PDA

View Full Version : Speeding? Spit please....



bugjuice
9th December 2005, 19:38
Just heard on the shorts for the news, that soon, if you are caught speeding, they can get a DNA swab.. wtf?
Just doesn't sound right to me, anyone know anything more? News sites haven't got anything yet..

Firefight
9th December 2005, 19:56
Just heard on the shorts for the news, that soon, if you are caught speeding, they can get a DNA swab.. wtf?
Just doesn't sound right to me, anyone know anything more? News sites haven't got anything yet..


thought you would pretty keen on giving a sample, who said it was spit they were after ?

F/F:whistle:

Skytwr
9th December 2005, 19:59
Police can ask you for a DNA mouth swab, It is done voluntary. Only if you are convicted of a specified offence, Rape, murder etc then they can get a compulsion order from the courts. At this time Police can ask any body to supply a sample on a voluntary base. Alot of officers will ask some one on the road side as with the mouth swab, it does not require a nurse to take a blood sample as in the previous kits.

wendigo
9th December 2005, 20:01
Duh! Don't you see? If you speed you're OBVIOUSLY a sociopath who indulges in rape & murder as well as hooning down the motorway at the grand old total of 111 kmh.

I personally will sleep much better knowing that when I next get caught speeding, I can shortly thereafter expect that the full penalty of law will come down on top of me for all those vicous crimes I have perpetrated.

"Capn, we have a match for that case in upper hutt a few months ago where that speed camera was brutally sodomised..."

25 years at least & none of that pansy arsed home detention bullshit neither.

madboy
9th December 2005, 20:03
Bugger... sounds like a pretty good reason for me to keep the hammer down, don't want them catching up with me later on about all that jaywalking I did as a teenager.

skelstar
9th December 2005, 20:11
Bugger... sounds like a pretty good reason for me to keep the hammer down, don't want them catching up with me later on about all that jaywalking I did as a teenager.
Dude...when did you ever need a good reason to put the hammer down? I thought hearing a description of your bike on a scanner was enough? :bannana:

Divot
10th December 2005, 08:27
Whats wrong with givin DNA, unless you have something to hide.

SARGE
10th December 2005, 08:33
Whats wrong with givin DNA, unless you have something to hide.


sorry man.. no DNA from me without drawing blood and earning it

just a personal preference and i have nothing to hide.

if they need DNA to ID my body.. i have a washcloth next to my bed they are welcome to test..:doh:

Aitch
10th December 2005, 08:33
Whats wrong with givin DNA, unless you have something to hide.
Because we don't live in a police state. We don't yet have to carry id cards, (not when we're not driving/riding anyway), and we don't have to be subjected to random searches of our homes and businesses.

Ixion
10th December 2005, 08:35
I always figure that phrase ("unless you have something to hide") is a certain give away that freedom is in yet more danger.

The obvious answer is "Why should I SINCE I have nothing to hide". It is like the assumption that all men are paedophiles and must not sit next to children. Obviously the only reason the police would want a DNA sample is to try to pin something on someone. And there have been plenty of innocent people wrongly convicted on the basis of DNA samples.

Everyone has "Something to hide" It's called privacy. And "mind your own business" And "innocent until proven guilty" . And the right to be free of arbitrary search.

Used to be, that until a person gave some reason for suspicion that they had committed a crime, they should be regarded as law abiing citizens. Now, you're suggesting that everyone be treated as a criminal.

Oh , by the way, can I have your bank account pin numbers and your password for the police computer system,please? Why should you object unless you have something to hide. And can I come and watch you and your partner having sex? Why should you object unless you have something to hide. Oh, and the keys to your house and bike too please. Why should you object unless you have something to hide.

MSTRS
10th December 2005, 08:46
Oh, and the keys to your house and bike too please. Why should you object unless you have something to hide.

You have locks?? You really do have something to hide, don't you?

Divot
10th December 2005, 08:51
The obvious answer is "Why should I SINCE I have nothing to hide". It is like the assumption that all men are paedophiles and must not sit next to children. Obviously the only reason the police would want a DNA sample is to try to pin something on someone.


Or to clear you, Many people have been cleared on DNA aswell>

MacD
10th December 2005, 08:56
I always figure that phrase ("unless you have something to hide") is a certain give away that freedom is in yet more danger.

The obvious answer is "Why should I SINCE I have nothing to hide".

I completely agree with you.

I cannot believe anybody would voluntarily give a DNA swab in such a situation. It is the ultimate invasion of privacy. The potential ethical issues and social implications of a DNA database haven't even begun to be assessed or discussed yet. :brick:

TONO
10th December 2005, 09:14
I completely agree with you.

I cannot believe anybody would voluntarily give a DNA swab in such a situation. It is the ultimate invasion of privacy. The potential ethical issues and social implications of a DNA database haven't even begun to be assessed or discussed yet. :brick:

This really is scary shit and definitely "Big Brother" is watching you, type legislation.:bash:
Of course people who speed are committing a crime!:wait:
People who rob,rape,assualt,aviod paying tax, shit in a public place etc, etc are all committing a crime.:wait:
So lets just dump them all together,:doh: its easier to handle that way and after all I'm a Politician/Senior Public Servant/Police Commissioner so I am exempt, being a perfect citizen with nothing to hide.:stupid:
YEAH RIGHT.
Would make a good tui's advert.........................:doobey:

"TODAY I WILL GIVE A DNA SAMPLE VOLUNTARILY"
"YEAH RIGHT"
:2thumbsup

Eurodave
10th December 2005, 09:18
Sounds to me like a thinly veiled excuse to update the ever growing data base!!!
remember when there was concern over retinal scanning/digital imaging on drivers lisence photos & them becoming defacto ID cards etc,
BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU!!!!

James Deuce
10th December 2005, 09:32
I completely agree with you.

I cannot believe anybody would voluntarily give a DNA swab in such a situation. It is the ultimate invasion of privacy. The potential ethical issues and social implications of a DNA database haven't even begun to be assessed or discussed yet. :brick:

And they won't be discussed either. Enough people will refuse to do this on the roadside that the law will be changed to compel you to give a DNA sample.

A big chunk of NZ will have no issue wth this because they've never ever had personal freedoms removed in a wholesale fashion by a neighbouring country or a NZ Government. So it can't happen here. Obviously. I really wish people would wake up the the overiding principal of any organisation. The depersonalisation of the individual by sunsuming them into a collective noun. It's much easier to announce that you are retrenching a thrid of your workforce than to anounce that Trevor Sinclair witha dependant wife, 4 children and a large mortgage will be leaving us first, followed by Mary Abelson, with 30 years service in the same department and never a bad word said about her.

