find that quite shocking and wasn't able to find any confirmation of it.

The homepage for the Canadian National DNA Data Bank [nddb-bndg.org] says that DNA samples are taken only from convicted criminals. The site says:

The government responded by assenting to the DNA Identification Act on December 10, 1998. This legislation allowed a DNA data bank to be created and amended the Criminal Code to provide a mechanism for a judge to order persons convicted of designated offences to provide blood, buccal or hair samples from which DNA profiles will be derived.

(emphasis added)

Moreover, this page [publicsafety.gc.ca] discusses debate (in 2005) about whether or not a DNA database could help with missing persons investigations. The discussion doesn't mention using an already-existing DNA database of all citizens (or all citizens born since 1994) but instead seems to discuss the creation of a new database. In the discussion about whether such a database should be created, they say:

The need for strict guidelines, set forth in legislation, to govern the DNA MPI. Respondents suggested that the guidelines that govern the NDDB can be used as a model, with special consideration given to the issue of consent from family members for collection, use, retention and removal.

In short, this sounds like a proposal for a voluntary system where loved ones of a missing person could donate DNA samples to help locate the person or identify their remains. It makes no mention of an existing effort to retain DNA on all newborns since 1994.

Anyone have any further information on this subject?

(Anecdotally, I'm not aware of any such DNA testing on any children recently born in Canada--e.g. my nephew.)

Pennies

[Rik Sweeney (471717)]

I thought this was done already. Which is why they keep pennies in circulation...

Re:Pennies

[soulsteal (104635)]

I keep my penis in circulation for the precise reason of DNA recording, otherwise- oh wait, you said pennies. PENNIES. Ah, nevermind.

Oh, sure.

[morgan_greywolf (835522)]

Why not? In the U.S., don't we already record fingerprints at birth? Let's just all do this.

If you're against this, you probably have something to hide and you should be prosecuted anyway. If you didn't do anything wrong, you have nothing to hide, so why you should care? After all, we need to be protected from the terrorists!

You can't be against this, because it will protect the children. After all, if we have their DNA and they're kidnapped, we'll be able to find them quicker. Will someone please think of the children?

*sigh*

I'm moving to a deserted island in the middle of the Pacific to start my own country. Anyone care to join me?

Re:Oh, sure.

[MyLongNickName (822545)]

I'm moving to a deserted island in the middle of the Pacific to start my own country. Anyone care to join me?

Only if your country has mandatory DNA recordings. I want to be protected from the terrorists.

Re:Oh, sure.

[RealGrouchy (943109)]

Only if your country has mandatory DNA recordings. I want to be protected from the terrorists.

And from the children! Oh, god, someone think of the children!

- RG>

Re:Oh, sure.

[David_W (35680)]

Oh, god, someone think of the children!

I believe the children are our future... unless we stop them now!

Re:Oh, sure.

[Dausha (546002)]

"Why not? In the U.S., don't we already record fingerprints at birth?"

Nope. Having had a few kids, I have never seen them fingerprinted at birth. The Hospital takes a footprint at birth to make sure the mother walks out with the same baby she walked in with. However, that information is not transmitted to law enforcement. The US of A does not record fingerprints at birth like you think.

What "the government" is and isn't.

[Kadin2048 (468275)]

The government (in the USA anyway) has at LEAST the following: Your full name, birth record, race, eye color, hair color, parents names and IDs, your social security number, address, drivers license number, license plate, vehicle VIN number, vehicle registration number, insurance information, bank account numbers, credit account history, mortgage information, phone number (if you have ever included it on a form or called them from home, but they can get it on request anyway if you haven't), tax history, employer name(s), payroll information, fingerprints (from birth, typically elementary school age in most states, and adulthood if you've ever been to a police station or filed them voluntarily), your dental records and medical records (by request of a judge or coroner), military ID and rank (if any), and the list goes on.

You act as if the government is a single, monolithic entity. It's not.

"The Government" is a hodgepodge of agencies with mutually contradictory goals and aims, most of whom would sooner throw rocks at each other than cooperate. This is, perversely, a good thing.

Why? Because although "the government" may know a lot about you, it doesn't know all of that in any one place. There's no single database -- yet -- where you can sit down, CSI-style, and bring up any citizen's dossier. Your local police department knows your name, address, and how many parking tickets you've gotten this year, but they don't have access to your tax information from the IRS. (And the IRS is actually pretty snarky about not sharing information casually; if I had a dime for every time one of my LEO buddies bitched about the IRS making them jump through hoops, I'd be a rich man. I guess there's honor among thieves or something.)

