What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
Who Gets To Use Unsold Cruise Cabins at Huge Discounts view!
howlifeworks.com - How to access once-in-a-lifetime trips at significantly less than full price
149 Comments
- DimWatchtower, on 05/03/2009, -1/+139Thumbnail is completely unrelated and disgusting. On a side note its good to see privacy being taken seriously.
- andyb747, on 05/04/2009, -0/+76what's up with that thumbnail you psycho ?
- Smelltastic, on 05/04/2009, -1/+42What do you mean? The child is obviously COVERED in DNA!
- spepin, on 05/04/2009, -0/+30WTF @ thumbnail? I hope this isn't how they're destroying the database, by destroying those in it.
- jacketpocket, on 05/04/2009, -3/+31this is total bs, theres no way in hell they will purge that much data. I'd like to see what type of oversight committee could find the copy they made yesterday of those 800,000 innocents' DNA info. i mean how much space could it really take up on a HDD?
Plus, the UK is all about surveillance and logging all its inhabitants, their skynet of cameras in major cities is proof of this. Do you realize how important this Scotland yard treasure trove of data is? they're innocent now but....just wait.
I love the idea of this, but its not happening, trust me kids. - Arsenard, on 05/03/2009, -2/+20Trash the database of the innocents !!
- diggydougie, on 05/04/2009, -0/+17Don't forget the fingerprints.
- Wade, on 05/04/2009, -0/+12Yeah, people should only worry if they're guilty and not that someone might use their on-file DNA to frame them for crimes they have not committed.
- Whatasillyhat, on 05/04/2009, -2/+14You guys can't possibly think you can destroy the dystopian perception of the UK that USA Diggers have, do you?
- inactive, on 05/04/2009, -0/+10Freedom isn't free.
If we surrender our liberty for the sake of security, we are no longer free people. - dazparkour, on 05/04/2009, -0/+10What about when police used cotton buds to take the DNA without testing the cotton buds themselves?
End result - the factory worker appeared to have committed A LOT of crimes.
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,2204 ...
As for the "If you are innocent, you won't worry" argument. They use that as an excuse to put cameras everywhere. I don't see many politicians broadcasting their sex lives, hell, we aren't even allowed to film the police any more. - Orsenfelt, on 05/04/2009, -6/+16Agreed. This idea of 'personal privacy' is simply a fallacy in the modern world anyway.
I don't care if every inch of public space is covered by CCTV and viewable live on the web. It's a public place, I don't have any right to privacy about location and appearance when I am there, it's not like I have my bank details printed on my shirt. If I share the street with you, I can see you and everything you do, what difference does it make with the camera? It's just another eye watching.
Some people seem to believe that they are in someway 'special'. That the government is actively watching every move you make and are out to get you. Which is an absurd notion. You, and everyone around you are nobodies. You are blips in history, barely even noticed. There is nothing interesting about you, there is nothing extraordinary about you and you don't do anything with your life that other people don't do. What makes you more important than the other 250,000 people that walked past that camera that day? Exactly, nothing.
Atleast until you mug someone under it, then you get noticed and followed and so you should be.
CCTV is just another method of tracking. I don't hear anyone being outraged about their picture being taken every time they use a cash point.. - funkyloki, on 05/04/2009, -0/+9So people are preemptively guilty, without ever having actually committed a crime, because they "might" do something in the future? Welcome to your brave new world, thought-policeman.
- maeon3, on 05/04/2009, -2/+11What happens when they can predict the probability that you will commit violent crime or rebel from authority by analyzing the DNA instructions for the configuration of your mind? Is that justification to keep everyone's DNA on file and scanned for updated developments?
- vbullinger, on 05/04/2009, -0/+8coulropheliac: this, literally, is the exact same excuse used by the Nazis to take away all of the citizens' rights.
And don't say Godwin's Law: this really does apply.
The fourth amendment says that this information is private and the government doesn't get to have it. If you commit crimes, you lose that right. Then, the government gets to take your DNA. Fair enough? - AlienMushroom, on 05/04/2009, -1/+9What about the backups?
- localzuk, on 05/04/2009, -1/+9The thing is, until you've dealt with the police and how crooked many of them are. Seen how they lie to get convictions. etc... then you will hold views like that.
The complaint many have about these giant databases, the constant surveillance is the probability of abuse. It *will* happen. - useraccess, on 05/04/2009, -0/+8Yeah, it's at the bottom of the page for another story.
- dazparkour, on 05/04/2009, -0/+8The UK government has an AWFUL record when it comes to handling sensitive data - I'm telling you in advance - if you need citations, your opinion is explained away by your ignorance. Have a Google.
It is all well and good now, but what about when synthetic DNA can be made to match DNA in a database. If I get hold of a DIGITAL copy of your DNA, I'll be able to lab produce a match.
Truth is - the government is a collection of people who are trained in linguistics and never get technical details of anything right - they cannot be trusted with this data.
I would trust most of Digg before the government, at least the people here can operate a database. - Novagenesis, on 05/04/2009, -2/+9Ok, trivial example.