Police policy can be said to be targetting a demographic. In this case it will be middle-class, middle to high income earners with no previous criminal history, and therefore no really useful dirt stored on them in a central database anywhere.

They reason they are doing it is because soon when you travel overseas you will have your nice little "biometric" passport and will be required to give up a DNA sample and a retinal scan to get it. There's a ready made database for the Police to use to catch those speeding, millionaire, international drug smugglers.

Big Dave
10th December 2005, 09:50
I'll happily supply a DNA sample for a specific reason - like those rapes in country NSW - all the town gave a sample and the caught him.

If it's voluntary and 'just in case' then they can get fucked.

spudchucka
10th December 2005, 09:52
The national DNA database is a powerfull anti crime / crime fighting tool. Increasing the the number of samples that are in the database increases the accuracy of the science and enhances the compelling nature of the evidence. Thats why the cops are always looking to obtain voluntary samples.

New techniques for gathering DNA are being developed. Low Copy Number or LCN DNA enables a DNA sample to be obtained from minute trace amounts of DNA, such as vapour expelled when a person coughs or sneezes.

This will have a huge impact on the way police manage crime scenes but may also open up oppurtunities to gather voluntary DNA samples. I'm not aware of any measures to canvass road users for voluntary samples but with LCN DNA a sample of spit might be quite sufficient to obtain a sample, whereas at the moment a bucal scrape is required.

Pixie
10th December 2005, 09:59
What next?Stool samples?

spudchucka
10th December 2005, 10:04
I can see it now;

No driver I said "spit", not "shit"!

Aitch
10th December 2005, 10:07
Or to clear you, Many people have been cleared on DNA aswell>
In which case the supply of DNA should be voluntary UNLESS the cops have compelling evidence that would convince a judge to issue a warrant. Just like a search warrant. We are entitled to the presumption of innocence, and must not be compelled to prove our innocence.

WINJA
10th December 2005, 10:10
IF THEY WANT A DNA SAMPLE FROM ME ILL JUST GIVE THEM THE BAG IN MY VAN FULL OF STICKY TISSUES

spudchucka
10th December 2005, 10:15
In NZ DNA is collected on a voluntary basis for the national data bank. Persons convicted of specified offences can be compelled to give a sample for the data bank.

There is also a suspectcs data bank that allows for samples to be collected from suspects and persons of interest for the purpose of comparing their DNA with specific crime scene DNA. Specifically for the purpose of elimination. These samples aren't stored on any national data bank once they have been processed in relation to the matter at hand.

Persons of interest who refuse to give a suspect sample will of course become somewhat more interesting to police than people you willingly supply a sample.

spudchucka
10th December 2005, 10:20
Go to legislation.co.nz and look up the Crime Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act 1995 if you want to read through the relevant law.

The ESR site is worth a look too if anyone is actually interested in knowing the facts.

http://www.esr.cri.nz/competencies/forensicscience/dna/DNAdatabank.htm

miSTa
10th December 2005, 11:03
Noooooo, too much useful information, would rather stay ill-informed. :cool:

Waylander
10th December 2005, 11:05
I'm just waiting for the time when a cop asks someone for a saliva sample and the person spits in thier face.

Unless you have a court order, warrent or whatever the official paper is here you get nothing from me.

SPORK
10th December 2005, 11:10
Wait, so how much is it for a plane ticket to Fiji?

sAsLEX
10th December 2005, 12:33
if they need DNA to ID my body.. i have a washcloth next to my bed they are welcome to test..:doh:

thats why you get tags issued isn't it! not that I ever wear mine

Eurodave
10th December 2005, 12:58
thats why you get tags issued isn't it! not that I ever wear mine
Nah, me neither [ex RNZAF SGT.]

MacD
10th December 2005, 13:38
The ESR site is worth a look too if anyone is actually interested in knowing the facts.



The facts are not the issue. DNA identification is a useful tool for the Police just as taking fingerprints was found to be.

The issue is in that DNA is a genetic blueprint for an individual and contains information far beyond simple identity.

It's very easy to say the information is secure or will only be used for criminal identification purposes. However such reassurances are naive in my opinion. Security is only ever as good as the user behind the keyboard. The pressure to share this information with other agencies will be tremendous in the long run, as has occurred for other forms of individual information previously collected.

Just because something is a good technology doesn't mean it is a good idea.

Indoo
10th December 2005, 18:54
Just heard on the shorts for the news, that soon, if you are caught speeding, they can get a DNA swab.. wtf?
Just doesn't sound right to me, anyone know anything more? News sites haven't got anything yet..

Not true, but it seems like a few people didn't quite understand that.

No cops going to ask a speeder with no criminal history for a DNA sample, it simply won't happen and even if he does get it, he will get a reaming from his bosses for the waste of resources.

They might ask a criminal who they catch speeding if he wants too but thats about it. And even if you do give DNA and its matched to a crime scene it still can't be used in court without a second sample which can't be obtained unless its a specified offence, ie burgulary/rape etc.

A guy whose given a voluntarily DNA sample who then goes and breaks into a car leaving some blood inside which is matched back to him cannot be convicted on that alone unless a second blood sample is obtained which he has to voluntarily give.

As with most other laws in this country suprisingly enough the current DNA legislation favours the criminal.

bugjuice
10th December 2005, 18:58
anyone who's in the mind of doing something criminal aren't going to give a swab anyway. So why should you stock up on goody-two-shoe DNA that'll never be used?

I have nothing to hide, but feel like it'd be an invasion of big brother..

Firefight
10th December 2005, 19:04
anyone who's in the mind of doing something criminal aren't going to give a swab anyway. So why should you stock up on goody-two-shoe DNA that'll never be used?

I have nothing to hide, but I'd like it'd be invaded by my brother..


bloody hell Kit, thats just sick. No way we want you in fight club now



F/F

Cookie
10th December 2005, 19:27
I'll happily supply a DNA sample for a specific reason - like those rapes in country NSW - all the town gave a sample and the caught him.

If it's voluntary and 'just in case' then they can get fucked.

I'm with you there.

Personally, I'd support it say for people who have certain convictions.

Burglary for example is sometimes just the beginning of a career that includes some even more nasty stuff - so yeah, hold them down if necessary and get a sample - could be handy later on - but for 62km in a 50km zone? Nah - I'll keep my DNA to myself thanks. That is crossing a line for me (even me).

madboy
10th December 2005, 20:20
...but with LCN DNA a sample of spit might be quite sufficient to obtain a sample...If any cop asks me to spit on them following pinging me for speeding, I'd be glad to oblidge.

