http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7764069.stm


Very pleased about the ruling.

Indeed. People are entitled to privacy, not to be treated as potential criminals.
It's not neccessary to keep information "just in case".

Government is keen to introduce databases with great amount of personal information, and to share between government departments easily. Potential for losing data is already proven.

Good to see this ruling. Europe had been watching with interest, and many think UK government has gone too far.

Bloody liberals.

Mark Dixie?

I would have no objection to having my DNA on a database as I've done nothing wrong.

No its a good thing.I'm sure it is helpful in solving old crimes.

Bloody liberals indeed.

Bloody liberals.

Mark Dixie?

I would have no objection to having my DNA on a database as I've done nothing wrong.

No its a good thing.I'm sure it is helpful in solving old crimes.

Bloody liberals indeed.


You two should voluntarily ask Police to keep your DNA records.

You two should voluntarily ask Police to keep your DNA records.

One of my brothers is a policeman with the Met....i'll get on to it.:rolleyes:

Gladly.

One of my brothers is a policeman with the Met....i'll get on to it.:rolleyes:

Can you send me a swab? I'll post my sample back.

All the people who say they don't care because they have nothing to hide don't realise the implications of this. Are you saying you wouldn't mind having a CCTV camera in your house because you 'have nothing to hide'?

This is good, but the police can still stop and search people for no reason, take photos of people for no reason, arrest people for no reason etc. So there's still a long way to go. Ironically, a law just got passed that makes it illegal to gather and store information about police officers. This includes photos, so undoubtabley there will be a double standard when it comes to journalists and members of the public. :(

Ironically, a law just got passed that makes it illegal to gather and store information about police officers. This includes photos, so undoubtabley there will be a double standard when it comes to journalists and members of the public. :(

What was the reasoning behind that? :confused: Sounds pretty stupid to me.

What was the reasoning behind that? :confused: Sounds pretty stupid to me.

Police take photos and personal details of people in order to intimidate them as well as to take note of who was where doing what. If people do it back to the police it is considered criminal. And an excuse to "confiscate" the camera.

Such legislation is open to abuse and alienates the police from the people they are supposed to be protecting.

Liberty's website has interesting articles on this and related issues.


Liberty’s Legal Officer Anna Fairclough said:

"Forty percent of Britain's criminals are not on this database, but hundreds of thousands of innocent people are. Sweeping up the innocent with the guilty does not help fight crime. The Court of Human Rights has protected the privacy of British people so poorly let down by our own government."

Key passages of Grand Chamber Judgment of S and Marper v the United Kingdom include:

● The Court was struck by the blanket and indiscriminate nature of the power of retention in England and Wales. In particular, the data in question could be retained irrespective of the nature or gravity of the offence with which the individual was originally suspected or of the age of the suspected offender; the retention was not time-limited; and there existed only limited possibilities for an acquitted individual to have the data removed from the nationwide database or to have the materials destroyed.

● The Court expressed a particular concern at the risk of stigmitisation, stemming from the fact that persons in the position of the applicants, who had not been convicted of any offence and were entitled to the presumption of innocence, were treated in the same way as convicted persons. It was true that the retention of the applicants’ private data could not be equated with the voicing of suspicions. Nonetheless, their perception that they were not being treated as innocent was heightened by the fact that their data were retained indefinitely in the same way as the data of convicted persons, while the data of those who had never been suspected of an offence were required to be destroyed.

● It observed that the protection afforded by Article 8 of the Convention would be unacceptably weakened if the use of modern scientific techniques in the criminal justice system were allowed at any cost and without carefully balancing the potential benefits of the extensive use of such techniques against important private life interests. Any State claiming a pioneer role in the development of new technologies bore special responsibility for striking the right balance in this regard.

●In the Court’s view, the capacity of DNA profiles to provide a means of identifying genetic relationships between individuals was in itself sufficient to conclude that their retention interfered with the right to the private life of those individuals. The possibility created by DNA profiles for drawing inferences about ethnic origin made their retention all the more sensitive and susceptible of affecting the right to private life. The Court concluded that the retention of both cellular samples and DNA profiles amounted to an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private lives, within the meaning of Article 8.1 of the Convention.

Police take photos and personal details of people in order to intimidate them as well as to take note of who was where doing what. If people do it back to the police it is considered criminal. And an excuse to "confiscate" the camera.


I agree with Munchy (:eek:, just kidding Munchy ;)), this will cause a debate between what is journalism and what's the public. Why couldn't some of the organizations Munchy belongs to publish material pertaining to the police and it not be considered journalism? That's what it would be.

I don't agree with some of Munchy's beliefs but I really don't agree with double standards either. I think everyone has the right to practice what they believe (as long as they aren't hurting anyone). Going off on a tangent now, sorry.

i think if you commit a crime , then yes i think a dna swab is in order.i see no problem with that,but if you are just a law abiding citizen,then no way.

This is good, but the police can still stop and search people for no reason, take photos of people for no reason, arrest people for no reason etc. So there's still a long way to go. Ironically, a law just got passed that makes it illegal to gather and store information about police officers.

better watch out , almareallymatters !

i think if you commit a crime , then yes i think a dna swab is in order.i see no problem with that,but if you are just a law abiding citizen,then no way.

Mark Dixie was technically a law abiding citizen. Sorry to bang on about that one, but how many of these swabs are taken from somewho who did commit a crime (albeit a separate one to what the DNA pinned them to) and just weren't charged?

