School kds DNA tested ?

[Andy1976]

Errors, leading to being arrested for a crime you've not committed.

 

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/09/opinion/la-oe-obasogie9-2010apr09

 

The risk of those errors is so small as to be of no consequence in my view.

 

Let's look at the logistics of doing this.

 

Someone deliberately wants to frame me for a crime.

 

First question is why? I'm no one. In the scheme of things, I'm a nobody. Why would someone want to frame me? They wouldn't. It's egotistical to think I'm that important to anyone.

 

Second point is that I would very likely have an alibi. The huge number of ANPRs, CCTV etc would be very helpful, and it's highly likely I could prove it wasn't me. It would take literally astronomical levels of design to implicate me without any possibility of me being able to prove my innocence.

 

Final point is covered in the article you quoted. DNA matches are based on the fact, from memory of my criminal law days, that it's accurate to about one in a billion. That, in effect means that 6 people in the world would share the same DNA as me (this came from a DNA expert in a trial I did). As your article says, DNA testing isn't as accurate as it's suggested to be, and there are instances such as those you mention where people have similar enough DNA to trigger false-positives.

 

So basically, yes, someone could try to frame you for a crime, but:-

 

1. GSK or whoever gets the data won't do that as there's literally no point;

2. You, I, everyone on this forum, and 99.99999% of the population are of so little importance in the scheme of things that it's not worth bothering doing;

3. As your article points out quite rightly, it's not as accurate as portrayed, and with alibis, CCTV, ANPR, mobile phone tracking etc, it's fairly likely that unless someone has created a literal masterpiece of lies (again, why would they), you'd be able to prove it wasn't you, so what's the point.

 

It's really not a big enough risk to even give passing thought to in my view. This also goes for it accidentally happening by the way.

[ez8004]

Everybody should give a DNA sample. would cut the crime rate dramatically.

 

Other than the fact that it is completely illegal without due cause.

 

Idiotic post is idiotic.

[Andy1976]

Other than the fact that it is completely illegal without due cause.

 

Idiotic post is idiotic.

 

It's not idiotic at all.

 

The suggestion isn't that people should be forced, or anything similar. Padders was suggesting that people volunteer a sample, as a method of preventing and solving crime, which is far from idiotic.

[Guest makapaka]

The risk of those errors is so small as to be of no consequence in my view.

 

Let's look at the logistics of doing this.

 

Someone deliberately wants to frame me for a crime.

 

First question is why? I'm no one. In the scheme of things, I'm a nobody. Why would someone want to frame me? They wouldn't. It's egotistical to think I'm that important to anyone.

 

Second point is that I would very likely have an alibi. The huge number of ANPRs, CCTV etc would be very helpful, and it's highly likely I could prove it wasn't me. It would take literally astronomical levels of design to implicate me without any possibility of me being able to prove my innocence.

 

Final point is covered in the article you quoted. DNA matches are based on the fact, from memory of my criminal law days, that it's accurate to about one in a billion. That, in effect means that 6 people in the world would share the same DNA as me (this came from a DNA expert in a trial I did). As your article says, DNA testing isn't as accurate as it's suggested to be, and there are instances such as those you mention where people have similar enough DNA to trigger false-positives.

 

So basically, yes, someone could try to frame you for a crime, but:-

 

1. GSK or whoever gets the data won't do that as there's literally no point;

2. You, I, everyone on this forum, and 99.99999% of the population are of so little importance in the scheme of things that it's not worth bothering doing;

3. As your article points out quite rightly, it's not as accurate as portrayed, and with alibis, CCTV, ANPR, mobile phone tracking etc, it's fairly likely that unless someone has created a literal masterpiece of lies (again, why would they), you'd be able to prove it wasn't you, so what's the point.

 

It's really not a big enough risk to even give passing thought to in my view. This also goes for it accidentally happening by the way.

 

I don’t get your point on this thread.

 

Are you saying we should all be ok with giving our DNA profile to the government and corporations because no harm can come of it? And therefore you advocate doing it?

[Andy1976]

I don’t get your point on this thread.

 

Are you saying we should all be ok with giving our DNA profile to the government and corporations because no harm can come of it? And therefore you advocate doing it?

 

Almost.

 

I'm saying that there's often a huge panic about ID cards, DNA databases etc, but when I've asked people what their concern is, no one has ever answered me properly.

 

As I've said numerous times, perhaps I'm missing something. It may be that there's a risk I can't see, but I can't see the risk in either, beyond 'It's my information and I don't want to share it'.

[Guest makapaka]

Almost.

 

I'm saying that there's often a huge panic about ID cards, DNA databases etc, but when I've asked people what their concern is, no one has ever answered me properly.

 

As I've said numerous times, perhaps I'm missing something. It may be that there's a risk I can't see, but I can't see the risk in either, beyond 'It's my information and I don't want to share it'.

 

But it isn't that a good enough reason - to not want to share it?

You could equally ask - what benefit would I gain from giving it?

 

 

Aside from that the information is almost certainly likely to end up being used to try and sell you something you don't need.

[onewheeldave]

The risk of those errors is so small as to be of no consequence in my view.

 

 

 

In my view, and that of many others who oppose governments routinely taking DNA samples from the population, the risk of such errors is not inconsequential.

 

If the govt doesn't have my DNA on file, there is zero chance of me being convicted on DNA evidence alone for a crime I didn't commit. If they do have my DNA on file, there is a non-zero chance of me being convicted on DNA evidence alone for a crime I didn't commit.

 

The risk of those errors is so small as to be of no consequence in my view.

 

Let's look at the logistics of doing this.

 

Someone deliberately wants to frame me for a crime...

 

Strawman. The article I linked to was not addressing people being framed for a crime, simply pointing out that the inherent errors in DNA sampling mean that it's entirely possible that any given innocent persons DNA can be classed as a 'match' for that of a criminals DNA found at the scene of a crime.

 

---------- Post added 13-10-2017 at 11:58 ----------

 

Aside from that the information is almost certainly likely to end up being used to try and sell you something you don't need.

 

Yes. Another good reason against compulsory taking of DNA from non-criminals.

[Andy1976]

In my view, and that of many others who oppose governments routinely taking DNA samples from the population, the risk of such errors is not inconsequential.

 

If the govt doesn't have my DNA on file, there is zero chance of me being convicted on DNA evidence alone for a crime I didn't commit. If they do have my DNA on file, there is a non-zero chance of me being convicted on DNA evidence alone for a crime I didn't commit.

 

The chances are probably equivalent of you being convicted of a crime incorrectly now, as they would be were DNA kept on a database. The probability is so small as to be next to nothing.

 

I also struggle to see how it could 'accidentally happen?

 

Strawman. The article I linked to was not addressing people being framed for a crime, simply pointing out that the inherent errors in DNA sampling mean that it's entirely possible that any given innocent persons DNA can be classed as a 'match' for that of a criminals DNA found at the scene of a crime.

 

 

But it does both. It shows that if people were falsely accused of a crime, they can explain that DNA isn't infallible.

 

Yes. Another good reason against compulsory taking of DNA from non-criminals.

 

Didn't quote the quote you were quoting, which was that it could be used to sell you things. The fact remains that happens now. Cookies ensure that's what happens. Besides, what's the problem with having services tailored to what you want? Isn't it better that I see adverts for razors over tampons, seeing as one applies to me and the other doesn't? It's surely better that way? Why would that be a bad thing?

[Dales]

But it isn't that a good enough reason - to not want to share it?

You could equally ask - what benefit would I gain from giving it?

 

 

Aside from that the information is almost certainly likely to end up being used to try and sell you something you don't need.

 

If you did find yourself a suspect in some sort of criminal investigation and you were totally innocent, it would go some way to prove your innocence. I personally would deem that a benefit.

I find the whole argument about someone 'fitting' you up for a crime you did not commit somewhat far fetched but that is just my opinion

[Padders]

A scenario.

a robber breaks into an elderly couples home, they put up a struggle and both end up being murdered. he leaves behind his DNA. if the police had everyones DNA on a computer, BINGO GOTCHA. saves £1000s of pounds in long drawn out investigations. also they might not even get a result. I'm not advocating it should be made compulsory its just how I think. . they can have my DNA tomorrow, would"nt worry me one bit.