Speeding? Spit please....

[spudchucka]

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]

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]

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]

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]

DNA SWAB FOR SPEEDING!!!

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

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

[Lou Girardin]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.