digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Police DNA sampling powers to be extended

abc.net.au — Police will have the power to request DNA from any suspect regardless of the severity of their alleged offence.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • Albionshores, on 10/10/2007, -3/+42This is monitoring the innocent. It is described as a "non-invasive DNA sample" but it is very much invasive. It is an invasion of liberties and rights. Whether it is a life, a limb or a single cell the state has no right to it against you will.

    If you volunteer your DNA to remove you from a line of inquiry then all records should be destroyed when you are eliminated from the inquiry.
  • yargthepirate, on 10/10/2007, -21/+3I fail to see what you lose by submitting your DNA, unless of course you're a criminal.
    • polymath22, on 10/10/2007, -2/+17yargthepirate-
      I fail to see why you would be opposed to a full cavity search, ya know, routine security.
      You wouldn't mind would you? well unless you're a criminal.
      ** snaps rubber glove on**
      this will only take a few minutes.
      Try to relax your sphincter for me, and this will go a lot easier.
      • robojerk, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1The full body cavity search is physically humiliating and uncomfortable (painful).

        A DNA test is very fast and and convenient compared to that. I do agree that the government should not keep records of your DNA if you are cleared, but if you are a "convicted" rapist, sexual deviant, murderer, etc. then they should keep your DNA on file.

        I do think if you submit to a DNA tets you are allowing them to compare you DNA to past unsolved crimes (not future) as well.
      • Albionshores, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3For those that understand the dangers and appreciate civil liberties and unalienable rights having a DNA swab is physically humiliating, it is a concession to serfdom, and makes them very uncomfortable due to an enlightened sense of liberty and what is right and wrong.
    • Wartyboskfapped, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4AH, the classic "nothing to hide" argument. There are several possible responses to this, including: Do you have curtains? or: Can I see your credit card bills for the last year? Canadian privacy expert David Flaherty expresses a similar idea when he argues:
      "There is no sentient being in the Western world who has little or no regard for his or her personal privacy; those who would attempt such claims cannot withstand even a few minutes’ questioning about intimate aspects of their lives without capitulating to the intrusiveness of certain subject matters." -- the bottom line is, Joseph Stalin would have LOVED such instrusive laws. That should be enough.
    • DustinR, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Then why don't you be the first one to volunteer your DNA to their database. Asshat
    • Albionshores, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Because if you have a record of people's DNA you have a record on everybody. Who then controls those records? What happens if somebody tries to question the people with access to the records? Suddenly it becomes very easy to damn somebody, to control others and to ruin lives through nothing else than poor bureaucracy. And if you concede DNA records then what next?

      The DNA will come with a file on you....no point having a few hundred million samples of DNA if you don't know who they are, or where they are so how about now to go with those records and request that details should be corroborated whenever you travel, use a government building or financial centre. Sounds far fetched but that is the national ID card system the US government is talking about. Already they request a fingerprint for a driving license. In the UK it is soon to be a case that you can only get a passport if you give biometric details. Oh, you have the choice.....you can either not submit your details and not have a passport and be a prisoner in your own country or you can comply and bend over whilst Big Brother unfastens his belt.

      What happens if in a hypothetical situation a dictator rises to power through deception or the population's apathy, as they have throughout history or are we now beyond that? If such a scenario arose couldn't such data then be used to monitor uprisings and restrict the movements of dissenting politicians.
    • BlacklabelSAR, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1yarg, with that classic fascist line, you just proved that you do not understand what it is to be a free person.
  • theinept, on 10/10/2007, -0/+17Can you elect to submit a stool sample for them to analyze instead of the more standard cheek swab? Sample this!
  • scubasteve11, on 10/10/2007, -15/+6I'm a cop from the states, so I have no idea how things work in the UK. I wish they'd let us do that here, especially around Philly, where I work. I wish you guys knew how easy it would be for us to 'nab the drug dealers/pushers if we the suspects DNA on file. I can also guarantee our murder rate would drop, because in this cop's humble opinion, the murders are all at the hands of the same few gangbangers. But sadly, that's not the way things work around here; we have people worried that they'll be in some 'massive conspiracy' if we have their DNA on file. Of course, that couldn't be further than the truth. A fingerprint is the same thing as DNA, except much easier for us to use against the individual. Of course, I'll be dugg down for going 'against the grain' of anti-police/'the man' people. *sigh*
    • g30ff, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10I'm sure it would make your job easier, but the problem is that would also invade people's privacy. Being a cop *does* qualify you to speak of things that would make your job easier, what it *doesn't* qualify you to do is determine the harm that is done by depriving people of any right to privacy. Opponents of these kinds of things are rarely conspiracy theorists, just ordinary folks who don't want a visit from some government appointed ***** inspector every they break wind.
    • ryanwritescopy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5The fact that you're a police officer frightens me more than anything. For the good of our country, please quit, right now. Being against "the man" isn't a popular culture opinion, it's the whole reason we fought the American Revolution! You are an American first, and a police officer second. I respect your freedom, and you damn well better respect mine.
    • 2bsbc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5In this humble citizen's opinion, cops and government have more than enough power. Thanks for the thought though.
    • Wartyboskfapped, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Yeah, we'd also be able to nab the corrupt cops, too. Oh, wait, they'd be the ones in charge of the DNA collection. Shoot.
    • DustinR, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11I think being fingerprinted for nonviolent misdemeanors is an invasion of privacy.
      • Albionshores, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Totally, even scanning your face from a camera as they can now do with CCTV is a violation if they store that information.
        • CitizenBane, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Why? If you are in a public place, you have to realize that you lose quite a bit of your privacy. If a local city wants to enact a law to monitor the population with CCTV, so be it. The populace can then, if they chose, to overturn that decision. (Note: I'm against this on a Federal level, but that's a whole 'nother thread)

