Speeding? Spit please....

[Wolf]

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]

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]

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"?

[terbang]

I grew a baird specificly for my photo drivers licence, shaved it off the next day. and I aint got anything to hide..!

[Divot]

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!

[Wolf]

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!

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]

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....)

.....

anyway, sorry to be out of topic.

[Wolf]

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]

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]

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]

Fark that, its my DNA and unless I have reason to. It stays with me.

[sAsLEX]

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]

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]

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]

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.