Pixie
11th December 2005, 09:42
In NZ DNA is collected on a voluntary basis for the national data bank. Persons convicted of specified offences can be compelled to give a sample for the data bank.

There is also a suspectcs data bank that allows for samples to be collected from suspects and persons of interest for the purpose of comparing their DNA with specific crime scene DNA. Specifically for the purpose of elimination. These samples aren't stored on any national data bank once they have been processed in relation to the matter at hand.

Persons of interest who refuse to give a suspect sample will of course become somewhat more interesting to police than people you willingly supply a sample.
The prick that burgled my house didn't volunteer,not that I'm complaining,he left his DNA on the broken window.
But what's the point?He was already in jail when they pinned my and 43 other burglaries to him.So he just gets his slate cleaned with concurrent sentences.
Every crime should add time.

Wolf
11th December 2005, 22:40
While the DNA database could prove handy for confirming or eliminating suspects, as has been mentioned, there is the issue of security. Most clerical workers I have encountered - and I have no reason to believe otherwise about the civvies employed by the police force, Justice Dept or any other organisation likely to have access to the data - are fucking morons when it comes to computer security. Password too difficult? Write it on a Post-it and stick it on the monitor or cheapen the regular password expiry by using the same wanky password and change the number at the end each time it expires (incrementing by one each time), share their passwords with their mates or coworkers, use such brillaintly confusing passwords as "123456" or "qwerty" or any real word in any known language, download all sorts of shit onto their computers, follow links in emails because the sender asked them to, open attached files on emails for the same reason and - if they are as retarded as a large number tested by security consultants - willingly give their password to complete strangers in the street in exchange for bars of chocolate or ballpoint pens.

Do I want any information at all about me stored anywhere? No fucking way. Unfortunately there is already a plethora of personal and private info about me stored out there safeguarded only by the passwords of various clerical workers - in excess of 80% of whom are incompetent when it comes to basic security according to various surveys. There's enough crap about me freely available to pretty much any script kiddy without me adding my genetic code to the mix.

And as to having "nothing to hide": a convicted cracker in the states admitted that if someone cut her or her friends off on the freeway they would get the licence plate number, crack the DMV, get the person's identity, find out their social security number, then do a check on what hire purchases they have, they then would delete the records of the last few payments from the appropriate finance company's database so that the person who cut them of would end up getting their car and household goods repossessed. It would then be up to them to use their banks records to prove they had paid after all and possibly get their stuff back - after a large mount of inconvenience.

The crackers concerned had to crack several institutions to pull this off and had to have access to the appropriate passwords for a large number of people who had the rights to do what they wanted to achieve - and this was a fair few years ago now so all they had was DMV, the IRS, DHSS and a few credit companies to play with...

Imagine what they could do now or if they had a large database full of genetic data at their disposal. Sure, eventually it will be discovered that the genetic data was tampered with and the error will be corrected - but in the meantime your reputation has been ruined and you've spent five weeks in jail being fucked up the arse by some huge gang member... pretty disproportionate punishment for loudly lane-splitting past some psychotic little script kiddy...

spudchucka
11th December 2005, 22:48
If any cop asks me to spit on them following pinging me for speeding, I'd be glad to oblidge.
I'm sure you would, I'm also sure you'd get locked up for assault. Your choice.

spudchucka
11th December 2005, 22:51
The prick that burgled my house didn't volunteer,not that I'm complaining,he left his DNA on the broken window.
But what's the point?He was already in jail when they pinned my and 43 other burglaries to him.So he just gets his slate cleaned with concurrent sentences.
Every crime should add time.
Burglary carries a maximum sentence of ten years imprisonment. You need to be asking our polititians why such an offender isn't serving ten years, minimum. 44 burglary offences should equal 440 years in jail.

spudchucka
11th December 2005, 23:01
While the DNA database could prove handy for confirming or eliminating suspects, as has been mentioned, there is the issue of security. Most clerical workers I have encountered - and I have no reason to believe otherwise about the civvies employed by the police force, Justice Dept or any other organisation likely to have access to the data - are fucking morons when it comes to computer security. .
The DNA data bank is managed wholely and solely by the ESR, who are a bunch of scientists, not cops or any other form of civil servant. The stored data isn't directly accessible by police staff. Police supply samples collected from subjects , from crime scenes and crime exhibits, the ESR do all the analysis and supply the police with reports as to the results.

The ESR scientists are then summonsed to court to give evidence as to their procedures and methods. If their practices aren't secure then the evidence won't be admissable.

If the police start losing cases because the ESR aren't doing their job properly then they (ESR) will likely lose the contract to supply those services to the police. Therefore it is in the interest of the police and ESR to ensure all practices concerning the DNA data bank are water tight and will withstand the utmost scrutiny.

spudchucka
11th December 2005, 23:06
The issue is in that DNA is a genetic blueprint for an individual and contains information far beyond simple identity.
Right, like they might secretly start cloning us from our DNA samples and sending our clones to work in the mines on Mars.

In actual fact DNA from every NZ'r is available in the form of a blood sample taken at birth in a heel prick test where the blood is stored on blotting paper. Strangley enough no evil scientists have yet sabotaged this national DNA data bank.

Wolf
11th December 2005, 23:49
The DNA data bank is managed wholely and solely by the ESR, who are a bunch of scientists, not cops or any other form of civil servant. The stored data isn't directly accessible by police staff. Police supply samples collected from subjects , from crime scenes and crime exhibits, the ESR do all the analysis and supply the police with reports as to the results.

The ESR scientists are then summonsed to court to give evidence as to their procedures and methods. If their practices aren't secure then the evidence won't be admissable.

If the police start losing cases because the ESR aren't doing their job properly then they (ESR) will likely lose the contract to supply those services to the police. Therefore it is in the interest of the police and ESR to ensure all practices concerning the DNA data bank are water tight and will withstand the utmost scrutiny.
The ESR people are still human and I've worked with too many scientists in the past to have a lot of faith in their ability to be totally secure. In fact, I know a few (fortunately for us all they don't work at the ESR but instead at a university) whose own arrogance would make them the biggest security threat to any organisation - "I've got fifteen different degrees in science, of course I know what I'm doing with a computer!" (and probably thinks the rest of the planet is too thick to work out their password is "e=mc2") At least you can tell some clerical types where they're going wrong but some of the scientists I've met are, shall we say, "erroneously overconfident in their own eptitude".