          On the same token, I should be able to photograph, video/sound record, write about, and speak about anything that happens in a public area. (Don't give me none of this free speech zone BS)
    • lordmetroid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Why would you want arrest someone for drugs? There is no corpus delicti in the first place. Look it up man! You have sworn an oath to uphold the law. You fail miserable even by utter such foolishness you just did!
    • g30ff, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Sorry, should have been "every time they break wind" above.
      I'd like to also add that I don't know how things are done where you are, but where I live the police are not allowed to fingerprint a suspect until criminal charges have been filed and we have a lower murder rate than the USA. Once it has got to that stage of charges being files it is not exceptionally challenging to get a suspects DNA. What police don't get to do is jump straight to DNA (or fingerprints) on the flimsiest suspicion.

      I don't oppose this because I dislike police--several of my extended family members are law enforcement officers of various sorts and without exception I quite like them all--it is just that murder is a very rare way do go and using it to justify mass invasions of privacy seems uncalled for. If what we want to do is stop people from dying, we could have a much bigger impact by addressing common causes of death like heart disease, stroke, cancer, etc. and we can do that without invading people's privacy at all.
    • moxley, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Here's the thing Steve - yes, I am sure it may help you ID people who don't carry ID in Kensington - but the thing is that as much as some people may trust a cop they know, it;s not like the DNA database would be limited to a local police department.

      I work in technology with databases and tracking and I can tell you first hand that the Federal government (including less the scrupulous people and agencies within the federal government) are dying to have everyone DNA'd/RFID/Chipped, etc. ...Most of the Philly cops I know are pretty cool, hardworking people some of whom have some seriously *****-hard jobs...But if you had seen what I have seen, even you wouldn't want to be trackable in a fascist society (which is where we're heading - especially after the next terror attack when I suspect there will be martial law...Trust me, I would rather have your ass keeping the peace in Philly than some soldier or (even more likely) a military contractor from Blackwater USA.
    • nullcodes, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1First of all, thank you for being a police officer ..you do an important job. Your comment made some good points I am sorry you are being dugg down. I agree that most murders fall into the hands of gang-bangers. A DNA database in combination with excellent detective work will help identify most of them. However, given current realities, I must disagree with keeping people's DNA on file. When used for the purpose of identifying the perpetrator of a serious crime, a nationwide database of DNA is probably not an infringement of privacy. An infringement of privacy is something like unlawful wiretapping and search/seizure. The DNA database must never be used for purposes other than in combination with other methods to solve a very serious heinous violent crime (not things like theft or jaywalking). The problem is that it can never be guaranteed that the DNA database will only be used to solve serious crimes. Sooner or later government will find other "low hanging fruit" uses to "save taxpayer money". For example, to identify "riotous" political protesters. Following this, it will be found that there are genes for diseases such as breast cancer (already known) and diabetes. Surely, the government can't hide this information from people? Why not let them know so they can get early treatment? Think of lives that will save. Then, someone will supposedly figure out that most violent crime is committed by people with certain "irritability" genes (like for example, the MAOA gene). Surely those people need to be identified so they can get the help they need? Eventually in the name of "improving society", all kinds of information will be mined from the database. With the database, there is a chance government will know what medical conditions you may have .. what your personality and even mental capacity is. All of this will be used as evidence to "narrow down" suspects when they have no leads. Why not charge the most irritable person in an area with the crime? Mistakes happen, but more than likely he did it. Right?
    • DrDabbles, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yeah. Life would just be so much easier without those damned amendments to that POS known as the "constitution".
  • skjede, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3This is an article from ABC (Australian Broadcasting).
    • Haapi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Anybody notice that the link at the number "1984" in it?
    • Haapi, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Anybody notice that the link at the number "1984" in it?
  • perlhacker14, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1Any body else notice a downward trend in american citizens rights, with bush and now this?
    • carbonfree314, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10This is in Australia. Read the article before you post.
      • funkytommyman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Hopefully they'll use it to catch that stingray
    • Kahnza, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Its a never ending slap in the face and a kick to the groin. It makes me weep for ourselves and our children.
      • Wartyboskfapped, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2A boot stamping on a human face.. forever.
        • superdupergc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1ahhh good reference. can't dig you either way, though, because i disagree.
    • Wartyboskfapped, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2This is from Australia.
  • link7373, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4You know, after the last few months of seeing stories on Digg....I really have to say that I'm happy to be Canadian. I hope things get better for the states...but, maybe it's not as bad as the stories say??
    • link7373, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3oops....I just assumed this was a story about the US...proceed with the digging of the down.
  • Skooma714, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2No one will resist as usual. Man is it ever easy to be a bureaucrat
  • Puppetfunk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4"Sir we may believe you have an unpaid parking ticket. Pee into this cup for me.."
  • moxley, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6This is in Australia.

