New Bill allowing police to take and keep DNA samples

[osarusan]

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0119/dna.html


The Government has published the bill establishing a national DNA database, which enables DNA samples to be taken and retained from suspects in serious crime.

A few points - DNA can be taken from anybody who

is a suspect in a serious crime
is in prison
is on temporary release
is serving a suspended sentence
is on the sex offender's register


DNA cannot be taken from anybody under 14.

The samples will be generally kept for 3 years, then destroyed. People can apply to have them destroyed earlier, and the Gardai can apply for an extension. In some cases they can be kept for 10 years, and in come cases indefinitely.
__________________________________________________ __________

What are people's views on this?

I don't have a problem with it being taken from convicted criminals, but I'm not so sure about allowing DNA to be taken from suspects, and kept even if the investigation is dropped, charges are dropped, or they're found not guilty in court.

In all cases though, I think that first there needs to be a guarantee that these samples will be taken care of properly and not misused in any way. I'm wondering what the state is doing in that regard.

[dahamsta]

Probably very little, going by their record. It should be documented from start to finish so the public can review what's done and what isn't.

I think the policy should be that samples can be taken from arrested suspects, but destroyed within set periods if charges aren't brought. Samples from suspects that haven't been arrested should be voluntary, and it should be codified in law that non-compliance cannot be construed as guilt.

[osarusan]

it should be codified in law that non-compliance cannot be construed as guilt.
Good point and idea.

I think the policy should be that samples can be taken from arrested suspects, but destroyed within set periods if charges aren't brought. But why should they not have the right to refuse also? Considering they are innocent until proven guilty.

It's a difficult one for me to decide. In a way, if the security of the samples taken and the policies regarding their use could be guaranteed, I'd have no problem with every person in the country having to give one.

[pineapple stu]

In a way, if the security of the samples taken and the policies regarding their use could be guaranteed, I'd have no problem with every person in the country having to give one.
That'd be my take on it too. But the first part of the sentence is very hard to assure, particularly given laptops and files left on trains and what have you.

It surely have to be written down that you can't be convicted of a crime on DNA evidence alone, to avoid being framed with stolen samples.

[dahamsta]

But why should they not have the right to refuse also? Considering they are innocent until proven guilty.I'd equate an arrest with a search warrant or probable cause. If you're enough of a suspect to be arrested, I think that's probably enough to require a DNA sample.

There is an issue with this in Ireland though, in that the Offenses Against The State Act, which was originally intended for use against terrorists, is used far too liberally. It's basically the default if the Gardai can't come up with something better. I'd like to see this reformed first.

I do have a problem with my DNA being stored without just cause. DNA can be used for profiling, and as time goes and we learn more and more about DNA, the profiling will get more intrusive. The state shouldn't have access to that level of information about it's citizens, it's too dangerous.

[osarusan]

It surely have to be written down that you can't be convicted of a crime on DNA evidence alone, to avoid being framed with stolen samples.
But that would come under the "misuse of samples" wording.

It's hard to argue that on the one hand, DNA sampling is incredibly accurate and reliable (to 1 in a billion or whatever) and then say that it cannot be the sole evidence of a case.

[dahamsta]

It's not as accurate as it's made out to be, circumstance depending obviously.

It's worth pointing out that fingerprints aren't as infallible as people think either, and there have been serious cases of misidentification:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerprint#Errors_in_identification_or_processing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerprint#Validity_of_fingerprinting_for_identif ication)

[kingdom hoop]

What are people's views on this?

I think it's the latest in an increasing line of examples (excessive and ineffective data retention laws; more stringent and accused-unfriendly bail terms; more invasive security checks at airports; and so on) where crime-control concerns trump civil liberty issues such as privacy and the presumption of innocence. If you had a scales with Security at one end and Civil Liberty at the other you'd see that the balance is skewing evermore towards Security.

Politicians foist these on us in the name of crime-fighting. As long as the populace accept them, then seemingly without concern for how disproportionate, poorly safeguarded and ineffective the policies may be, we'll see more of them.

So while the practicalities of implementation are more the concern so far in the thread, I think it's also worth considering the broader debate. How far will things go before there's a shift in the current zeitgeist of meek acceptance? Or, do we continue to content ourselves with the mantra of, "Well if you've nothing to hide you've nothing to fear (even though we'll probably lose your data and other nasty stuff could happen, but you don't need to know that, mwhaahaa, ahem, prrp)."

[peadar1987]

I'm firmly in the camp of "if you've done nothing wrong then you've nothing to worry about".

On the other hand, the state now considers holding individual religious beliefs to be "something wrong"

[pineapple stu]

I'm firmly in the camp of "if you've done nothing wrong then you've nothing to worry about".
I think in fairness what Adam is referring to is also stuff like will you be denied a state medical card if your DNA shows that you've a high likelihood of early-onset cancer, for example. And if stuff like that got left on a train, you'd see all sorts of wierd things happen with general life insurance policies. And of course, you wouldn't necessarily know yourself why you were being denied certain insurance.

[dahamsta]

Precisely. This (http://digg.com/d3AJVl) is my standard response to the oft-parroted "nothing to hide" argument, but there's plenty (http://ask.metafilter.com/39312/Response-to-If-youve-done-nothing-wrong-you-have-nothing-to-worry-about) of other (http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/05/the_value_of_pr.html) refuations (http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/the-data-trust-blog/2009/02/debunking-a-myth-if-you-have-n.html) out there (http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&safe=off&num=100&q=%22nothing+to+hide%22+%22nothing+wrong%22&btnG=Search&meta=lr%3D&aq=f&oq=) if that's a bit too sciencey for people. Sadly, the people that cite it are the least likely to read them. Sure why interfere with a good sound byte?