If someone made a concerted effort to crack the ESR computers, I suspect they could. People have cracked some pretty secure places and most of the attacks have relied on the human factor somewhere along the way. Admittedly, it would take another scientist to corrupt the data in a sufficiently undetectable and convincing way to fool the researchers into perverting the course of justice but the data in the databank itself could be useful and valuable if copied and sold to the right places.

spudchucka
12th December 2005, 07:37
I'm not suggesting that the ESR is infallible or that because the place is full of scientists they aren't subject to human error. As for computer hacking, it seems that no matter how good your security is there will always be some clever bugger that is capable of screwing with it. However I don't see that as a reason to not pursue the crime solving capability that the national DNA data bank provides.

Edmond Locard, a pioneer of modern forensic science propagated the saying, "Every contact leaves a trace". Soon with LCN DNA a criminal won't be able to fart at a crime scene without leaving behind trace DNA. To me thats a good thing.

The Stranger
12th December 2005, 08:09
The national DNA database is a powerfull anti crime / crime fighting tool. Increasing the the number of samples that are in the database increases the accuracy of the science and enhances the compelling nature of the evidence. Thats why the cops are always looking to obtain voluntary samples.

We all want crime solved and as stated by Big Dave I would be happy to co-operate to assist with the resolution of a specific incident.

It is not the crime solving issue that concerns me, it is when the govt decides that hey we have this large bank of information available to us lets start using for hunting witches (not that long ago actually) or lets open it up to employers or mdeical or life insurance companies. There many other possibilities and as time goes on and more and more is learned about DNA and the human genome more possibilities will open up.

It is not the intended purpose which concerns me and quite frankly you have absolutely no control over the other possibilities.

Wolf
12th December 2005, 08:14
However I don't see that as a reason to not pursue the crime solving capability that the national DNA data bank provides.

Edmond Locard, a pioneer of modern forensic science propagated the saying, "Every contact leaves a trace". Soon with LCN DNA a criminal won't be able to fart at a crime scene without leaving behind trace DNA. To me thats a good thing.
I have no problem with that - provided that only suspects are tested and those who are eliminated have their data wiped afterwards (as promptly as possible to lessen the potential risk that their data is compromised whilst being tested) but I would have issue with the data bank containing DNA data about pretty much everyone in NZ "just in case" it might be needed.

There have been well attested issues with companies in the States (that Land of the Free) having DNA tests done as part of the medical examination they required of prospective employees and then rejecting people because the tests suggest they may have a propensity toward some congenital illness. Obviously it is the land of the "Free to Surrepticiously DNA Test People and Apply Eugenic Theories to the Job Selection Process."

Fair enough making sure your prospective employee does not currently have some illness/medical issue that might impair their ability to work but to reject someone who is healthy because current gene theory suggests they may possibly have almost a .05% chance of contracting cancer in the future is obscene.

Insurance companies have commisioned similar tests and used the data to "justify" inserting clauses to the effect that certain illnesses are not covered (or, worse, "anything to do with your lungs" which means that asbestosis is not covered owing to a suspected "congenital defect") or the cover is there at the cost of increased premiums.

I could imagine that genetic data would be quite valuable to the less than scrupulous members of the public and what someone will pay for, another will obtain. Hence I am opposed to any long-term storage of genetic data of members of the general public. I have no faith that it is secure and I have no faith that people will not to attempt to gain access to it for their own monetary gain.

As I said, it would take quite a scientific genius to tamper with the data in such a way to point the finger at the wrong suspect without the tampering being immediately obvious, so that scenario is not a major concern. But some insurance company or big company buying stolen genetic data and using that info to make insurance or employment decisions? That I can see.

By all means, DNA test the suspects in a criminal enquiry and keep the DNA record of those found guilty after the expert testimony of the ESR scientists (I'm of the once found guilty of certain crimes, you've lost the right to freedom and anonymity anyway) but the records of all other suspects should be instantly and securely destroyed, not left lying around on a server somewhere to bite the poor bastard in the arse a few years later when they apply for health/life insurance or a job.

spudchucka
12th December 2005, 08:30
I accept that my opinions on this matter are biased by my occupation. I also accept that Joe Public should not be compelled to give a DNA sample. If however they wish to contribute to the national DNA data bank for whatever reason I think that should be encouraged. I also think that it is somewhat of a civic responsibility to provide samples for specific enquiries as a matter of assisting with that enquiry only.

Personally I would simply like to see section 57 of the Police Act 1958 ammended to allow the taking of a DNA sample from any person who is arrested and in custody on a charge as is the case of fingerprinting of prisoners now. Subsection (3) of that section already determines that if the person whose particulars have been recorded is aqcuited of the charge then their particulars are to be destroyed.

ManDownUnder
12th December 2005, 08:32
Or to clear you, Many people have been cleared on DNA aswell>

I used to think that - my current line of reasoning is that I'd give DNA is order to clear my name at that time - and it would be under the caviat that the sample taken was to be destroyed after that one (and only) comparison.

The fact is the VAST majority of us have our DNA on file already anyway through the infant heel prick test (nursey types... what's that called?) wher they have a dot of your blood on a card in a card file somewhere.

Done to (almost?) all kids for bloody years - probably still is.

I wonder if that comes under the privacy act, where information (in this case genetic sequencing information) is to be used for it's intended purpose, and nothing else...

?!?

Ixion
12th December 2005, 08:33
In fact, even now, it is probably unnecessary for insurance companies to steal the data. Presumably, the "owner" of the DNA (the person who gave the original sample), is entitled to access to the results (Privacy Act, if nothing else). And, part of the insurance contract is that you must make available to them any information that you have or can obtain. So if someone has provided such a sample , and applies for insurance, they are required (under *present* law, let alone any future "enhancements") to tell the insurance company about the DNA sample, and to provide the company with a copy of the results. And if they don't , the insurance company can avoid any future claim on the grounds of non disclosure. And the insurance company is within its rights to decline cover on that basis.

As far as employment goes, most employers now demand that applicants "agree" to release credit and criminal history. Easy to extend that to DNA. "Don't want to give us your DNA profile? OK, bye bye". Perfectly legal. Also perfectly legal to not make the job offer cos they don't like something in the DNA profile. Present discrimination only covers existing illness, not possible future ones.

ManDownUnder
12th December 2005, 08:35
Personally I would simply like to see section 57 of the Police Act 1958 ammended to allow the taking of a DNA sample from any person who is arrested and in custody on a charge as is the case of fingerprinting of prisoners now. Subsection (3) of that section already determines that if the person whose particulars have been recorded is aqcuited of the charge then their particulars are to be destroyed.

Gotta admit that sounds ok, I'm just (slightly) dubious of various laws when it comes to binding the crown and various Crown Agencies) as some of them simply don't.

