School kds DNA tested ?

The risk of those errors is so small as to be of no consequence in my view.

 

 

 

In my view, and that of many others who oppose governments routinely taking DNA samples from the population, the risk of such errors is not inconsequential.

 

If the govt doesn't have my DNA on file, there is zero chance of me being convicted on DNA evidence alone for a crime I didn't commit. If they do have my DNA on file, there is a non-zero chance of me being convicted on DNA evidence alone for a crime I didn't commit.

 

The risk of those errors is so small as to be of no consequence in my view.

 

Let's look at the logistics of doing this.

 

Someone deliberately wants to frame me for a crime...

 

Strawman. The article I linked to was not addressing people being framed for a crime, simply pointing out that the inherent errors in DNA sampling mean that it's entirely possible that any given innocent persons DNA can be classed as a 'match' for that of a criminals DNA found at the scene of a crime.

 

---------- Post added 13-10-2017 at 11:58 ----------

 

Aside from that the information is almost certainly likely to end up being used to try and sell you something you don't need.

 

Yes. Another good reason against compulsory taking of DNA from non-criminals.

In my view, and that of many others who oppose governments routinely taking DNA samples from the population, the risk of such errors is not inconsequential.

 

If the govt doesn't have my DNA on file, there is zero chance of me being convicted on DNA evidence alone for a crime I didn't commit. If they do have my DNA on file, there is a non-zero chance of me being convicted on DNA evidence alone for a crime I didn't commit.

 

The chances are probably equivalent of you being convicted of a crime incorrectly now, as they would be were DNA kept on a database. The probability is so small as to be next to nothing.

 

I also struggle to see how it could 'accidentally happen?

 

Strawman. The article I linked to was not addressing people being framed for a crime, simply pointing out that the inherent errors in DNA sampling mean that it's entirely possible that any given innocent persons DNA can be classed as a 'match' for that of a criminals DNA found at the scene of a crime.

 

 

But it does both. It shows that if people were falsely accused of a crime, they can explain that DNA isn't infallible.

 

Yes. Another good reason against compulsory taking of DNA from non-criminals.

 

Didn't quote the quote you were quoting, which was that it could be used to sell you things. The fact remains that happens now. Cookies ensure that's what happens. Besides, what's the problem with having services tailored to what you want? Isn't it better that I see adverts for razors over tampons, seeing as one applies to me and the other doesn't? It's surely better that way? Why would that be a bad thing?

But it isn't that a good enough reason - to not want to share it?

You could equally ask - what benefit would I gain from giving it?

 

 

Aside from that the information is almost certainly likely to end up being used to try and sell you something you don't need.

 

If you did find yourself a suspect in some sort of criminal investigation and you were totally innocent, it would go some way to prove your innocence. I personally would deem that a benefit.

I find the whole argument about someone 'fitting' you up for a crime you did not commit somewhat far fetched but that is just my opinion

A scenario.

a robber breaks into an elderly couples home, they put up a struggle and both end up being murdered. he leaves behind his DNA. if the police had everyones DNA on a computer, BINGO GOTCHA. saves £1000s of pounds in long drawn out investigations. also they might not even get a result. I'm not advocating it should be made compulsory its just how I think. . they can have my DNA tomorrow, would"nt worry me one bit.

Almost.

 

I'm saying that there's often a huge panic about ID cards, DNA databases etc, but when I've asked people what their concern is, no one has ever answered me properly.

 

As I've said numerous times, perhaps I'm missing something. It may be that there's a risk I can't see, but I can't see the risk in either, beyond 'It's my information and I don't want to share it'.

 

Ok, here is the risk.

Let's say there is a massive database of everyone's DNA.

Let's say there is a coup in a few years and a facist dictatorship comes to power. Now let's say that they decide they don't like people of a certain race/colour/background or particular genetic make up.

They've now got a big list of everyone they don't like and can set about rousing them up and exterminating them.

