Tech Support Team

Albert Lionheart · #1 (**permalink**) **Top** 11th March 2008, 09:36 AM

There is a suggestion that all Brits should legally have to provide a DNA sample. Is this fair and proper or another example of the intrusive state machinery?

Howard · #2 (**permalink**) **Top** 11th March 2008, 11:27 AM

I voted yes.

If it helps to solve crime quicker, then I`m all for it mate. Let`s face it, if you`ve done nothing wrong, you shouldn`t have anything to fear from your DNA being held on file.

Regards Howard

**Daveskater** · #3 (**permalink**) **Top** 11th March 2008, 03:40 PM

I voted no simply because I don't trust them to keep the information safe. This country seems to be useless at keeping private information private and the last thing I want them to have is my DNA.

Spleenharvester · #4 (**permalink**) **Top** 11th March 2008, 03:43 PM

I agree, they couldn't keep anything safe. ever.

Should this be in the debating room?

**Daveskater** · #5 (**permalink**) **Top** 11th March 2008, 03:49 PM

Good call mate, thread moved.

Howard · #6 (**permalink**) **Top** 11th March 2008, 07:42 PM

Even if someone got hold of your DNA info, what good is it going to do them? I mean it`s not like anyone is gonna want to clone me, that`s for sure hehe. I don`t see that as a valid argument for not making DNA testing compulsory.

Regards Howard

Chick · #7 (**permalink**) **Top** 11th March 2008, 08:11 PM

Well since I'm not UK... I won't take the poll. But, I will give my input.

Yes, it is intrusive, but I vote yes on DNA swabs. Do you realize how many people are in jail and really are innocent? More than you would ever want to know about, I am sure.

Just recently a woman that was in jail for 13 years for the murder of her daughter, was released because of DNA testing. WOW! Can you imagine being locked up for murder of your own child when you are totally innocent!!!!!!!!!!

Then there was the man in jail for over 35 years for rape...he didn't do it. Thank God because of DNA testing he was released. His life is more than half way over...what a loss for him.

There are hundreds and hundreds of other stories out there of innocent people being released from prison after testing was done.

If we just swabbed babies as they were born... like we take their tiny little foot prints to put on their birth certificates. Let's take a swab on their DNA and keep it on file to protect them in the future.

Sometimes I do feel the government does invade our privacy way to much, but in this instance I feel that we are only protecting ourselves. Anyway...this is just a response off the top of my head. I may change my mind once I put some good thought into it...but, I doubt it.

JMHO

p.s. No one would want to clone me either... not enough chocolate to go around then. hehe

Albert Lionheart · #8 (**permalink**) **Top** 12th March 2008, 08:06 AM

The reason for asking the question did not seek to qualify the answers by having to give a reason either one way or the other. There does seem to be a general lack of faith in the authorities to keep the information secure - the DNA profile does not sit in isolation as it is linked to our personal details anyway.

Taima · #9 (**permalink**) **Top** 7th June 2008, 04:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daveskater

I voted no simply because I don't trust them to keep the information safe. This country seems to be useless at keeping private information private and the last thing I want them to have is my DNA.

lol sounds like every other major country.

As for all of the Chick's statements about the people who were found innocent thanks to DNA testing, all they have to do is test your DNA before your convicted and that would solve it

samjohnson · #10 (**permalink**) **Top** 7th June 2008, 04:20 AM

Yup your right Taima. Now they do DNA testing on all cases, at least I would think they do. So ya there are all sorts of people that convicted wrongly way back when, when DNA testing was just a dream. I don't want the government to put everybodys DNA on file. Here in the US it would probably be deemed Unconstitutional. If they don't need my DNA they don't need to have it. Sure if I was a suspect in a case of some sort, and I new I was innocent than I would gladly give my DNA to help clear myself.

tomrca · #11 (**permalink**) **Top** 7th June 2008, 07:42 AM

yes i agree it is intrusive.
for anyone that doesn't know, dna is taken from everyman arrested and charged irrespective of the alleged offense they are arrested for. In addition to this, after a person has been deemed or found not guilty by a court/court jury, fingerprints are destroyed, unlike the dna swab results, it remains on record!

i think people need to be more aware of the now intrusive CCTV, as councils are making use of them under terrorist laws to produce cash fines for parking, open bins and covert observation to decide which school your child can or cannot attend.

**Daveskater** · #12 (**permalink**) **Top** 7th June 2008, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomrca

fingerprints are destroyed, unlike the dna swab results, it remains on record!

i think people need to be more aware of the now intrusive CCTV, as councils are making use of them under terrorist laws to produce cash fines for parking, open bins and covert observation to decide which school your child can or cannot attend.

All the staff at my work had to have their fingerprints taken last year after we got broken into, and they said that we can either watch them destroy the card with our prints on, or just let them do it.

I don't think that's exactly fair for councils to take advantage of CCTV cameras installed for anti-terrorism stuff to give people fines and whatnot, they should get their own cameras if they want to do that, I reckon.

Taima · #13 (**permalink**) **Top** 8th June 2008, 04:39 AM

Hehehe, at least we don't have to worry about the CCTV thing in the States.

I'm pretty sure the DNA thing would be deemed unconstitutional. And it would come out into the public in such a stupid way, that you'll just want them to allow it to get the hooplah over with lol...I love America

pyritechips · #14 (**permalink**) **Top** 26th July 2008, 10:39 PM

I don't approve of anything that is Orwellian. Rights and freedoms are not taken away in a democratic society; they are slowly but inexorably eroded.

Blackmirror · #15 (**permalink**) **Top** 26th July 2008, 11:02 PM

Just microchip our bums when we are born

Howard · #16 (**permalink**) **Top** 26th July 2008, 11:05 PM

I really don`t see a problem with a national DNA register. Just who are we trying to protect in not having one?

Regards Howard

Jason · #17 (**permalink**) **Top** 26th July 2008, 11:20 PM

I guess the argument is it is invasion of privacy. Fact is, it would help solve more crimes, but I just think the majority of the population are against this, so I cannot see it happening.

Blackmirror · #18 (**permalink**) **Top** 26th July 2008, 11:23 PM

I would have no objection at all

Then my halo is firmly on

Howard · #19 (**permalink**) **Top** 26th July 2008, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason

I guess the argument is it is invasion of privacy.

So is being raped, stabbed, murdered etc. If a national DNA register would help to solve and also probably prevent some crimes, then I`m all for it.

How are the police meant to solve crime when we constantly tie their hands behind their backs?

I want to live in a place where it`s safe for women and children to walk the streets. There is no doubt in my mind that we`re living in increasingly violent times. This simply has to stop and if that means we all have to make a very small sacrifice, then so be it.

Regards Howard

Jason · #20 (**permalink**) **Top** 26th July 2008, 11:41 PM

Of course, I never said I'm for or against it. There are some heartless pigs out there who deserve to be behind bars, yet they are roaming the streets freely -- a national DNA register would help stop that.

But, as I've said -- do you really think the majority will accept this national DNA register? Who knows...