I know it's not a lot of the laws but there are enough to keep it interesting...

Marmoot
12th December 2005, 09:14
DNA SWAB FOR SPEEDING!!!

Finally, they actually do a research on Testicular Flow effect on rider control over their bike :yes:

as I have said in the previous threads, bla bla bla bla bla...

Lou Girardin
12th December 2005, 09:45
It's the thin end of the wedge. Today voluntary, tomorrow compulsion.
Slightly off subject though,
A person charged with refusing a blood sample was recently acquitted on the basis that he requested to give a blood sample, as was his right, but the nurse tried for more than a minute to find a vein. After enduring that, he said that was enough they couldn't try again and was then arrested. His lawyer argued that moving immediately to an arrest rather than offer other options was incorrect procedure - the Judge agreed.
I did once have an offender offer the Doctor his dick to take a sample from. He rapidly changed his mind when the Doc said "OK flop it out".

spudchucka
12th December 2005, 11:00
PC New Zealand would never stand for compulsary DNA profiling of all citizens. We are always at risk of rouge governments though but as citizens it is our responsibility to ensure that the rouge factions never get their feet through the door.

I personally believe that decision (the blood) was the only reasonable one in the circumstances. However if the medico couldn't find blood in the guy anywhere perhaps they should have just shoved a stake through the guys heart.

Lou Girardin
12th December 2005, 11:10
I personally believe that decision (the blood) was the only reasonable one in the circumstances. However if the medico couldn't find blood in the guy anywhere perhaps they should have just shoved a stake through the guys heart.

His karma may yet catch up to him. If it's so hard to find a vein, how will it go if he needs a transfusion?

MacD
12th December 2005, 11:57
Right, like they might secretly start cloning us from our DNA samples and sending our clones to work in the mines on Mars.

In actual fact DNA from every NZ'r is available in the form of a blood sample taken at birth in a heel prick test where the blood is stored on blotting paper. Strangley enough no evil scientists have yet sabotaged this national DNA data bank.

Perhaps it's because I am an evil scientist that I seem to have an understanding of the wider ethical issues involved here.

Consider how many people would agree to voluntarily give a fingerprint sample or allow themselves to be RFD microchipped on the side of the road, for the purposes of improving the accuracy of a database. Very few I would imagine. Yet a buccal swab or similar seems somehow much less of an issue. On one hand a RFD microchip might give information as to where you are, whereas a DNA sample gives information as to what and potentially who you are. Which is potentially a bigger privacy issue?

While the DNA database might currently be the property of ESR and under their security it only takes an Act of Parliament to change that. Consider adoption in the 50's and 60's. The identity of the birth parent was considered a secret that would be kept as such for for the foreseeable future as it was considered in the best interests of the child. Now this is not the case and this information can be released under certain circumstances as what is considered "best" has changed.

Finally I have real concerns as to whether a sample given to a Police Officer under potentially stressful conditions can really be considered voluntary. Is the person really able to give informed consent under such circumstances? Is there an issue of coercion, which does not have to be real, but only perceived? What is the first bit of advice given to newbies around here regarding their encounters will Police? Be polite and cooperate...

Wolf
12th December 2005, 12:09
Right, like they might secretly start cloning us from our DNA samples and sending our clones to work in the mines on Mars.
If I found out they were doing that, so help me I'd... I'd... I'd damn-well change places with one of those clones and let him put up with my current job.

BM-GS
12th December 2005, 13:04
Someone famous once said "those who would freely trade a little liberty for a little security deserve neither."

I kinda agree with that, especially with the George W Bush definitions of Liberty & Security.

So, if everyone born in NZ has their DNA stored with the just-been-born heel-prick test, why do it all over again?

Why aren't all immigrants (like me) required to give a DNA sample when we pitch up? Surely that would be a more valid argument, what with all the Iranian drug-runner & Chinese triad stuff going on in the papers...

Big moral argument thing, lots to think about, and I'm on my lunch break. Better hope the tsunamis arrive when my brain's switched on.

Wolf
12th December 2005, 14:21
Someone famous once said "those who would freely trade a little liberty for a little security deserve neither."

I kinda agree with that, especially with the George W Bush definitions of Liberty & Security.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin

Science Fiction author Larry Niven (Ringworld books and many others) wrote F*S=k - "the product of Freedom (F) and Security (S) is a constant (k)."

The value of the constant may differ from country to country, organisation to organisation, but that constant is set for wherever you are - add "Security", lose "Freedom", add Freedom, lose Security. The product of the two will always be the same value - whatever that is for where you live.

The technology we have available can often trade one "freedom" or "security" for another: ATMs and EFT-POS are a great increase in "Freedom" - no need to be tied to bank hours and no need to carry cash frees you up immensely - except it means you can be placed at specific ATMs and EFT-POS terminals at specific times. At least one bank holds a record that your token (access card) and your password (PIN) were used here at this time. You can easily give up the freedom of "anonymity" for that of "convenience".

Likewise, the DNA data bank may give us freedom from being incorrectly ID'ed as a criminal but it puts us at risk by having yet another point of vulnerability from criminals and corrupt governments or greedy companies.

There has always been the possibility of merging databases for the convenience of those who need to access a lot of data - merge all the records into one huge database that holds all the information various people might need and then giving limited access to various groups as required.

Or as the crackers would call it: "One Stop Shopping". FFS, they can do enough damage when they have to crack numerous systems to find out the info they want without putting it "all under one roof" for them. Imagine driver licensing, IRD, credit control, DNA info etc all in the one database with nothing more than a few "permissions" separating access to segments of the file? Madboy would end up riding more Nana-like than Ixion for fear of losing everything he owns because some random cracker didn't like the way he sped past on one wheel.

Marmoot
12th December 2005, 15:19
Or as the crackers would call it: "One Stop Shopping". FFS, they can do enough damage when they have to crack numerous systems to find out the info they want without putting it "all under one roof" for them. Imagine driver licensing, IRD, credit control, DNA info etc all in the one database with nothing more than a few "permissions" separating access to segments of the file?

not if they don't network it.
And I believe important data such as that should not be networked.
It should be held in separate lab with maximum security. Results can only be faxed or couriered to people who requests it.

Wolf
12th December 2005, 15:33
not if they don't network it.
And I believe important data such as that should not be networked.
It should be held in separate lab with maximum security. Results can only be faxed or couriered to people who requests it.
For convenience it will be have to be accessible from anywhere via wireless link so the cops can check all the relevant details at the side of the road and instantly accessible so credit companies can check all your information in a moment and give you good service by providing a quick response...

