Comments on: Guardian (UK): Police to continue to hold DNA of innocent people http://www.privacylives.com/guardian-uk-police-to-continue-to-hold-dna-of-innocent-people/2009/11/13/ monitoring the pulse of privacy Sun, 12 Feb 2012 18:06:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: DrPDNA http://www.privacylives.com/guardian-uk-police-to-continue-to-hold-dna-of-innocent-people/2009/11/13/comment-page-1/#comment-48980 DrPDNA Sun, 15 Nov 2009 16:25:40 +0000 http://www.privacylives.com/?p=4817#comment-48980 I welcome the Home Office decision to cut the time in which innocent people DNA profiles are stored on the national DNA database from twelve to six years. It is a step in the right direction. The main advantage of the DNA database is to search of a matching DNA profile of a suspect compared with DNA found at the crime scene. Thus the police will be in a much better position to solve crimes, especially those cases in which there is no obvious leads and identify individuals whom are repeatedly involved in criminal activities. However, the main opposition to DNA databases is that people do not simply trust the police to hold vital biological information on DNA databases. There are examples to support this statement. The police have previously violated family privacy because the database had indicated a closely related profile. The police will investigate other family members to determine if there is a complete match of DNA profiles. In one such case, UK police had abused its power by apprehending the brother of a suspect, whom later was charged and convicted for a crime because he would not reveal the whereabouts of his brother. Another example, there is a disproportionate representation of minority groups on the DNA database, thus civil liberties more likely be violated because of the use of discriminatory practices to obtain DNA data. (Read the Robert Watters case in the book “Errors, Systematic Errors and DNA” and chapter 4). Unless a corrective mechanism is employed to stop these types of abuses of civil liberties and privacy matters, many individuals will continually oppose of having their biological information stored on the DNA database. DrPDNA I welcome the Home Office decision to cut the time in which innocent people DNA profiles are stored on the national DNA database from twelve to six years. It is a step in the right direction.

The main advantage of the DNA database is to search of a matching DNA profile of a suspect compared with DNA found at the crime scene. Thus the police will be in a much better position to solve crimes, especially those cases in which there is no obvious leads and identify individuals whom are repeatedly involved in criminal activities.

However, the main opposition to DNA databases is that people do not simply trust the police to hold vital biological information on DNA databases. There are examples to support this statement. The police have previously violated family privacy because the database had indicated a closely related profile. The police will investigate other family members to determine if there is a complete match of DNA profiles. In one such case, UK police had abused its power by apprehending the brother of a suspect, whom later was charged and convicted for a crime because he would not reveal the whereabouts of his brother. Another example, there is a disproportionate representation of minority groups on the DNA database, thus civil liberties more likely be violated because of the use of discriminatory practices to obtain DNA data. (Read the Robert Watters case in the book “Errors, Systematic Errors and DNA” and chapter 4).

Unless a corrective mechanism is employed to stop these types of abuses of civil liberties and privacy matters, many individuals will continually oppose of having their biological information stored on the DNA database.

DrPDNA

]]>