National DNA Database

[sabrown100]

Do you agree with what the UK judge has called for - a national DNA database. Would you emigrate before you let it happen? Or did you read 1984 in jelousy and hope that this comes to your world?

[HystericalParoxysm]

Can you provide links to exactly what is being called for and what they're saying is the reasoning behind it? Some sort of articles would be helpful in understanding exactly what you're referring to.

[sabrown100]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6979138.stm

[daltonism]

To be honest, a great number of people will refuse to do this. Me and most of my family included. It's wrong to treat everyone as criminals. What to they need it for anyway? Seems a bit silly to me..

[Haylifer]

It's needed because it'd help forensics and stuff. Instead of "Oh, a piece of hair, let's compare DNA with all the suspects we have so far", only to find out that there is no match, they can say "Let's scan the national database and find all possible matches." Then check all possible matches to see who could possibly have been at the scene of the crime, and those possibilities become suspects.

It'd speed up things a lot. But I'd be scared to do it in case my DNA bore startling resemblance to a serial killers, which knowing my luck would actually happen.

[sabrown100]

To be honest, a great number of people will refuse to do this. Me and most of my family included. It's wrong to treat everyone as criminals. What to they need it for anyway? Seems a bit silly to me..

I'm afraid if this happend they wouldn't have a choice.

And they'd probably be taserd if nessesary.

[Doddibot]

I don't see what the big deal is with getting your DNA sequenced. It's no more a civil liberty issue than having your address on a national database. It doesn't hurt you, in fact it would actually be useful if it could be used for genetic research too.

Pretty soon I expect getting your DNA sequenced will be as routine as getting a blood test.

So, I think it should be mandatory unless you write a letter giving a decent reason not to be on it.

[Doc Doofus]

Really, we won't be truly safe until we all have GPS devices installed in our heads that let the police know where we are 24 hours a day. If you're not committing a crime, why would you possibly object? Also, I look forward to the day when technology will be able to create small devices that will shock us in our nads whenever we have subversive thoughts and stimulate the sexual pleasure centers of our brains when we think about nice things like obedience.

[sabrown100]

Oh, and I think the best example of a serveilance society is the film "The Island".

[Doddibot]

Oh, and I think the best example of a serveilance society is the film "The Island".
Two Scarletts?! Sounds great. Bring that society on, right now!

;)

[sabrown100]

Two Scarletts?! Sounds great. Bring that society on, right now!

;)

I agree - but I mean the start of the film.

[BDragon]

It'd speed up things a lot. But I'd be scared to do it in case my DNA bore startling resemblance to a serial killers, which knowing my luck would actually happen.

Okay, lets begin. Yes, this would speed things up and if it were expanded to include immigration, even if a person is only visiting, then it could be used to tell who is coming into the country without a doubt. No amount of plastic surgery or disguises can change a person's DNA. Your DNA is unique, it can't resemble somebody else's unless you have a twin. Even then there will be differences. So the theory of your DNA resembling a serial killer's is moot.

Really, we won't be truly safe until we all have GPS devices installed in our heads that let the police know where we are 24 hours a day. If you're not committing a crime, why would you possibly object? Also, I look forward to the day when technology will be able to create small devices that will shock us in our nads whenever we have subversive thoughts and stimulate the sexual pleasure centers of our brains when we think about nice things like obedience.

Wow, are you aware just how paranoid you sound? :einstein Honestly, mandatory DNA sequencing isn't an evil way for the government to control the people and it won't lead to cloning like what happened in The Island. For one thing human cloning is far too advanced to even consider and it would be turned down as unethical.

This is just another way for the government to try fulfill the obligation to protect their citizens. You don't have to pretend that this some evil government conspiracy. After all, when you gt your driver's license in States, and I suspect that it is the same in the UK, you have to get your finger print taken. I honestly don't see the difference. A person shouldn't have anything to fear from this unless they committed some sort of crime and left their DNA lying around.

[Doc Doofus]

This is just another way for the government to try fulfill the obligation to protect their citizens. You don't have to pretend that this some evil government conspiracy. After all, when you gt your driver's license in States, and I suspect that it is the same in the UK, you have to get your finger print taken. I honestly don't see the difference. A person shouldn't have anything to fear from this unless they committed some sort of crime and left their DNA lying around.

Isn't that what I said? You shouldn't have anything to fear unless you commit a crime? And, of course, if you're not a criminal, you have nothing to fear about government wiretaps, because, hey, only criminals talk about crime over the phone.

Basically, you can justify even the most heinous intrusions into the privacy of citizens by saying, "You don't have anything to worry about if you're not committing a crime." Yes you do. It's called privacy. Government intrusion might make us safer from criminals, but it makes us less safe from the government. Read 1984. They called it Big Brother.

[Doddibot]

Isn't that what I said? You shouldn't have anything to fear unless you commit a crime? And, of course, if you're not a criminal, you have nothing to fear about government wiretaps, because, hey, only criminals talk about crime over the phone.

Basically, you can justify even the most heinous intrusions into the privacy of citizens by saying, "You don't have anything to worry about if you're not committing a crime." Yes you do. It's called privacy. Government intrusion might make us safer from criminals, but it makes us less safe from the government. Read 1984. They called it Big Brother.

I've always said that safety and freedom are mutually exclusive. You cannot have both. Because to be absolutely safe, there must be no freedom to endanger others. To be absolutely free, that safety must sacrificed.

[BDragon]

So how is DNA sequencing an invasion of privacy?

EDIT: And before you go off saying how the Government does this and this wrong tell me how you would do it better. If you are so opinionated that the government is doing somehting wrong. Then do somehting to make it better instead of sitting back and complaining about how bad it is or how the government invades your privacy. The Government's way may not be the best way, but at least it kind of works.

The great thing about a democracy is that the power comes from average people like you and me. If you want to start a movement, all you have to do is speak.

[Doc Doofus]

How would I do it? Do it lawfully and constitutionally, the way we are supposed to do it right now. The government has to go before a judge to get a search warrant. Or, at least, it was supposed to, back before 9/11, when the world supposedly changed so much that freedom and rights had to take a backseat to this phony "Clash of Civilizations." The law right now is adequate. There is no need for a better solutions. This idea really is part of a drip-drip-drip erosion of our privacy and our rights. Don't need it.

[Doddibot]

Well, I think you will end up volunteering your DNA sequence to your doctor to check for genetic conditions and risks to diseases or cancer.

The government only needs to demand acess to the DNA sequences. Everything else will happen due to the free market. (You won't be able to get insurance if you don't have your DNA sequenced).

[BDragon]

Since when was "adequate" good enough? People are so ready to throw all the blame for all of the world's problems on the shoulders of this government or that government. But isn't the government made up of simple men and women, not unlike those who frequent this or any other forum on the net? Its all well and good to say that the government is doing something wrong. But if you want to see something happen and make a change you have to carry it one step farther and actually -do- something instead of whine about loss of rights and this and that. Whining never accomplishes anything and it only serves to make you into a hypocrite. After all, you live where these laws are being passed. If you don't even attempt to get them repelled, then how does that make you any better than the men passing the laws? If you want somehting to change you have to do somehting besides complain and hope that someone will hear.

[thothep]

I have not read the linked page, but the first thing that comes to mind was the bit of Gattaca we watched in Bio 101, where they checked infants DNA to steer them towards the appropriate profession or whatever. The big question is where we need to draw the line for free will. I also don't really believe DNA testing is accurate enough yet, cases have been found where people had different DNA dependent upon where they were tested.

Problem with government: the people willing to do the job are never the people who could do it best.


Ugh, tangled opinions, sorry, going to sleep now...