So you think your medical information is safe eh.....

sweet_left_foot said:
I was having a similar conversation the other day when considering if the police now had access to DNA records for most of the population from covid swabs.
Click to expand...
Would that be an issue? I know we haven't handed them over for this use but surely only those that have something to hide would be against the police having access to them.

Regarding insurance companies having access, someone should lose their job by allowing this.
 
Norman_Conquest said:
Would that be an issue? I know we haven't handed them over for this use but surely only those that have something to hide would be against the police having access to them.

Regarding insurance companies having access, someone should lose their job by allowing this.
Click to expand...
That is not an employee making a mistake, that is a decision by the company to monetise the information they have despite having given "assurances" not to do so. The company or its directors should be sued into liquidation
 
Norman_Conquest said:
Would that be an issue? I know we haven't handed them over for this use but surely only those that have something to hide would be against the police having access to them.

Regarding insurance companies having access, someone should lose their job by allowing this.
Click to expand...
Let's assume, Norman, that the argument nothing to hide nothing to fear were actually true. Where is the chain of evidence for this stolen DNA evidence? Is bio banks data secure? How accurate were swabs handled prior to covid tests being done. How securely were they handled subsequently.

It's a very poor argument Norman.
 
Norman_Conquest said:
Would that be an issue? I know we haven't handed them over for this use but surely only those that have something to hide would be against the police having access to them.

Regarding insurance companies having access, someone should lose their job by allowing this.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't trust the police, or this government, to mind my bike whilst I went into a shop - therefore the whole "only got something to fear if you've got something to hide" is naive to the extreme.

The police cant even identify murderers and rapists in their own organization, why would I trust them to treat my data with the respect it deserves.

I say this as someone whose entire career is built on the exploitation of data, and so I'm not a "tin hat" type of guy, but someone who sees the value, and dangers of using data.
 
Last edited:
sweet_left_foot said:
I was having a similar conversation the other day when considering if the police now had access to DNA records for most of the population from covid swabs.
Click to expand...
I hope they do, we may find that more guilty people are caught, if you are an honest law abiding citizen, where is the worry? Unless it is the fear of it because at some time in the future you did commit a crime and could therefore be easily caught. I suppose the opposite argument is the fear it may be used in some way to plant evidence to secure a conviction, but that could happen very easily anyway, whether by police or colleague, friend, stranger etc. I’d have no problem giving my DNA to be kept on file, just like I’d be in favour of ID cards and stop and search, but I trust the police more than most seem to on here I guess.
 
coluka said:
I hope they do, we may find that more guilty people are caught, if you are an honest law abiding citizen, where is the worry? Unless it is the fear of it because at some time in the future you did commit a crime and could therefore be easily caught. I suppose the opposite argument is the fear it may be used in some way to plant evidence to secure a conviction, but that could happen very easily anyway, whether by police or colleague, friend, stranger etc. I’d have no problem giving my DNA to be kept on file, just like I’d be in favour of ID cards and stop and search, but I trust the police more than most seem to on here I guess.
Click to expand...
I think the reason why this shouldn't happen has been explained in 2 posts above coluka.
 
Laughing said:
Let's assume, Norman, that the argument nothing to hide nothing to fear were actually true. Where is the chain of evidence for this stolen DNA evidence? Is bio banks data secure? How accurate were swabs handled prior to covid tests being done. How securely were they handled subsequently.

It's a very poor argument Norman.
Click to expand...
It is not an argument Laughing, it is a question I've asked to open the discussion up, but let us say it had been handled correctly and met the criteria you suggest, in my view, it wouldn't be a bad thing. I can see a time when the authorities hold everyone's DNA.

Muttley said:
That is not an employee making a mistake, that is a decision by the company to monetise the information they have despite having given "assurances" not to do so. The company or its directors should be sued into liquidation
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you say but someone had the final say on whether it should be allowed and all those involved should be dealt with severely. It will certainly put people off from volunteering to support medical research in the future.
 
Norman_Conquest said:
It is not an argument Laughing, it is a question I've asked to open the discussion up, but let us say it had been handled correctly and met the criteria you suggest, in my view, it wouldn't be a bad thing. I can see a time when the authorities hold everyone's DNA.



I agree with everything you say but someone had the final say on whether it should be allowed and all those involved should be dealt with severely. It will certainly put people off from volunteering to support medical research in the future.
Click to expand...
The issue with DNA evidence, like much evidence, the general public cannot assess it's value and tend to place way too much emphasis on things like dna and eye witness testimony.

Assuming the data was 100%, most dna is secondary contamination and that makes it very misleading at best, and would lead to a much higher percentage of innocent people in jail.

Neil de Grasse Tyson tells an interesting story about being asked to complete jury service. When asked what he did he told the prosecutor he was a teacher. When asked what he was teaching currently he told the prosecutor that he was just finishing up a couple of lectures on the unreliability of eye witness evidence. He was excused from the jury.

We should really stop looking for absolutes in guilt/innocence, it generally doesn't exist and giving, averagely educated police officers access to something they consider a silver bullet would ruin our legal system, reduce crime detection and the police wouldn't bother with prevention at all.
 
I have always been able to read all my medical information going back through every appointment I have had at my GPS since 1989. Also all my childhood immunisation appointments . I went to look at something the other day and noticed that some woman called Karen at my GPs has decided I should no longer be able to access this information fir "my own good". Got my family to check theirs and it's the same for them and a mate. Need a phone call in the morning to sort this out.
 
