who's going to have who's information?

[pianistimo]

at least it's not formally allowing police across borders yet.  but, i believe this is leading to a conspiracy - because one can say 'we know there are terror suspects in your country.  therefore, let our police force in.'  what about national sovereignty?  what do you think?

https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6745195.stm

what i read is that britain has the largest and most complete dna database and the other 27 or 26 countries have only a small fraction of their population analyzed.  therefore, there is more information gained by having britain's database.  but, even if the databases were even - what about human rights and the right to privacy.  can anybody just give personal information out?  i think this is an invasion of privacy at the cost of 'the war on terror.' 

[counterpoint]

absolutely true

[pianistimo]

what if someone steals your dna?  how do you know it's gone?  a pin prick to your toe in the morning?

[counterpoint]

what if someone steals your dna?  how do you know it's gone?  a pin prick to your toe in the morning?

That would be easy. But I'm not afraid of that.

[prometheus]

Countries agree to share information, they agree to work together. They agree to let police forces of other countries on their territory.


The sovereignty issue is in the fact if the national government can deny police forces on their territory or deny information from being shared.

At this moment they can still do this. But it might be possible that there is a European government or council that can overrule this and force a country to accept police forces from their neighbours or force them to share information. This is not the case.


An issue that can be raised is the privacy of the suspects and criminals that are in those databases.


Another thing is that if police forces don't cooperate, criminals have free play. They can just cross the border, commit crime and then go back and be immune.

A lot of US movies have regional police, state police, federal police, the FBI, and they work against each other. Also, there are often criminals crossing the state border to get rid of the police.

So you have to compare US states with EU countries. And yes, EU countries will have less sovereignty than the US. US can force its will on Canada, Mexico even Europe. European countries have to work together.


Another problem is how the people prevent politicians from limiting democracy, setting up a lot of managing layers and bureaucracy, centralizing power so private institutions have an easier time controlling society, etc.


The EU summit is just over. They talked about country sovereignty because at this moment not all Europeans want an EU superstate.

[G.W.K]

Yeah, but you need advanced, scientific equipment. I doubt the likes of Al Queda have that...LOL

G.W.K

[thalbergmad]

Invasion of privacy it is, but it is needed.

England is infested with terrorists thanks to the absurd Human Wrongs Act and our Governments pathetic attempts to control our borders and deport dangerous scum.

The papers have already reported that there are 40 seperate terror cells that are being monitored and the threat is all to real.

Sharing information with our European Neighbours makes sense as it will assist in the war against terror.

Thal

[G.W.K]

There are so many views on this topic...but it can never be dealt with... :-(

G.W.K

[prometheus]

what if someone steals your dna?  how do you know it's gone?  a pin prick to your toe in the morning?

You are at a restaurant, which you seem to like to do, and I am shadowing you.

So you eat and drink, etc. Then you leave.


Then I have a very good chance to get DNA samples from the things you leave.

It is very easy to get someones DNA. It is also almost impossible to prevent this. But then using that DNA to do something useful is different.

I am not even sure if stealing someones DNA can be made illegal. How often do you accidentally take someones DNA with you?

[G.W.K]

Maybe there is something like a Data Protection Act for humans that means it is illegal to steal DNA without permission of the original source...

G.W.K

[thalbergmad]

what if someone steals your dna? 

Do you think anyone will want to clone you sweetie?

Thal

[pianistimo]

not worried about cloning.  i'm worried about 25,000 young british school children's dna which is not even in a criminal database.  it's like this new thing - 'get everyone's dna.'  all they have to do is to look through databases on 'paternity tests.'  i believe that people think they are the only ones to see the test results.  but, it appears it is all going into one data bank.  what for?

[G.W.K]

What do you mean?

G.W.K

[prometheus]

Maybe there is something like a Data Protection Act for humans that means it is illegal to steal DNA without permission of the original source...

You just 'accidentally' carry a hair on your shirt or coat.


It is very very difficult to protect someone's DNA. And yet very important.


Imagine a health insurance is denied because you have a 'cancer gene'.

Or imagine being rejected for a job because you have the 'theft gene'.

[thalbergmad]

not worried about cloning.  i'm worried about 25,000 young british school children's dna which is not even in a criminal database.  it's like this new thing - 'get everyone's dna.'  all they have to do is to look through databases on 'paternity tests.'  i believe that people think they are the only ones to see the test results.  but, it appears it is all going into one data bank.  what for?

Yeh, it could be used for paternity tests but it could also be used for the fight against crime and terrorism.

A price worth paying i would say.

Thal

[G.W.K]

So in other words, it can't be stopped? The government cannot control it no matter how hard they try, the government is falling to pieces over this sort of thing!

G.W.K

[counterpoint]

Invasion of privacy it is, but it is needed.

Thal, you scare me 

[G.W.K]

Quote from: thalbergmad on Today at 08:15:10 PM
Invasion of privacy it is, but it is needed.

Everyone is entitled to privacy, in anything.

G.W.K

[thalbergmad]

Quote from: thalbergmad on Today at 08:15:10 PM
Invasion of privacy it is, but it is needed.

Everyone is entitled to privacy, in anything.

In an ideal and peaceful world, i agree.

But that is hardly the case.

Thal

[prometheus]

So in other words, it can't be stopped?

What exactly? Abuse of DNA? Or specific organisations getting too much, damn the English language tacks this word,.. let's just use 'power', and being able to violate one's privacy.