You sleep with a girl.
The next day, she gets offed.
They find your DNA, but you have an alibi....
but your wife happens to know the wife of the investigator.
There are very few people who don't have things they want kept secret from the world, and many of those aren't illegal. It's a slippery slope. My DNA won't say much about my "dirty secrets", but cameras may. When is it too much? - shodanx, on 05/04/2009, -1/+8don't you get it, the scariest thing about a police-state governement is that it might be incompetent
- inactive, on 05/04/2009, -0/+7"What liberty is lost by having your DNA on a centralized database?"
Oh I don't know, the liberty to govern one's own state? The tenth amendment comes to mind. You REALLY need a history lesson.
This is just the tip of the iceberg anyhow. Think of all the people who would be getting falsely accused if a hacker were somehow able to manipulate such a database. Consider the implications and kiss your fourth amendment goodbye. - vbullinger, on 05/04/2009, -0/+7What are you, Michael Chertoff? Stop defending the government when they strip our rights and destroy multiple constitutional amendments, coulropheliac!
- themadrammer, on 08/18/2009, -4/+11Why stop at DNA. Let's implant RFID chips in everyones head and then we'll know who's even thinking about committing a crime.
- TheAuditor, on 05/04/2009, -0/+7Hehe. And you'd know all about that having lived and worked in Britain, having time to form your own well-balanced opinion with plenty of evidence you have gathered, by yourself, to make that obtuse and ridiculous statement. Note for future: Your opinion is not the truth. Political commentary is not the truth. Even journalism is not The Truth.
Please don't throw words like 'brainwashed' and 'propagandised' around when the only evidence you have to back them up is second hand. - PlusTheBear, on 05/04/2009, -0/+7@coulropheliac
If you have to ask, then your view on personal rights is skewed. You're asking why it matters if they collect your DNA and watch you if you're innocent, and I'm pretty sure you've broken one crime in your lifetime, even if petty. - Orsenfelt, on 05/04/2009, -2/+8Would I be right in saying the thumbnail (Which comes from a different article) isn't something that's fairly common in American news?
I read an article a while back about US news being far more filtered and 'family friendly' than UK and European news in their images. For example they never show a dead soldier, with the exception of the coffins being brought back. I know here, in Scotland, we are shown things of that like all the time if they are relevant..
I (and the article) could be wrong.. It just seems to me that it's obvious the thumbnail is from a war story. Yet some reactions here seem to be that they've never seen an image quite like it.. - dazparkour, on 05/04/2009, -0/+6It's a bit of an assumption to say that the BIGGEST factor contributing to violent crime is your DNA by such a margin as this would be profitable.
We're really revisiting the nature/nurture debate - but lets face it -
In the world you propose, they are more likely to DNA test fetuses and abort the "bad" ones; this saves storage space. - peheimbach, on 05/04/2009, -2/+8The logic here seems rather like "Oh! The horse might escape his corral! Let's shoot the horse so he doesn't escape!" No. You provide for penalty / redress on condition he does escape.
Speaking medically, I believe that the major issue here is one of privacy and of assumptions. I am in daily contact with people who handle medical evidence, (or financial evidence and so on) that could be damning to people if it ever came public. But it does not, because there are strict laws against divulging that sort of information - or against using that sort of information for profit / gain in any way.
Prima facie, I see no difference between keeping DNA and keeping fingerprints. If my dead body should ever need to be identified, I would be grateful to have my DNA on file -- at the very least to provide solace and closure to those few who love me.
Of equal loss would be the ability to prove myself innocent of a crime, although in that case I suppose I could surrender my DNA of my own volition. And there, I think, IS THE FIRST RUB: if the DNA was obtain without consent, then unless the person is guilty of something, it represents theft by the state. I believe the owner should be asked.
Speaking as someone with severe ADHD, I agree with angrycat above. Not that I've ever committed a crime, or even been tempted to do so. However, I do know that for people with ADHD, or even brilliant people who might otherwise find commission of the "perfect crime" an amusing challenge, the idea that even a few skin cells under a victim's fingernail, or a hair, or what have you would indeed be a major deterrent. - cathbard, on 05/04/2009, -3/+9And everybody knows that they can frame anybody they want to by planting some dna at the scene. Great idea, I'll be around to your house to steal your hair brush before I burg that warehouse. Thanks for that, you're a great help.
- seanstuart, on 05/04/2009, -1/+6It's a question all free societies must constantly struggle over: Do we prefer safety or freedom? Where is the line drawn. I would agree with the privacy rights groups in this instance in that I am willing to risk a few murderers to remain at large in exchange for my government not possessing DNA information on all citizens regardless of their criminal history.
As an extreme example of this argument, I always use the 3rd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that disallows the government from posting an agent or guard in your house. I'm sure we'd all be a lot safer with an armed government guard in our living rooms, but we would rather risk robbery or worse in order to be free of that intrusion.