The "freedom" to get a quick answer can carry a price tag...

Besides, the existing databases all have remote access, in order to provide the same level of accessibility as people are accustomed to, the merged database would have to be accessible in the same fashion.

spudchucka
12th December 2005, 15:36
Perhaps it's because I am an evil scientist that I seem to have an understanding of the wider ethical issues involved here.

Consider how many people would agree to voluntarily give a fingerprint sample or allow themselves to be RFD microchipped on the side of the road, for the purposes of improving the accuracy of a database. Very few I would imagine. Yet a buccal swab or similar seems somehow much less of an issue. On one hand a RFD microchip might give information as to where you are, whereas a DNA sample gives information as to what and potentially who you are. Which is potentially a bigger privacy issue?

While the DNA database might currently be the property of ESR and under their security it only takes an Act of Parliament to change that. Consider adoption in the 50's and 60's. The identity of the birth parent was considered a secret that would be kept as such for for the foreseeable future as it was considered in the best interests of the child. Now this is not the case and this information can be released under certain circumstances as what is considered "best" has changed.

Finally I have real concerns as to whether a sample given to a Police Officer under potentially stressful conditions can really be considered voluntary. Is the person really able to give informed consent under such circumstances? Is there an issue of coercion, which does not have to be real, but only perceived? What is the first bit of advice given to newbies around here regarding their encounters will Police? Be polite and cooperate...

I understand all the concerns you speak of. My personal feeling on the issue is that the general public shouldn't be actively canvassed for voluntary samples except for specific cases that require elimination samples. As a cop the last thing I want to be doing is collecting spit samples from motorists so I don't care if they never go down that avenue.

I do however think that because of the invaluable nature of DNA evidence as a crime solving tool, criminals should be actively targeted and in fact the police act should be ammended as I have previously stated. That would take away the voluntary aspect of the whole thing in terms of obtaining DNA from criminals and informed consent wouldn't be an issue.

Once a criminals DNA is in the data bank it becomes a very powerful crime prevention tool, not just a crime resolution tool. Crime prevention is after all the true goal that we are striving to achieve.

Wolf
12th December 2005, 15:43
Once a criminals DNA is in the data bank it becomes a very powerful crime prevention tool, not just a crime resolution tool. Crime prevention is after all the true goal that we are striving to achieve.
Yep, once convicted of certain crimes the criminal loses their rights to anonymity and freedom so I have no problem of keeping their records permanently on file to expedite their arrest if they reoffend or as a deterrent to them reoffending and if they subsequently get shafted by a prospective employer or insurer based on what their DNA sequence reveals, tough shit!

I just don't want to see Joe Random Citizen getting screwed - by the crims or the legal crims (insurance companies, banks...)

I think we're both on the same page on that score.

spudchucka
12th December 2005, 15:54
I just don't want to see Joe Random Citizen getting screwed - by the crims or the legal crims (insurance companies, banks...)

I think we're both on the same page on that score.
Thats the last thing I'd want to see too.

Marmoot
12th December 2005, 16:25
Once a criminals DNA is in the data bank it becomes a very powerful crime prevention tool, not just a crime resolution tool. Crime prevention is after all the true goal that we are striving to achieve.

be careful. Anyone said "Minority Report"? :crazy:

terbang
12th December 2005, 21:18
I grew a baird specificly for my photo drivers licence, shaved it off the next day. and I aint got anything to hide..!

Divot
12th December 2005, 22:12
Most clerical workers I have encountered - and I have no reason to believe otherwise about the civvies employed by the police force, Justice Dept or any other organisation likely to have access to the data - are fucking morons when it comes to computer security....

First I am a non sworn mebmer of the police.
Second my wife is a non sworn members of the police

Even thou she won't ride on my bike neither her or myself are FUCKING MORONS you FUCKING DIP SHIT!:motu: :finger:

Wolf
12th December 2005, 22:46
First I am a non sworn mebmer of the police.
Second my wife is a non sworn members of the police

Even thou she won't ride on my bike neither her or myself are FUCKING MORONS you FUCKING DIP SHIT!:motu: :finger:
I said "most", not all.

If you choose to take my general comment about the nature of most clerical workers as a specific and personal attack on yourself and your wife and subsequently choose to get abusive towards me, that is your own particular issue.

Personally, I am in IT support, have been for over 20 years, and have spent most of that time dealing with a lot of clerical workers who don't seem to grasp that "do not install software emailed to you" applies to them and don't see the harm in giving their passwords out to random people.

Not all of the staff I have encountered are like that, but a great deal are. Despite spending a large part of my working life fixing up other people's cock-ups, I refrained from saying "all clerical workers are fucking morons" because that would be inaccurate. I certainly didn't say that I thought you specifically were. Ergo, your personal affront at my comment is your own problem.

Your choice to get directly and personally abusive towards me is also your own problem.

If you figured I would be impressed or intimidated by your SHOUTING, your swearing (I use worse language myself) or your use of a couple of smileys, you were wrong.

Marmoot
12th December 2005, 23:38
Wolf, I share your frustration at times.

Being the only educated IT person in a whole company providing accommodation to hundreds of people, I get this SAME problem everyday "I cannot get to Internet" with hundreds of different answer.

When you ask them "what is wrong, how can't you get to Internet" they normally say "It just does not work"

Bah! ranging from software error (justifies me physically coming there) to simply forgetting to plug the cable (I need a hammer....)

.....:bash:

anyway, sorry to be out of topic.

Wolf
13th December 2005, 08:54
anyway, sorry to be out of topic.
It's partially on topic as my main concern is the lax security a lot of computer users have - insecure (easy to guess) passwords, sequential passwords, downloading software that contains spyware and keyloggers, sharing their passwords with workmates or friends and family and so on, they see no harm in browsing dodgy sites that are riddled with java applets to infect machines and giving out private details at the slightest hint of authority. The security of any computer system is only as good as its weakest link and the weakest link is generally the person at the keyboard. Set a restrictive password policy that requires mixed case, long passwords at least x numbers and y punctuation marks and no English words and a large chunk of people are going to write the password down and leave it near their computer because the password is too hard to remember.


A separate study, also out today, from the organisers of next week's InfoSec conference in London, reveals that office workers are as lax about protecting sensitive passwords as consumers.

A survey of 172 office workers at Liverpool Street Station found that 71 per cent were willing to part with their password for a Marks & Spencer's Easter Egg. Last year 90 per cent of office workers at Waterloo give away their passwords for a cheap pen, so perhaps things have improved slightly.