If you haven't got privacy you don't have freedom. Regardless of if there is peace or not. And there is peace.

It is not a security issue, most of the time, it is a power issue.

[thalbergmad]

Thal, you scare me 

Why?

Because i feel it is justified to infringe  a few so called rights to protect my Country against flag burnng morons?

Thal

[pianistimo]

sorry to start a thread for thinking too much.  sometimes i feel like patrick henry - 'give me liberty or give me death.'  other times - i just meander along thinking - what does it matter what i think.  what is going to be done will be done by people who want to get it done.  as i see it - a world economy.

it's headed that way - and has been for a long time.  say goodbye to national sovereignty , thal.  when tony blair stepped down - he was effectively telling bush to do the same.  what we are seeing is that they realize themselves that they have no power in the world community because we're all so much in debt.  and, how to get out of it.  join the eu?

that's the cost.

but, there's military perspectives that go along with that.  it's like becoming personally in debt and choosing either to declare bankruptcy or to go with a debt resolution plan that could take a few years to get it together.  as i see it - protect your dna data banks and start hiding the information.  in fact, take a shredder to it and make sure that it's fully and completely destroyed. then, when they ask for what you have - give them ONLY THE CRIMINALS.

[thalbergmad]

give them ONLY THE CRIMINALS.

Fine, but what about those (especially schoolchildren) who might be the criminals and terrorists of the future?. The sensible thing to do would be to keep everyones DNA.

Thal

[pianistimo]

oh yeah, right?!  may as well hand someone the gun they'll shoot you with.

[thalbergmad]

say goodbye to national sovereignty , thal.  when tony blair stepped down - he was effectively telling bush to do the same. 

It is appropriate that you should mention goodbye to national sovereignty and Blair in the same paragraph.

Thal

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Everyone is entitled to privacy, in anything.

In an ideal and peaceful world, i agree.

But that is hardly the case.

Thal

In an ideal world...

Yeah.

And unfortunately we live in a country where MPs think they can vote to hold themselves above freedom of information acts, Governmental contracts are repeatedly handed out to (the same) incompetent companies who again and again show themselves incapable of creating secure and reliable systems, corruption is inherent in the administrative system itself...

I am very concerned about the security of any putative DNA database, and the level to which abuse is possible. Imagine how easy it could be, if required, to frame someone by putting their DNA at the scene of a crime (seeing as DNA is going to be considered infallible)...

[thalbergmad]

oh yeah, right?!  may as well hand someone the gun they'll shoot you with.

So i take it you would only take DNA from known criminals and not unknown ones then.

The next Bin Laden could be doing maths homework only yards from where you live.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

[quote author=ronde_des_sylphes link=topic=25603.msg289725#msg289725
I am very concerned about the security of any putative DNA database, and the level to which abuse is possible. Imagine how easy it could be, if required, to frame someone by putting their DNA at the scene of a crime (seeing as DNA is going to be considered infallible)...

Indeed, how it is used and the security is a big concern.

Framing people is hardly new in the Police force though. They won't have to slip a packet of dope into your pockets anymore.

Thal

[Bob]

I think something will change with the way the world deals with information. 

There have to be worthwhile advantages to world-wide sharing of information and some type of balance between personal privacy and usefulness.

If they could track down criminals and missing people instantly?  If they could catch genetic problems before it's a problem?  Emergency services automatically being activated if someone is hurt?  I see a lot of positives.

As long as it's not abused.  I don't think things are secure enough and I don't think the world's organized enough for that yet.

I think eventually something differently will be creating, some new balance found that give us better use of technology.

[prometheus]

(seeing as DNA is going to be considered infallible)...

Yes, sometimes in a murder case DNA of the suspect if found on the victim. Almost always in the case of a murder the murderer and the victim knew each other.

So the suspect and the victim also know each other. And it is clear that the suspect visited the victim a few hours before the murder.

DNA of the suspect is found on the victim.


So does that mean this person is guilty? I am not talking about a lot of skin cells under the nails of the victim but let's say a hair.

It's pretty meaningless. When do you know that the DNA found on the victim proves that the DNA could only be deposited there by murdering the victim? And thus the suspect must be the murderer?

Often judges don't realise this. Another example how DNA evidence is sometimes overrated.


But let's say DNA was indeed planted. It is problematic. Just as someone can murder someone without leaving any evidence, it is also possible for false evidence to result in the punishment of an innocent person.

In both cases based on the evidence that what actually happened is not a reasonable conclusion. And if you aren't reasonable you can't solve any case.If

[pianistimo]

it is interesting how criminals who are related or know the victim are MORE prone to destroying evidence that people who are not related and do not know the victim.  they go to much further lengths because of guilt, i think.  they try to dump them in a lake - or push them in a car over a cliff or bury them in 10 feet of cement.  but, the psychotic killer just hacks them up and leaves body parts all over a field.  (i know, i could write a novel).

[prometheus]

I just watched a program on serial killers and their brains.


The cruelty you describe displayed by some serialkillers is for reasons we normal people can not understand. In the mind of a serial killer it is very important; mutilation, cannibalism, mummification, etc.


Their motives and guilt, I won't comment on it because it is too complex and diverse.

[thalbergmad]

(i know, i could write a novel).

You have, on a regular basis and have posted it here.

Thal