    However, it will likely be coming here soon.

    They sure have ***** Australia up fast though, and they didn't even have a terrorist attack (well ,there was Bali, but I digress)...This is pretty bad, and what they've done to their firearms laws there is disgusting. Mind you, these laws only affect the law abiding, not criminals.
  • Risasi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2This better not start in the States. I have a feeling I will suddenly stop making any income as a form of tax protest...
    • Albionshores, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3They US has got their own version in the pipeline. As plans stand National ID will be necessary for long distance travel, banking and entry into federal buildings. Already innocent people are being denied the ability to fly because they find themselves on 'airport security' lists. Can you imagine what it would be like if you were told you couldn't open a bank account or enter a certain building in order to vote. It is assasination without a bullet or a body.
  • cactus476, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3If I'm declared innocent, do they delete my DNA records from their database?
    • Cyber_Akuma, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

      Oh man, that's a good one.
    • Albionshores, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Not if they follow the UK's example. You don't even have to be charged - once the records are on they cannot be deleted. There have been exceptions (The Soham child murders I believe) were the police wished to rule so many suspects out they appealed for people to volunteer their DNA on the understanding that the samples would be destroyed. Whether they were or not I don't know.
  • Cyber_Akuma, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Reminds me of Gattica, EVERYTHING had public DNA scanners, police were requesting everyone that passed by an area they were inspecting to be scanned, it had turned into something so accepted nobody cared anymore by then.

    I fear that may be an accurate future soon if this is the case.
  • BlacklabelSAR, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Prison Planet
  • bluenullity, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Why the hell is Australian news tagged under General Science, man don't make me filter out General Science like it did with Political News, Political Opinion, and World News.
  • Sunfightersix, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Your DNA isnt private to begin with. Youre dropping it all over the place as we speak.
    • knobtwiddler, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2but that violates proper evidence chain of custody and is unreliable.
  • knobtwiddler, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2just makes it that much easier for them to frame you.


    and quit rolling your eyes. they do it all the time.
  • tearor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The majority of drug users, drug use is their only crime. However, when they are constantly stereotyped and hassled and then incarcerated with hardened criminals, sometimes violent ones, they do tend to become more criminal themselves.
    Instead of solving the problem, the laws actually feed it more, and in the process ruin thousands of of peoples futures.
    That's the disgrace of the WOD. And it also creates a great angst in the population towards the police, who instead of fearing and scorning, should be welcomed and embraced.
    The police should not be babysitters to society. That was not their original purpose.
  • Winston84, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Hitler couldn't even IMAGINE having tools like that .
  • notfaded1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"1984" here we go... this doesn't sound good. What's next cameras inside your house to keep an eye on you.
  • qazzi76, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2This is already standard practice in the UK
  • verzonnen, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I would like all politicians and their political appointees to give a DNA sample, further more I would like them to wear a microphone 24 * 7 and their conversations to be broadcast. I am tired of being lied to!
    • Modulo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Now THAT'S something I can get behind.
  • theelectricafro, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1DNA is your intellectual property. Therefore this is the unlawful seizure of property. I am sure there is an ammendment to your "GODDAM PIECE OF PAPER" as Bush would call it or "Constitution" as Ron Paul would call it that forbids this. Guilty until proven Guilty!
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.