In the 2004 survey the most common password categories were family names such as partners or children (15 per cent), followed by football teams (11 per cent), and pets (8 per cent), the most common password was "admin". As well as lacking security-savvy, the capital's office workersthere's show lack of imagination when it comes to emails.

Two-thirds of workers use the same password they use at work to access personal financial services such as online banking, a tactic that makes them more vulnerable to financial fraud or even identity theft. Workers used an average of four passwords, the study found. Eighty per cent of workers found using passwords irksome and 92 per cent said they would rather be able to log on using biometric technology such as fingerprints and iris scanners, or be able to log on using smartcards or tokens. The vast majority (86 per cent) said they would like to see biometric and smart card technology extended into electronic banking.

The survey also found the majority of workers (71 per cent) would take confidential information with them when they change jobs and almost a quarter (23 per cent) would not keep salary details confidential if they came across them. ®

Now personally, I don't think the poms are any less tech savvy than we are - especially after some of the blatant stupidity I've seen and having to remove copious quantities of trojan horses, back doors and spyware of end users' machines over the years.

Anything stored on a computer is vulnerable and will ultimately be compromised - I don't care if crims' data is stolen and used against them - the victims of their crimes often have to live with the results for the rest of their lives so if someone wants to make things difficult for the crims for the rest of their lives, who cares? Call it "Poetic Justice".

I am concerned for the safety of the data of those who have volunteered to give samples and the consequences for them should that data be compromised.

I would certainly not want it to get to the point where everyone's DNA data was stored "for our own good", of course - "no more identity fraud", "instant identification in case of an accident and you cannot be identified any other way" etc, etc.

Sure, they've been gathering heel pricks for ages, but so far as I am aware (I am not sure) those samples are not routinely scanned and entered into a data bank. Rather, they are physically put in storage. In order to gain access to genetic information from those samples someone would have to gain physical access to the stored samples, perform tests on them and then analyse the data - a bit beyond the scope of the average computer cracker.

Data in a data bank, however, is already in easily accessed form. The testing and analysis has already been done and the only thing stopping the baddies getting it is someone's password - 66% chance that it is the same as the one that person uses for on-line banking which is easily enough found with a keylogger when they access their bank account from work or from home (a compromised home machine is as much risk as a compromised work machine if your passwords are all the same) or by sending them an email saying "Dear Mr Smith, a problem has been encountered with your bank account details, please click on the following link to confirm your login details". Make it look good enough by copying and modifying a real email from that bank and point the link to a site that looks very much like the bank's real site and the user will happily enter their banking password...

Or you could just hang around outside with a cheap ballpoint pen or an easter egg...

spudchucka
13th December 2005, 11:44
Sure, they've been gathering heel pricks for ages, but so far as I am aware (I am not sure) those samples are not routinely scanned and entered into a data bank. Rather, they are physically put in storage. In order to gain access to genetic information from those samples someone would have to gain physical access to the stored samples, perform tests on them and then analyse the data - a bit beyond the scope of the average computer cracker.
The heel prick samples aren't harvested for the DNA data bank. The only legitimate way to harvest samples for the national data bank is as prescribed within the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act 1995, which is as we have already discussed, by giving a sample voluntarily or by compulsion having been convicted of a qualifying offence.

Wolf
13th December 2005, 12:54
The heel prick samples aren't harvested for the DNA data bank. The only legitimate way to harvest samples for the national data bank is as prescribed within the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act 1995, which is as we have already discussed, by giving a sample voluntarily or by compulsion having been convicted of a qualifying offence.
Thanks. I thought that was the case. So in their "raw" blood-drop-on-a-bit-of-paper state, their genetic information is pretty much safe from conventional cracking attacks. I have no problem with that. If the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act 1995 ever gots amended to have the heel pricks harvested, then I'd kick up a fuss, but until then (if ever), they do not pose a security threat.

Any twat can download virus-building tool-kits and hacking/cracking and social engineering "how-to"s off the web and have a bash at distributing a key logger, cracking a system or conning a user into divulging their password. Failing that, cheap ballpoints are, well, cheap and Easter eggs, while dearer, shouldn't break the bank. (And think of the return on your investment!)

However, not even "How Stuff Works" has enough information to teach the average web-dweeb how to extract and analyse DNA info from a dried blood spot (even though MIT has some neat "How-to"s on lock picking which may help in actually gaining access to the stored heel pricks).

I do agree with improving the chances of catching offenders and creating a deterrent to them reoffending (I have another alternative to help with preventing reoffending called "Jail the fuckers for the rest of their natural lives" but that would mean the politicians and the judges would have to grow a few balls...)

My big concern is not the current rules but the possibilty/probability that some future politician will "make life better for us all" by making DNA sampling compulsory for everyone - the ultimate deterrent to crime, the death of "identity theft" frauds and the no-nonsense way to identify your mangled corpse even if they can't find your teeth (and any other plausible "beneficial" reasons the spin doctors can dream up).

Given that the US, Britain and Europe are all for biometric identifiers on passports and ID cards and that we are moving in line with those, it needn't even be our own benevolent and public-spirited nanny gov't that initiates the rule changes - all the US or Europe needs is another major terrorist strike and for someone to decide that all passports/IDs now include identifying genetic data and that everyone must have DNA samples taken - NZ would have to get in line with that and that's everyone who wants to get a passport sampled at least.

Sniper
13th December 2005, 14:35
Fark that, its my DNA and unless I have reason to. It stays with me.

sAsLEX
13th December 2005, 14:43
what really gets me is the cops have a fair idea I would say of most criminals. Hell most of the public could point out the ones up to no good in small towns etc. The thing is though career criminals seem to just get slapped on the wrist and get back out to reoffend again and again so I dont see how keeping a better track of the is going to help much. We need a three strike kind of system to help really discourage crime.

HenryDorsetCase
13th December 2005, 14:54
I always figure that phrase ("unless you have something to hide") is a certain give away that freedom is in yet more danger.

The obvious answer is "Why should I SINCE I have nothing to hide". It is like the assumption that all men are paedophiles and must not sit next to children. Obviously the only reason the police would want a DNA sample is to try to pin something on someone. And there have been plenty of innocent people wrongly convicted on the basis of DNA samples.

Everyone has "Something to hide" It's called privacy. And "mind your own business" And "innocent until proven guilty" . And the right to be free of arbitrary search.

Used to be, that until a person gave some reason for suspicion that they had committed a crime, they should be regarded as law abiing citizens. Now, you're suggesting that everyone be treated as a criminal.

Oh , by the way, can I have your bank account pin numbers and your password for the police computer system,please? Why should you object unless you have something to hide. And can I come and watch you and your partner having sex? Why should you object unless you have something to hide. Oh, and the keys to your house and bike too please. Why should you object unless you have something to hide.