 

Seems far fetched. Probably would have seemed far fetched in the 1930s too.

Probably not so far fetched if you were a Jew in the 40s.

 

Are you telling me that if there was such a database in the 40s the Nazis wouldn't have used it?

 

And are you telling me that it is impossible that a similar thing couldn't happen in the future?

 

There is the risk.

Ok, here is the risk.

Let's say there is a massive database of everyone's DNA.

Let's say there is a coup in a few years and a facist dictatorship comes to power. Now let's say that they decide they don't like people of a certain race/colour/background or particular genetic make up.

They've now got a big list of everyone they don't like and can set about rousing them up and exterminating them.

 

Seems far fetched. Probably would have seemed far fetched in the 1930s too.

Probably not so far fetched if you were a Jew in the 40s.

 

Are you telling me that if there was such a database in the 40s the Nazis wouldn't have used it?

 

And are you telling me that it is impossible that a similar thing couldn't happen in the future?

 

There is the risk.

 

Can you tell religion from DNA?

Can you tell religion from DNA?

 

No, but you can tell Ethnicity, some disability and origination.

 

Is that all you’ve got!?

A scenario.

a robber breaks into an elderly couples home, they put up a struggle and both end up being murdered. he leaves behind his DNA. if the police had everyones DNA on a computer, BINGO GOTCHA. saves £1000s of pounds in long drawn out investigations. also they might not even get a result. I'm not advocating it should be made compulsory its just how I think. . they can have my DNA tomorrow, would"nt worry me one bit.

 

I can see both sides. The problem is as TheNugget says:

 

Ok, here is the risk.

Let's say there is a massive database of everyone's DNA.

Let's say there is a coup in a few years and a facist dictatorship comes to power. Now let's say that they decide they don't like people of a certain race/colour/background or particular genetic make up.

They've now got a big list of everyone they don't like and can set about rousing them up and exterminating them.

 

Seems far fetched. Probably would have seemed far fetched in the 1930s too.

Probably not so far fetched if you were a Jew in the 40s.

 

Are you telling me that if there was such a database in the 40s the Nazis wouldn't have used it?

 

And are you telling me that it is impossible that a similar thing couldn't happen in the future?

 

There is the risk.

 

So which is the worst scenario? I'd say B and knowing what I know about IT security, hacks and the like, it wouldn't even need to take a fascist dictator in this country to use the information. People always think that things like DNA targeting weapons are far-fetched but you just need to look at some of the extreme tech being used in warfare all over to world to understand just how powerful that could be.

The chances are probably equivalent of you being convicted of a crime incorrectly now, as they would be were DNA kept on a database. The probability is so small as to be next to nothing.

 

I also struggle to see how it could 'accidentally happen?

 

 

 

But it does both. It shows that if people were falsely accused of a crime, they can explain that DNA isn't infallible.

 

 

 

Didn't quote the quote you were quoting, which was that it could be used to sell you things. The fact remains that happens now. Cookies ensure that's what happens. Besides, what's the problem with having services tailored to what you want? Isn't it better that I see adverts for razors over tampons, seeing as one applies to me and the other doesn't? It's surely better that way? Why would that be a bad thing?

 

Yes, there are even now, ways/errors by which an innocent can be convicted of a crime they have not committed.

 

Not only does that not in any way justify adding unnecessary DNA errors to the mix, it's good reason to not do so (always good to minimize the risk of bad things happening)

 

Yes, there is (IMO, far too much) use of personal data to 'sell' things. Again, if, as I do, you oppose it, adding to it with DNA is clearly undesirable.

 

-----------------------------------------------

 

You asked for people's reasons why they oppose routine taking of and storing personal DNA.

 

You said people never gave you reasons.

 

Now you've been given lots of reasons, from me, and from others.

 

You appear to want to pick, poke and quibble with the reasons given. Fair enough.

 

But at least now, undeniably, you have been given reasons why people oppose this.