Laughing said:
The issue with DNA evidence, like much evidence, the general public cannot assess it's value and tend to place way too much emphasis on things like dna and eye witness testimony.

Assuming the data was 100%, most dna is secondary contamination and that makes it very misleading at best, and would lead to a much higher percentage of innocent people in jail.

Neil de Grasse Tyson tells an interesting story about being asked to complete jury service. When asked what he did he told the prosecutor he was a teacher. When asked what he was teaching currently he told the prosecutor that he was just finishing up a couple of lectures on the unreliability of eye witness evidence. He was excused from the jury.

We should really stop looking for absolutes in guilt/innocence, it generally doesn't exist and giving, averagely educated police officers access to something they consider a silver bullet would ruin our legal system, reduce crime detection and the police wouldn't bother with prevention at all.
Click to expand...

The advance in using and understanding DNA has been instrumental in solving cold cases that may have been sat unsolved for decades. It has also played a crucial role in exonerating individuals who were wrongly convicted and led to the release of innocent people from prison.
 
Norman_Conquest said:
The advance in using and understanding DNA has been instrumental in solving cold cases that may have been sat unsolved for decades. It has also played a crucial role in exonerating individuals who were wrongly convicted and led to the release of innocent people from prison.
Click to expand...
That's all true but were the police given permission to take the DNA samples?
 
Norman_Conquest said:
The advance in using and understanding DNA has been instrumental in solving cold cases that may have been sat unsolved for decades. It has also played a crucial role in exonerating individuals who were wrongly convicted and led to the release of innocent people from prison.
Click to expand...
Due to the way DNA is used in our current judicial system Norman.

I have nothing against using DNA evidence. However, if the police had access to a national database they wouldn't look any further than that database, assuming they had some DNA from the crime scene. That is an awful way to police. Most DNA left anywhere is secondary DNA from skin.

The examples you have were DNA from blood and seen not secondary skin DNA which is wholly unreliable and is misunderstood by almost all the public and misrepresented by barristers.

As I said in an earlier post there is seldom an absolute in guilt or innocence and allowing our police force to short cut criminal investigations would be a disaster. The minute they have a DNA match they stop looking, assuming it is an absolute when it isn't.

A dna database would result in more innocent people in jail and less effective criminal investigations and prevention.
 
So where do you all stand on these family genealogy websites where people are paying to send their DNA and match it to world wide databases.
Can this DNA be used to solve crimes ?
 
Laughing said:
Due to the way DNA is used in our current judicial system Norman.

I have nothing against using DNA evidence. However, if the police had access to a national database they wouldn't look any further than that database, assuming they had some DNA from the crime scene. That is an awful way to police. Most DNA left anywhere is secondary DNA from skin.

The examples you have were DNA from blood and seen not secondary skin DNA which is wholly unreliable and is misunderstood by almost all the public and misrepresented by barristers.

As I said in an earlier post there is seldom an absolute in guilt or innocence and allowing our police force to short cut criminal investigations would be a disaster. The minute they have a DNA match they stop looking, assuming it is an absolute when it isn't.

A dna database would result in more innocent people in jail and less effective criminal investigations and prevention.
Click to expand...
Don't get me wrong here, I am certainly not championing this and have learned a little from the above posts but if I am hearing you right, you are saying it would remove that a person is innocent until proven guilty and the ambiguity surrounding guilt and innocence.

I don't understand how more innocent people would end up jail though, can you explain that part for me. Is this due to what you are describing as lazy policing?
 
Norman_Conquest said:
It is not an argument Laughing, it is a question I've asked to open the discussion up, but let us say it had been handled correctly and met the criteria you suggest, in my view, it wouldn't be a bad thing. I can see a time when the authorities hold everyone's DNA.
Click to expand...
Yes but it’s vanishingly unlikely this will have happened as the data would have been collected illegally and the two things people who are doing something illegally tend not to do is to follow other rules systematically or to keep good records.

Edit: that’s in the hypothetical that it did happen. I don’t think it did. But if it did it would have been done in a cavalier manner in all respects, not merely in respect of its illegality.
 
Norman_Conquest said:
Don't get me wrong here, I am certainly not championing this and have learned a little from the above posts but if I am hearing you right, you are saying it would remove that a person is innocent until proven guilty and the ambiguity surrounding guilt and innocence.

I don't understand how more innocent people would end up jail though, can you explain that part for me. Is this due to what you are describing as lazy policing?
Click to expand...
That's not quite what I am saying Norman.

If there is a national database of DNA then looking for a DNA match will be step 1 in any investigation.

If I shake your hand then you go on and burglar somewhere my DNA ends up at the scene of your crime. Worse still if I handle a pair of gloves that you wear for the same burglary then my DNA ends up at the scene without you and I ever touching and more Interestingly yours isn't at the scene.

Once the police have a DNA match they stop looking at other suspects. This diminishes crime detection and leads to the police force concentrating on the wrong suspect.

Add to this the general publics opinion of DNA matching means a jury may well convict on transferred DNA.

Blood and semen DNA are much more reliable because in the normal day to day it isn't transferable.

All this is an objection based on the storage of DNA being 100% reliable, which no data storage is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top