It might be the most common tug of war in a free society. Should Bush be allowed to spy on Americans without a warrant? What if it helps him stop terrorists? And should the government be allowed to hold people indefinitely and torture them, even without evidence that they ever did anything wrong? What if it stops another 9-11? - dazparkour, on 05/04/2009, -0/+5My point is two fold - but the point most easily missed is - the police fouled up basic scientific principles - TEST YOUR EQUIPMENT.
If they can't even guarantee sterile equipment, who does having a retest help me - they are obviously in over their heads. - vbullinger, on 05/04/2009, -0/+5These people would've never committed multiple murders. I don't think you get it, jack104... These are innocent people who've never done anything wrong in their lives.
- ohreilly, on 05/04/2009, -0/+5"Most people in the UK (yourself included), don't care about the surveillance state because you've been brainwashed and propagandized into believing it."
Or is that because we live here and experience the "surveillance state" you speak of?
Where I live, the number of privately owned cameras outweighs the police/council ones by a large margin. - Nollie2, on 05/04/2009, -0/+5Can't agree with you more; the majority of CCTV footage never gets viewed unless an incident, such as a mugging, has taken place. I'd also like to point out that allowing the government to have DNA, or video footage of me is not limiting my own freedoms and liberties in any way. There is always going to be potential for abuse of the system, but it would be hard to find one which has any kind of flaw. So long as the data is kept as safe as possible from abuse if it helps to catch the criminals, I am for it.
That said, the numerous amount of stolen government laptops containing unencrypted information on thousands of the peoples' employment records, insurance and personal data is disgusting. No one should be allowed to have such data on their person no matter who they are unless they are responsible and technically literate. - norman619, on 05/04/2009, -2/+7How many times has DNA evidence convicted and innocent person? How many times has DNA evidence set falsely convited people free?
- Novagenesis, on 05/04/2009, -0/+5Actually, we wouldn't know at all. DNA is considered circumstantial for a reason. The best match percent is between 95% and 99.7%, and a negative is not necessarily an alibi. At best, the police would get a list of the top 1000 people who live in the region who might have committed the crime, and hope to cross-reference and get a match.
And the cost? Loss of personal privacy. Possibility in the future of private companies being able to acquire this data for their own benefit, legally or illegally. - Uaedaien, on 05/04/2009, -1/+6Its about time. The European Court of Human Rights ruled months ago that this was an illegal database.
- Jlaugh, on 05/04/2009, -0/+5@norman619
I'm sure the KGB said that to all the people they investigated. - dazparkour, on 05/04/2009, -0/+4In this country - you pay tax on a car and not on DNA, insurance too.
Also, you aren't going to CRASH your DNA into someone else then swap DNA with them, are you?
Life is not a badly scripted porno. - inactive, on 05/04/2009, -0/+4Read the Tenth Amendment and the get back to me... the federal government has no authority to run a central DNA database. Do you not understand the problems with allowing the federal government to do whatever it wants?
I'm not going to bother debating anybody who doesn't even understand the basic tenants of the bill of rights. - Rudegar, on 05/04/2009, -1/+5but what about the day that RIAA made criminals out of everybody don't they need innocent dna to recreate the innocent human ?
- ohreilly, on 05/04/2009, -0/+4"pro-privacy move by the British government"
The problem is that this move is only happening because the EU is "forcing" them to.
Hopefully the Conservatives, when they come into power next year, will start to dismantle all the failed IT projects and proposed databases that are costing us money, like ID cards. - inactive, on 05/04/2009, -1/+5SUUUUURE they will
- Frostek, on 05/04/2009, -1/+5Presumably not as ignorant as someone who keeps posting Joe Biden links when Mr. Biden lacks any authority within the UK.
- d999w, on 05/04/2009, -0/+4What about state authority. It only takes one ***** in authority to trample millions of lives and destroy millions of acres of land. Would you like some history.
Limit authority. No government should be allowed to do this--whether your a nice law abiding citizen or not. Any one who thinks a government is keeping you safer by keeping records like this has bought into the "fear" rage that to not to do this would lead to rampant crime and the degradation of society.
Plus, more controls on the citizens leads to less intellectual freedom.
Less intellectual freedom means fewer bright ideas from its citizens. Less bright ideas keeps the human condition limited.
People that like control like limits. - jeremyduffy, on 05/04/2009, -0/+4And if it's on file, it would be easier to falsify evidence that leads right to you. The kind of power that these databases provide only work if you can completely trust the people who own and manage them. Since I don't, the only defense is to not be in them.
- inactive, on 05/04/2009, -2/+5Yes, because as we all know, criminals are famous for their well-planned warehouse robberies.
Look, I realize you're being an idiot for the sake of idiocy, but let's get real. It's not like they're going to grab random hair from a warehouse and arrest someone based on it. DNA is one tool among many that the police use to solve crimes. There have been literally HUNDREDS of people released from Prison, many serving life sentences, who'd still be there today were it not for DNA testing. Given your "logic", we should have left them all in jail, because maybe they stole someone else's sperm and planted it on their rape victims. -
Show 51 - 100 of 155 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is