This is the way the system is supposed to work. (Well, I'd like to see the size of the bureaucracy cut down dramatically, but that's a different topic.) In order for the bureaucracy to function, it needs to know a certain amount about you. But different agencies need to know different things. As long as the data is kept compartmentalized -- as it is, in large part, today; owing less to design than simply because it's a really hard problem to correlate it all -- it's not a mortal threat to privacy.

It's when you start to get all that information put into a single database, and where there's a natural primary key that allows the database to be easily searched and information to be linked (why do people get paranoid about SSNs? Because they're the obvious choice for a primary key), that you start to get really Orwellian. With minor exceptions, we don't have anything like that in the U.S., although there are a lot of people trying.

Re:Oh, sure.

[Chatterton (228704)]

'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy

Abstract:
In this short essay, written for a symposium in the San Diego Law Review, Professor Daniel Solove examines the nothing to hide argument. When asked about government surveillance and data mining, many people respond by declaring: I've got nothing to hide. According to the nothing to hide argument, there is no threat to privacy unless the government uncovers unlawful activity, in which case a person has no legitimate justification to claim that it remain private. The nothing to hide argument and its variants are quite prevalent, and thus are worth addressing. In this essay, Solove critiques the nothing to hide argument and exposes its faulty underpinnings.

I've Got Nothing to Hide [ssrn.com]

Re:

[VJ42 (860241)]

F The government (in the USA anyway) has at LEAST the following: Your full name, birth record, race, eye color, hair color, parents names and IDs, your social security number, address, drivers license number, license plate, vehicle VIN number, vehicle registration number, insurance information, bank account numbers, credit account history, mortgage information, phone number (if you have ever included it on a form or called them from home, but they can get it on request anyway if you haven't), tax history, employer name(s), payroll information, fingerprints (from birth, typically elementary school age in most states, and adulthood if you've ever been to a police station or filed them voluntarily), your dental records and medical records (by request of a judge or coroner), military ID and rank (if any), and the list goes on.

Fingerprints are not kept by the UK government unless you've ever been suspected of a crime, and taken down to the local cop shop (I live in the UK, one reason I'm boycotting travel to the USA is because they want my prints; my own government doesn't even have them, why should I give it to a foreign one). Well that was true until this year anyway now they also take them if you want a new passport (aledgely to harmonise biometrics with other countries; in reality the only country demanding this is the USA,

Re:Oh, sure.

[camperdave (969942)]

Oh yeah! There will be fibreoptic lines to each home, and free wifi available on every spot on the island. The unfortunate thing is that the only way to get packets on and off the island is by tramp steamer.

*Two* important questions

[AHumbleOpinion (546848)]

"I'm moving to a deserted island in the middle of the Pacific to start my own country. Anyone care to join me?"

What are your breasts like?

I'd add are you a woman? I really don't care about a man's c-cups.

I find this highly offensive

[stevedcc (1000313)]

"We have a situation where if you happen to have been in the hands of the police then your DNA is on permanent record. If you haven't, it isn't. It means where there is ethnic profiling going on disproportionate numbers of ethnic minorities get onto the database."

I interpret this as 'because the police are arresting a disproprtionately high proportion of ethnic minorities and the contents of the DNA database reveals this, we should just profile everybody so that the apparent discrimination disappears'. Maybe they should try dealing with the apparent racism and/or social inequality rather than brushing it under the carpet?

Re:

[nurb432 (527695)]

Or perhaps its not "disproportionate" and ethnic minorities really do have a higher percentage of criminals.

Just because you feel guilty for the acts of your ancestors doesn't make your biased assumptions accurate.

Re:I find this highly offensive

[stevedcc (1000313)]

I don't think it's the police's fault that black people commit more crimes than white people.

You're missing the point. Many of these people haven't committed a crime, they've only been arrested on suspicion of comitting one. This can easily be due to the interpretation of the officer at the scene, and there might not enough evidence to prosecute. Racial prejudice WILL be a factor in the disproportiante number of ethnic minorities. How large a factor is open to debate, but it would be much fairer to only retain the DNA where there was sufficient evidence to charge or prosecute, this would remove at least some of the distortion due to racial prejudice.

Re:

[speaker of the truth (1112181)]

Have you got any evidence to back this up? Because poor people are more likely to commit crimes (at least crimes you'll get caught for) and in America unfortunately a black person is more likely to be poor then a white person (thanks to all of those decades of racism). So therefore a black person truly is more likely to commit a crime. It's not the police's fault, it's not a genetic trait of black people, it is a social one we have imparted onto them through a series of unfortunate events.

Re:I find this highly offensive

[starrsoft (745524)]

Maybe they should look into the cause of the disproportionate numbers?

Yeah, like maybe more ethnic minorities are committing more crimes?

All races have equal worth. All cultures/socioeconomic structures do not. Call me politically incorrect, but Thai culture is far better than Cannibal culture.