Everybody has something to hide. Otherwise we wouldn't have toilet doors, curtains, etc. Privacy is about limits, not absolutes.

...and slippery slopes, when governments and corporations are involved...

[osarusan]

I think in fairness what Adam is referring to is also stuff like will you be denied a state medical card if your DNA shows that you've a high likelihood of early-onset cancer, for example. And if stuff like that got left on a train, you'd see all sorts of wierd things happen with general life insurance policies. And of course, you wouldn't necessarily know yourself why you were being denied certain insurance.
This is the reason that I said DNA samples shouldn't be taken and stored unless the storage and use was totally secure.

And that being so unlikely, combined with the disastrous consequences if they were fell into the wrong hands (I'm thinking health insurance companies mainly), means that it shouldn't happen.

I can accept that a convicted criminal should have their DNA taken and stored, but I'm still not convinced about taking it from arrested suspects, except if it will be used in the case for which they were arrested.

[dahamsta]

I can accept that a convicted criminal should have their DNA taken and stored, but I'm still not convinced about taking it from arrested suspects, except if it will be used in the case for which they were arrested.When I said that data should be deleted if charges aren't brought, this was implied. Of course legislation should never be implied.

The incumbent's legislation usually isn't implied, I assume because they don't know what the word means. "Colander" would be a good word to apply to their legislation. Or "holy", if you're being clever.

[hoops1]

if the security of the samples taken and the policies regarding their use could be guaranteed, I'd have no problem with every person in the country having to give one.

Would agree with that, Would make the guards job a hell of a lot easier.

[peadar1987]

Precisely. This (http://digg.com/d3AJVl) is my standard response to the oft-parroted "nothing to hide" argument, but there's plenty (http://ask.metafilter.com/39312/Response-to-If-youve-done-nothing-wrong-you-have-nothing-to-worry-about) of other (http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/05/the_value_of_pr.html) refuations (http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/the-data-trust-blog/2009/02/debunking-a-myth-if-you-have-n.html) out there (http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&safe=off&num=100&q=%22nothing+to+hide%22+%22nothing+wrong%22&btnG=Search&meta=lr%3D&aq=f&oq=) if that's a bit too sciencey for people. Sadly, the people that cite it are the least likely to read them. Sure why interfere with a good sound byte?

Everybody has something to hide. Otherwise we wouldn't have toilet doors, curtains, etc. Privacy is about limits, not absolutes.

...and slippery slopes, when governments and corporations are involved...

Obviously it depends on how it's used. I'm not in favour of my DNA being used so robots from the future can find and kill me, but if there was a legal lock on the occasions when it could be used, so say only for comparison with samples collected from a crime scene, and even then only for certain types of crime, and if the security of the samples could be guaranteed, then I'd be in favour of it.

So essentially, if it were brought in tomorrow, in Ireland, with our current politicians, there's no way I'd want it to go through!

[dahamsta]

Sadly that's pie in the sky type stuff peadar, because:

a) it'll never be secured properly, and

b) even if by some miracle it was, under your lovely new regime, the current lot will be back in 5-15 years and they'll screw it up again.

[kingdom hoop]

I can accept that a convicted criminal should have their DNA taken and stored...

Why would you need their DNA if they're already convicted?

[dahamsta]

Because the criminal justice system doesn't work either, and a huge percentage reoffend.

[osarusan]

Why would you need their DNA if they're already convicted?
I don't think it is wrong that a person convicted of a certain type of crime should have their DNA sampled and the sample compared against existing DNA in any other unsolved cases of the same type of crime. I think it is legitimate for prosecutors to check using DNA comparison whether a convicted criminal is linked to previously unsolved cases.

As I've said, if it were possible to guarantee the security of the samples, I'd personally have no problem with DNA being taken from all members of a country's society, but given that such a guarantee is in my opinion impossible, I'd be against it.

[kingdom hoop]

I don't think it is wrong that a person convicted of a certain type of crime should have their DNA sampled and the sample compared against existing DNA in any other unsolved cases of the same type of crime. I think it is legitimate for prosecutors to check using DNA comparison whether a convicted criminal is linked to previously unsolved cases.


Fair enough. That seems very useful, balanced and well restricted. But is it unfair that, as actually proposed, someone convicted of one crime is kept on the database when other potential criminals are not? Do we, as a society, decide that all criminals are worthy of future suspicion (or for three three years anyway)? It's not very tolerant or open is it?

Many criminals do indeed reoffend, but many don't. It's just speculation as to who will or who won't. People from poorer areas are more likely to commit crimes, should we get their DNA on a database? Young males are more likely to commit serious crimes, do we include them? Better yet, young males from Coolock who've dropped out of school... and so on...


I think what I'm trying to illustrate is that when we focus in on the practical side of policy, fundamental principles can become a blurred irrelevance. It's difficult to maintain a cognisance of both, such that if you're obsessed by principles, then implementation also becomes a problem.

How do you decide where to draw the line between the two?

And if the political power lies with those favouring a tougher crime-control stance, what hope do our vaunted principles have of being protected from continuing destructive chiseling?

[John83]

There are some interesting arguments raised against DNA databases here (http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/01/09/1321219/Scientists-and-Lawyers-Argue-For-Open-US-DNA-Database?from=rss).

[osarusan]

There are some interesting arguments raised against DNA databases here (http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/01/09/1321219/Scientists-and-Lawyers-Argue-For-Open-US-DNA-Database?from=rss).
Interesting points on the validity of DNA evidence.

As Dahamsta said, in some situations DNA is nowhere near as reliable as I (lazily) accepted it was.

[dahamsta]

Many criminals do indeed reoffend, but many don't.You're commenting on something without researching the facts kingdom hoop.

Go and research reoffense numbers and you'll see that it's not "many", it's "most". Sadly.