Fuckin' A right that man.

bugjuice
13th December 2005, 14:54
Fark that, its my DNA and unless I have reason to. It stays with me cos not even chicks can have it.
or do they really want it at all..??

Ixion
13th December 2005, 14:55
I believe these are also preservatised in a way that makes them not readily suitable for DNA profiling. And, in fact, the legal basis for this collection has never been established. They started collecting the heel pricks to test for some congenital defect that shows up in new borns (can't remember what - phenylketonuria maybe ) and someone thought it would be a good idea to hang on to them for ever. Like the various other collections of body parts which have raised alarm in recent years.

Sniper
13th December 2005, 14:58
or do they really want it at all..??

I didn't write that :eyepoke: :killingme

All chicks want my DNA, but I prefer if they don't spit :blip:

HenryDorsetCase
13th December 2005, 15:02
PC New Zealand would never stand for compulsary DNA profiling of all citizens. We are always at risk of rouge governments though but as citizens it is our responsibility to ensure that the rouge factions never get their feet through the door.

I personally believe that decision (the blood) was the only reasonable one in the circumstances. However if the medico couldn't find blood in the guy anywhere perhaps they should have just shoved a stake through the guys heart.

lots of people who know Bruce OMalley (that was the guys name) would agree with you. He is a "Colourful" character, with an "interesting" past.

bugjuice
13th December 2005, 15:04
I didn't write that :eyepoke: :killingme

All guys want my DNA, but I prefer if they don't spit :blip:
so you want all the evidence disposed of too then? Worked for Clinton

Lou Girardin
13th December 2005, 15:06
so you want all the evidence disposed of too then? Worked for Clinton

You don't remember the infamous stained blue dress?

bugjuice
13th December 2005, 15:20
well, may be she dribbled a little..
I forgot about that bit actually. I knew it didn't sound right, but Sniper will get his dress dry cleaned probably

Sniper
13th December 2005, 15:21
so you want all the evidence disposed of too then? Worked for Clinton

Errr, ummm, MissSniper was on earlier and yea, ummmm, no more comments. :chase:

Sniper
13th December 2005, 15:21
well, may be she dribbled a little..
I forgot about that bit actually. I knew it didn't sound right, but Sniper will get his dress dry cleaned probably

I wear the pants in my relationship. :lol:

Waylander
13th December 2005, 15:22
Errr, ummm, MissSniper was on earlier and yea, ummmm, no more comments. :chase:
*Insert sound of a whip crack*



I wear the pants in my relationship. :lol:
BAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Sniper
13th December 2005, 15:23
Stop laughing, she will hear you. :bleh:

Skyryder
13th December 2005, 19:23
You don't remember the infamous stained blue dress?

Yea I heard that Monica designed some Heavy Metal streetware. It's called the Stainless Look.


Skyryder

Skyryder
13th December 2005, 19:24
I wear the pants in my relationship. :lol:

My wife does in mine and I'm always trying to take them off.

Skyryder

spudchucka
13th December 2005, 20:07
My big concern is not the current rules but the possibilty/probability that some future politician will "make life better for us all" by making DNA sampling compulsory for everyone - As voters we have to be prepared to make our votes count and ensure that rouge factions don't ever gain power. Any Govt that forced DNA sampling on the entire nation would be a rouge Govt as far as I'm concerned. Its up to us to make sure it doesn't ever happen.


Given that the US, Britain and Europe are all for biometric identifiers on passports and ID cards and that we are moving in line with those, it needn't even be our own benevolent and public-spirited nanny gov't that initiates the rule changes - all the US or Europe needs is another major terrorist strike and for someone to decide that all passports/IDs now include identifying genetic data and that everyone must have DNA samples taken - NZ would have to get in line with that and that's everyone who wants to get a passport sampled at least.Its entirely possible I suppose, given the fucked up world we now live in. Modern problems I guess aye?

spudchucka
13th December 2005, 20:11
We need a three strike kind of system to help really discourage crime.
Got to agree with that. I reckon it should be a light approach for the first offence, (thats your second chance), then a stern approach on the second offence, (at least half the maximum sentence) and for the third and subsequent offences it should be that they serve the full maximum sentence. Third time burglary offenders would be away for a solid ten years under a system like that.

Waylander
13th December 2005, 20:12
our votes count
BAHAHAHAHA!!! Sorry, I'm a little doubtfull in the effectiveness of voting in any country.

geoffm
13th December 2005, 20:21
Burglary carries a maximum sentence of ten years imprisonment. You need to be asking our polititians why such an offender isn't serving ten years, minimum. 44 burglary offences should equal 440 years in jail.

Spud for President!

spudchucka
13th December 2005, 20:26
BAHAHAHAHA!!! Sorry, I'm a little doubtfull in the effectiveness of voting in any country.
Well if you don't bother voting then don't bother bitching about the shit job the pollies are doing. At least voting gives you the legitimate right to bitch and whine about the tossers!

Unit
13th December 2005, 20:29
Im still getting over the fact that in India you get your licence taken off you after you've killed three people, but now they want DNA in this country for speeding?? I dont know Ive got that much spit to go around!:slap: Im off to live in India:doh:

Waylander
13th December 2005, 20:31
Well if you don't bother voting then don't bother bitching about the shit job the pollies are doing. At least voting gives you the legitimate right to bitch and whine about the tossers! I didn't vote in the states becouse I didn't agree with any party, and I don't vote here becouse I'm not a citizen. Residency does not allow you to vote. Otherwise I would have gone National.

El Dopa
14th December 2005, 19:16
Residency does not allow you to vote. Otherwise I would have gone National.

Yes it does. I do it frequently.

Waylander
14th December 2005, 19:19
Hmm... not what I was told. However as with many times in the past, perhaps I was lied to. Damn and my one vote so would have seen Winston Peters as Prime Minister. HA!

El Dopa
17th December 2005, 12:29
Hmm... not what I was told. However as with many times in the past, perhaps I was lied to. Damn and my one vote so would have seen Winston Peters as Prime Minister. HA!

I've voted two or three times since I arrived here, and no-one's stopped me yet. Send in a registration form and see how far you get. You should be able to register to vote here on a residence visa.

Marmoot
17th December 2005, 12:38
In New Zealand, residency allows you to vote. Not like in other countries.

It brings question to the actual difference between residents and citizens....

Waylander
20th December 2005, 20:57
In New Zealand, residency allows you to vote. Not like in other countries.

It brings question to the actual difference between residents and citizens....
I think citizens pay more taxes lol.:third: