Growing DNA database 'turning Britain into a nation of suspects'
Steve Connor | 01.11.2006 18:46 | Bio-technology | Repression | Technology
One in four men could soon be included on the national DNA database which is helping to turn Britain into a nation of suspects, an expert group has warned.
:::: The consultation document is available here. Please respond to the consultation!! ::::
http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/go/ourwork/bioinformationuse/page_848.html
:::: The consultation document is available here. Please respond to the consultation!! ::::
http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/go/ourwork/bioinformationuse/page_848.html
One in four men could soon be included on the national DNA database which is helping to turn Britain into a nation of suspects, an expert group has warned.
The database has been established with little or no public consultation but over the past 10 years has collected DNA profiles on more than 3.5 million people, including 24,000 children and youths under the age of 18.
Britain stores the most extensive DNA database on its population in the world, yet the public has never been properly consulted on it, said Professor Sir Bob Hepple, chairman of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, an independent think tank.
"There are many concerns about the way in which the database is developing. It is increasing at the rate of 40,000 profiles a month but there are no restrictions in this country. It's all at the discretion of chief constables," Sir Bob said.
Everyone who has ever been arrested by the police, even if they are not charged, is obliged to provide a DNA sample for the national database, which also includes victims of crime and others who have volunteered a sample to help a criminal investigation.
Once someone has agreed to provide a DNA sample to the database they have no automatic right to have it removed or destroyed at a later date.
This is not the case in some other countries, said Carole McCartney, a lecturer in criminal law at Leeds University who sits on the Nuffield Council's working group on the DNA database. "Police powers in this country to take DNA samples are unrivalled internationally. We didn't have any legislation to establish the DNA database and it's not been debated in Parliament," Dr McCartney said.
During a recent visit to the Forensic Science Service, which operates the database for the Home Office, Tony Blair said that he would like the national DNA database extended still further, with no restrictions on its size.
Sir Bob said that this implies that the Prime Minister would be happy to see every citizen's DNA profile being stored on the database. "The cost would be enormous but there is also the deeper question - instead of being a nation of citizens we become a nation of suspects," Sir Bob said.
With this in mind, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics has launched a consultation exercise to investigate the attitude of the general public, as well as interested parties, towards the national DNA database.
"We want to hear the public's views on whether storing the DNA profiles of victims and suspects who are later not charged or acquitted is justified by the need to fight crime," Sir Bob said.
The database is heavily biased to certain groups in society, such as ethnic minorities and the young. A third of black males in England and Wales are on the database, he said.
"Certain groups such as young males and ethnic minorities are over-represented on the database, and the Council will be asking whether this potential for bias in law enforcement is acceptable," he said.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article1945768.ece
The database has been established with little or no public consultation but over the past 10 years has collected DNA profiles on more than 3.5 million people, including 24,000 children and youths under the age of 18.
Britain stores the most extensive DNA database on its population in the world, yet the public has never been properly consulted on it, said Professor Sir Bob Hepple, chairman of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, an independent think tank.
"There are many concerns about the way in which the database is developing. It is increasing at the rate of 40,000 profiles a month but there are no restrictions in this country. It's all at the discretion of chief constables," Sir Bob said.
Everyone who has ever been arrested by the police, even if they are not charged, is obliged to provide a DNA sample for the national database, which also includes victims of crime and others who have volunteered a sample to help a criminal investigation.
Once someone has agreed to provide a DNA sample to the database they have no automatic right to have it removed or destroyed at a later date.
This is not the case in some other countries, said Carole McCartney, a lecturer in criminal law at Leeds University who sits on the Nuffield Council's working group on the DNA database. "Police powers in this country to take DNA samples are unrivalled internationally. We didn't have any legislation to establish the DNA database and it's not been debated in Parliament," Dr McCartney said.
During a recent visit to the Forensic Science Service, which operates the database for the Home Office, Tony Blair said that he would like the national DNA database extended still further, with no restrictions on its size.
Sir Bob said that this implies that the Prime Minister would be happy to see every citizen's DNA profile being stored on the database. "The cost would be enormous but there is also the deeper question - instead of being a nation of citizens we become a nation of suspects," Sir Bob said.
With this in mind, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics has launched a consultation exercise to investigate the attitude of the general public, as well as interested parties, towards the national DNA database.
"We want to hear the public's views on whether storing the DNA profiles of victims and suspects who are later not charged or acquitted is justified by the need to fight crime," Sir Bob said.
The database is heavily biased to certain groups in society, such as ethnic minorities and the young. A third of black males in England and Wales are on the database, he said.
"Certain groups such as young males and ethnic minorities are over-represented on the database, and the Council will be asking whether this potential for bias in law enforcement is acceptable," he said.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article1945768.ece
Steve Connor
Additions
The security-industrial state
02.11.2006 10:01
"Human beings may be forced to be ‘microchipped’ like pet dogs, a shocking official report into the rise of the Big Brother state has warned.
The microchips - which are implanted under the skin - allow the wearer’s movements to be tracked and store personal information about them." [1]
"Arms manufacturers have been put in charge of forming civil European policies as agents of an unaccountable coterie of big business interests, civil liberties campaigners Statewatch claimed in a report yesterday. They have used their power to recommended giving themselves €1bn of subsidies, in addition to existing arms subsidies, to fund a raft of research projects for monitoring and controlling civil populations. The European Security Research Advisory Board was set up to control EU state spending on security research, and took the "unprecedented step" of effectively giving control over EU strategy to arms corporations. "The idea that private companies, run for profit, should be accorded an official status in the EU goes unchallenged. The result is that the arms industry is shaping not just EU security research but EU security policy," said the Statewatch report, "Arming Big Brother", Responsibility for the formation of civil security policy and strategy have been given to the European Association of Aerospace and Defence Industries, a lobby group, and Thales, the European military giant." [2]
"Technology undoubtedly can assist in police investigations. But there is no evidence to suggest that it prevents terrorism or crime because technology can do nothing to address the multifaceted "root causes" of these social problems. The effect of law enforcement technology on civil liberties and democracy, meanwhile, is already all too clear...Civil liberties groups and anti-militarist campaigners should challenge current developments and explain to the people of Europe what is being done in their name" [3]
I'd add as activists we should be doing more than just publicising the rapid descent into the "security-industrial" state and be taking daily steps to dismantle the panopticon.
[1] http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=115194&version=1&template_id=38&parent_id=20
[2] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/04/26/security_industrial_complex/
[3] http://www.statewatch.org/news/2006/apr/bigbrother.pdf
The microchips - which are implanted under the skin - allow the wearer’s movements to be tracked and store personal information about them." [1]
"Arms manufacturers have been put in charge of forming civil European policies as agents of an unaccountable coterie of big business interests, civil liberties campaigners Statewatch claimed in a report yesterday. They have used their power to recommended giving themselves €1bn of subsidies, in addition to existing arms subsidies, to fund a raft of research projects for monitoring and controlling civil populations. The European Security Research Advisory Board was set up to control EU state spending on security research, and took the "unprecedented step" of effectively giving control over EU strategy to arms corporations. "The idea that private companies, run for profit, should be accorded an official status in the EU goes unchallenged. The result is that the arms industry is shaping not just EU security research but EU security policy," said the Statewatch report, "Arming Big Brother", Responsibility for the formation of civil security policy and strategy have been given to the European Association of Aerospace and Defence Industries, a lobby group, and Thales, the European military giant." [2]
"Technology undoubtedly can assist in police investigations. But there is no evidence to suggest that it prevents terrorism or crime because technology can do nothing to address the multifaceted "root causes" of these social problems. The effect of law enforcement technology on civil liberties and democracy, meanwhile, is already all too clear...Civil liberties groups and anti-militarist campaigners should challenge current developments and explain to the people of Europe what is being done in their name" [3]
I'd add as activists we should be doing more than just publicising the rapid descent into the "security-industrial" state and be taking daily steps to dismantle the panopticon.
[1]
http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=115194&version=1&template_id=38&parent_id=20 [2]
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/04/26/security_industrial_complex/ [3]
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2006/apr/bigbrother.pdf
sus
Comments
Hide the following 2 comments
"Once someone has agreed to provide a DNA sample to the database"
01.11.2006 21:28
So say you are going on a justifiable action, how do we avoid this shit apart from opposing the legislation ? As a start I recommend gloves and a face mask, then wiping down any smooth surfaces that you may have touched, and never, ever drop a cigarette butt or gum or similar at the scene of a 'crime'. The techniques are becoming so invasive that there may soon be no opportunity to avoid retrospective prosecution, which gives no opportunity of dissent. So the main advice I have is never commit an unworthy crime that you aren't prepared to take the mostly inhumane punishment that it will earn. Anyone got any other tips ?
sus
the fulcrum of the debate
02.11.2006 07:09
The discussion with my colleague however did begin to crystallise something for me, so I am going to lay it out here and welcome comments, thoughts, and - if you must - some flaming too. I think that aside from not consulting the public about this issue, one of the reasons why the government has been successful in advancing these progressively intrusive measures (CCTV surveillance, routine DNA collection, etc) is because the civil liberties groups have to argue against the tide of "common decency". The civil liberties groups have to argue for not only the rights of law abiding citizens, but also for the rights of those who may and who are guilty of rape and murder, hooliganism, mugging and other forms of behaviour that victimise others. This tends to put those of us who are against such measures on the back foot, and certainly in a lower moral position, because those who are pro-CCTV and DNA databases make easy recourse to the rhetoric of protecting the innocent and convicting the guilty, wherein such measures are used to do so. The logic continues to its end in that if some CCTV and a National DNA database (NDNAD) is good for reducing crime, ergo more is even better.
In order to counter these quick and easy - and admittedly compelling - arguments, the civil liberties groups must up the ante and improve the calibre and appeal of their arguments. It is less about protecting the wrong-doers from the consequences of their crimes, but more about reversing the changes in the relationship between the state and the public - in stopping us from being viewed by the state as first and foremost suspects who must prove our innocence.
dr jeckyl