Destroying DNA Records

  oresome 13:10 07 May 09
Locked

A European ruling means that many records obtained from innocent people will have to be destroyed.

Personally, I'd be happy for everyone to be on the database.

My civil liberties are infringed more by the scroats that commit crime. Anything that improves detection rates has to be a good thing.

  Pine Man 13:56 07 May 09

A compulsory DNA database and compulsory ID cards for everybody. I also believe that DNA should be provided by all visitors to this country for whatever reason and retained after departure.

The political party that proposes this gets my vote - unless, of course, it's labour!!

  ccjjl82 20:41 11 May 09

personally I dont see the problem with everyone being on the dna database. Being on it wouldnt necessarily mean youre a criminal.
But it could also help with other things, say a body is found, or a person who has lost their memory. Take their dna and then you know who it is.
I agree though if it is just criminals and people who have been stopped by police with no record, it isnt fair. But in this day and age a dna database is called for, in my opinion.

  justme 23:18 11 May 09

How would all you people who want everyone on a dna database feel when the government of the day decides to start selling the information to interested parties (eg insurance companies).

Would you like it if the insurance company got hold of your record and decided that you are genetically more liable to cancer, heart attacks or having a stroke and refused to insure you against these diseases or increased the cost of insurance to you.

Please don't say that would never happen, as the government already sells details of car ownership to the likes of car park companies so that they can send out letters demanding payment for some civil (note not criminal) indiscretion. If it is a source of revenue then it will happen sooner rather than later.

  Quickbeam 23:29 11 May 09

.

  Forum Editor 23:56 11 May 09

the DNA records of innocent people on a Police database provided it was an opt-in system. Many of the people who have DNA samples taken, and who are subsequently released without any further police action would probably be quite happy to have their record retained, as long as they were offered the choice.

To my way of thinking the case for establishing a compulsory national DNA database is a strong one, and all babies should be routinely sampled in hospital when a blood sample is taken - either at birth, or during a subsequent hospital visit. Otherwise, existing adults should be offered an opt-in choice, and all people convicted of crimes involving violence and/or sexual offences should be sampled whether they agree or not.

  Forum Editor 00:04 12 May 09

Insurance companies already ask questions about predispositions to certain illnesses, and if they discover that you didn't tell them about a genetic predisposition and you knew about it they won't settle a claim.

If you have a genetic predisposition you might be very glad if it was revealed on your DNA record, so you could take some form of action. I doubt that your ability to get insurance would be your prime concern. If you have such a predisposition the insurers have a right to know about it, surely?

  justme 00:25 12 May 09

Yes I agree with what you say, but with some reservations.

At the moment insurance companies do ask questions about your health and they are quite within their rights to refuse to pay out if you have lied in your answers.

But what if I did not know about some genetic predisposition and only found out when they refused to give me cover. I agree that there would be some concern about my health in such a case but also there would be considerable worry about how my wife and children would cope if I died and was not covered by insurance. This alone could possibly be a further stress and could just be the final straw in causing a heart attack.

I can accept all the arguments for having a national dna database but am concerned about the possible drawbacks of such a scheme.

Would the government for instance increase the national insurance contributions of people who were more likely to need hospital treatment.

Would a potential employer be allowed to refuse someone a job beacause they might be off sick more than someone else.

Would insurance companies refuse cover to some indiviuals.

If you take the last two examples it would be possible for an indivual to be unable to obtain work and be unable to get insurance to provide for their family in the event of an early death.

It is not the legitimate uses of the database which concern me but the possible abuses by government or private companies.

  zzzz999 07:11 12 May 09

Maybe they should just barcode us all at birth and be done with it. I cannot believe the people who want us all to be put on a national database with the sheer bloody incompetence and spitefulness we have seen from UK police forces.

  spuds 11:52 12 May 09

Many years ago a person by the name of Colin Pitchfork was eventually convicted on the evidence of the then new DNA procedures.

From then on, it should have possibly become a requirement, that everyone was DNA tested for legal future use, providing of course, that the specifics of holding this information was highly regulated. With severe punishments for misuse, like (as example) council's using or abusing the information for collecting fines and taxes etc.

  Covergirl 12:12 12 May 09

. . . . and what they pay me for it should just about cover my ID card fees . . . . :-)

I've got nothing to hide and I don't see why anybody else in the same position should feel any different.

Obviously many arguments for and against but that's just my opinion.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Nintendo Switch review: Hands-on with the intuitive modular console and its disappointing games…

1995-2015: How technology has changed the world in 20 years

This abstract video touches on division in our technologic world

Best alternatives to iTunes for Mac | Best music players for macOS: Free your music from the…