The crime disparity is not racial, it's cultural/socioeconomic. Whites who follow an inner-city culture have just as high crime rates.

Re:I find this highly offensive

[srmalloy (263556)]

I am reminded of the offhand reference in Robert Heinlein's novel Friday that the California Republic, having determined that citizens with a bachelor's degree earned, on average, 40% more than citizens without such a degree, passed legislation awarding each citizen a bachelor's degree when they reached 18, thereby eliminating this shocking social inequity.

This bit says it all...

[jkrise (535370)]

WHO'S ON THE DATABASE?

5.2% of UK population
Nearly 40% of black men
13% of Asian men
9% of white men
Source: Home Office and Census

Enuff said. When the remaining 91% are going to be DNA recorded, they start squirming. Majority of ethnic minorities kept quiet and bore it all....

Re:This bit says it all...

[clickclickdrone (964164)]

Just for the record, a quick bit of googling shows on london teen murders 2007 showed the following for those who thought this was flamebait:
Mohammed Ahmed, suspect attacker, black
Adam Regis (black) attacked by 2 blacks
Billy Cox (black) attacker black
James Smartt-Ford (black)
Michael Dosunmu (black)
Annaka Keniesha Pinto (black)
Charlotte Polius (black)
That was the first few I found. I remember the London Evening Standard did a photo spread recently of all the victims of stabbings or shootings in London this year and there was one white face.
It might not be PC, it might not be palatable but this is what's going on and waving the race card to object is doing the black population a huge disservice as is trying to sweep it all under the carpet. There are endemic problems with gang culture and there is a need for some postive role models for young kids that don't involve rap songs about ho's, bitches, killing, drugs, fast cars and easy money.

The other solution is cheaper

[by Anonymous Coward]

Delete the database.

'visitors DNA'

[YrWrstNtmr (564987)]

A lot of people stated they would refuse to vacation in the States anymore because of the fingerprinting at Customs. This is far, far worse.

Re:

[locokamil (850008)]

That's because Heathrow is a dog's breakfast at the moment. Changing terminals is painful because it's congested, not because of customs impediments thrown up by the government. I regularly fly between the US and the UK, and it's hilarious how different customs experiences are in the different countries:

US: I have a sketchy muslim name, so I invariably get corralled into a side room, fingerprinted, "registered" and interviewed. If it takes less than 2 hours to complete this process, I consider myself fortu

Backwards Logic

[mdwh2 (535323)]

Okay, I can see that the current situation of including people who aren't convicted of a crime is unfair, but to suggest that the only possible solution is to treat everyone as if they have convicted a crime?!
How about we stop adding people to the database so easily in the first place.

I also love that for once, it's a judge proposing authoritarian measures, and Labour who are opposing it: A spokesman for Prime Minister Gordon Brown said to expand the database would create "huge logistical and bureaucratic issues" and civil liberty concerns.

(For non-UK readers, Labour being the Government that have repeatedly brought in authoritarian measures, and plan bureaucratic nightmares like the national ID card scheme, ignoring any civil liberty concerns...)

Only a tiny sample of saliva, blood, semen

Hmm, if we are forced to all turn up to have our DNA taken, can we choose to spit, bleed or er ... at them?

Re:

[David Off (101038)]

> A spokesman for Prime Minister Gordon Brown said to expand the database would create "huge logistical and bureaucratic issues" and civil liberty concerns.

To translate this for you "we only plan to introduce compulsory DNA testing after we have won the next general election"

Could be an interesting political tactic...

[Loosifur (954968)]

I'm not real familiar with the way the British courts work, but I know that in the US a tactic sometimes used by judges that want a law overturned is to simply enforce the letter of the law. The idea is that the law itself is so flawed that by enforcing it strictly and literally it becomes evident that the law should be changed. Similar thing happened recently where some congressmen tried to reinstitute the draft, the reasoning being that if it's important enough for US soldiers to fight and die in Iraq, then it's important enough for every eligible US citizen to join up. Of course, and this was their point, if it's not that important, then we shouldn't be there. Maybe this judge is making the same point about DNA profiling: either everyone has to be on record, which would raise some serious privacy and legal issues, or no DNA records are kept at all because there isn't a fair way to do it.

Re:

[Znork (31774)]

"The idea is that the law itself is so flawed that by enforcing it strictly and literally it becomes evident that the law should be changed."

Indeed. The value and accuracy of a DNA database decreases with size as the number of false hits and prevalence of simply mislabeled and misidentified samples increases. With a whole-population database you'd start dragging provably innocent people into court in the range of thousands or tens of thousands per year. This already happens; in the UK, a man with advanced P

Re:Could be an interesting political tactic...

[clickclickdrone (964164)]

>Perhaps latex catsuits ... will become mainstream fashion
Suddenly it's starting to appeal ;-)

Human rights court

[BlueParrot (965239)]

If they do try to put this motion in place then it is time to appeal to the European court of human rights. They have bitch-slapped governments for authoritarian crap before and they can do it again. If that doesn't work then it is time to take to the streets. Identity cards, detentions without trial, and now this, things have gone too far...

DNA from visitors?

[fotbr (855184)]

Fine. Just don't expect me to visit.

Besides, Paris has better airshows, and Germany, Spain, and Italy all have better F1 races. Guess I'll take my tourist dollars there instead.

Chimeras

[kilonad (157396)]

What about chimeras - people who have two different sets of DNA in the same body? They allegedly make up a small but not insignificant fraction of the population. How will the system deal with them?

Implementation

[chill (34294)]

If they could get some of the Page 3 Girls [wikipedia.org] to creatively accept "DNA samples", this might work.

If not, could someone please post when this is actually put into force? It'll make my future travel plans easier if I can strike one more country off my list of places to visit.

Tourism in England

[fallen1 (230220)]

will vanish, for the most part, if it requires giving a DNA sample to visit the country. This is not only intrusive, it is vile and disturbing on more levels than I care to go into this early in the morning. I, for one, would never visit the country if DNA sampling was required to enter.

And let's go ahead and give a rest to that tired old bullshit about "If you have nothing to hide then..." Everyone has something they want hidden, even if they won't admit it. My argument is that, regardless of if I have something to hide or not, I _DO NOT TRUST ANY GOVERNMENT IN THIS WORLD_ with my DNA on file and for them to "protect" it while "only using it to solve crimes". Virtually all things that have been expressed in this manner are then perverted for some other use, above and beyond what the stated intent was. Someone in power will eventually decide they can use the database for other "good" and seek to extend their reach further and further into the homes and lives of all people - the criminal AND, especially, the INNOCENT.

I, for one, hope that the people of the United Kingdom will stand up against this complete and utter invasion of their lives and take back some control of the information that is connected to them. I also hope that the people of the United States and other countries (Australia, Canada, and many others) also stand up and take back control, because those so-called free countries many of us are living in are looking more and more like they're creeping into fascism and/or totalitarian or police states.

We must dissent.

(Kudos to all those who get the reference in my last line :)

Re:

[a.ameri (665846)]

Nope, tourism in Britain won't die because, even if this madness came to pass as law (which it wouldn't), the European Court of Justice will throw it right out of the window as it runs against a fundamental EU notion of free movement of people and goods.

Now, go on you eurosceptics Brits and hate the EU some more...while all it does is create more checks and balances so that crazy stuff like this happen less often.

criminals can already fake their DNA

[wikinerd (809585)]

Unfortunately a criminal can very easily hide their DNA by injecting foreign blood into their circulatory system. It has been done, according to Wikipedia.

Wikipedia says [wikipedia.org]: Dr. John Schneeberger of Canada raped one of his sedated patients in 1992 and left semen on her underwear. Police drew Schneeberger's blood and compared its DNA against the crime scene semen DNA on three occasions, never showing a match. It turned out that he had surgically inserted a Penrose drain into his arm and filled it with foreign blood and anticoagulants.

This means that criminals have a way to bypass DNA checks and hide their identity. It's harder than making a fake ID card, but it's still relatively easy. Therefore, a national universal DNA database would not help to catch the smartest (and probably most dangerous) of the criminals. It could help to catch a few stupid or clueless criminals, but these are not too dangerous compared to the smarter ones.

Therefore DNA evidence is not the final answer to whether a person is guilty. It can contribute to an investigation, but no one must base a decision solely on DNA identification. With this in mind, the ROI of a massive universal national DNA database may be much lower than this judge thinks.

Clearing innocents thru DNA does not need a DB

[wikinerd (809585)]

DNA has also been used to clear individuals as well. In the case of the criminal justice system, many individuals (with criminal records) are cleared already due to DNA samples on hand not matching a particular case.

It is very good that DNA can be used to help clear innocent people accused of being criminals. However, if the police already has a DNA sample from the crime scene and a person is accused of being the criminal, and such person can always give their DNA to the police for testing. A database of DNA samples for helping clearing innocents is not needed at all, I think. You have the DNA sample from the crime scene, you have the accused person in front of you, what else do you need? How could a database help

Re:

[RegularFry (137639)]

This guy's not an idiot. He must know that if a universal DNA database was brought online, not only would it cost a *huge* amount to implement, but convictions would skyrocket. We're already out of prison space, so I think he's putting this forward as an option purely for the backlash it will cause. In the light of this suggestion, it becomes politically feasible to legislate for fewer imprisonable offences (for example), and it shows the people who already are arguing for more sensible management of the