Mark Dixie was technically a law abiding citizen. Sorry to bang on about that one, but how many of these swabs are taken from somewho who did commit a crime (albeit a separate one to what the DNA pinned them to) and just weren't charged?

who's Mark Dixie?

fuck nevermind, i'll google it *sigh*


ok, just read about that on wikipedia. i see what you're saying, but no way. you can't just anticipate someone committing a crime and take their DNA. you can't not get in a car and drive b/c you think you MIGHT get in an accident. you can't invade a country cuz you think MAYBE they have WMDs. as someone else implied earlier, whats next, cameras or microphones in our homes?

I agree with Kewpie on this one.

Unfortunately, in the long run, the stupid public will probably go along with the government collecting everyone's DNA in databses, whether they're criminals or not. They're being raised by the socialists to love and trust the government.

I'm just double checking everyone in this thread is aware that the DNA on the database is only taken from crime suspects when they arrested, but just isn't erased if they're released without charge...

From some peoples' replies it seems like they think the whole country is on the database.

I'm just double checking everyone in this thread is aware that the DNA on the database is only taken from crime suspects when they arrested, but just isn't erased if they're released without charge...

From some peoples' replies it seems like they think the whole country is on the database.

i think everyone realizes that. thats how it is in the US too, but isnt this thread about a ruling which overturned having everyone in the country in the database regardless of a crime committed? we're agreeing with that ruling, thats all.

i think everyone realizes that. thats how it is in the US too, but isnt this thread about a ruling which overturned having everyone in the country in the database regardless of a crime committed? we're agreeing with that ruling, thats all.

No, it's a thread about this ruling:

Two British men should not have had their DNA and fingerprints retained by police, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled.

No, it's a thread about this ruling:

well okay then, its still the same thing. we are agreeing with the concept that the government shouldnt be allowed to take the DNA of whoever the hell they feel like if they have no reason to. whats so hard to understand???

Keeping DNA records wouldn't just be "anticipating crime" or whatever, if something happens to you having it on record would be very useful.

I'm not for it or against it, just thought I should sound off on that. that is all.

Speaking of human rights abuses, three of my friends are in Bethnal Green police station right now for protesting outside a shop that sells fur. :mad:

Speaking of human rights abuses, three of my friends are in Bethnal Green police station right now for protesting outside a shop that sells fur. :mad:


Why didn't they just smash it up?

So back on the DNA thing as it's back in the headlines;

I've actually got a good mate whose DNA is sitting on the database after someone totally out of the blue fingered him for an assault while they were being driven around the general area of the incident in the back of a police car.

I'm gonna ask him the same question, but in the meantime I'm posing the question to all you liberals; What's the worst that could happen?

i think if you commit a crime , then yes i think a dna swab is in order.i see no problem with that,but if you are just a law abiding citizen,then no way.

i think you mean if you are convicted of a crime perhaps? http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y86/gulrober/33.gif
and hopefully only very serious ones :straightface:
of course, after convicted violent felons, it would be a good idea to take dna swabs of pigs, erm i mean "the police" :barf:
that way they might not get away with as many crimes as they do these days :cool:

All the people who say they don't care because they have nothing to hide don't realise the implications of this. Are you saying you wouldn't mind having a CCTV camera in your house because you 'have nothing to hide'?

This is good, but the police can still stop and search people for no reason, take photos of people for no reason, arrest people for no reason etc. So there's still a long way to go. Ironically, a law just got passed that makes it illegal to gather and store information about police officers. This includes photos, so undoubtabley there will be a double standard when it comes to journalists and members of the public. :(

What you believe to be no reason is irrelevant to the actual reason. When a police officer stops you for what you may consider to be no good reason there may very well be a reason.

You brought this up before and I asked several of my friends, all police officers or former police officers (now firemen) their take on this. One had replied that they are looking for someone and the person they stopped fit the description. (Ex: someone grabbing a police officer and saying "White male wearing jeans and a black hooded sweatshirt punched me and took my iPod.) In a several block radius the police WILL indeed stop any white male wearing jeans and a black hooded sweatshirt if the victim plans on pressing charges.

A friend of mine, his son, shot and killed a man that was going into a bodega. He "looked suspicious" and looked to be picking up his pants as if something was weighing them down. His partner and he decided to stop the guy and ask for identification. The guy immediately pulled a weapon and started firing. My friend's son and his partner shot and killed the guy. Of course the community cried out and overlooked the fact that the dead gentleman was one of the FBI's most wanted for murdering a police officer in another state.

I have been stopped several times through checkpoints on a Friday or Saturday night. The police will check inspection stickers (US certificates to make sure your car is declared road worthy - we have to renew them once a year) and as they check them they will look into your eyes to see if you show signs of being inebriated or under the influence. What you may see as harassment I see as necessary. As someone who has a cousin who murdered someone due to their drunk driving I welcome things like that. (My family may sugarcoat it but that is what my cousin did.)

Let me know if you want want further explanations.

i think if you commit a crime , then yes i think a dna swab is in order.i see no problem with that,but if you are just a law abiding citizen,then no way.



I do not see why some people have problems with criminals having their DNA kept on a database. In some states, convicted felons are denied the right to vote and own firearms. Sex Offenders of children must register as such and allow residents to know they were convicted of sex crimes so that they are kept away from children. Why not a DNA swab?

Foxnews had a little laugh over the Pirate situation that made me chuckle. They said that they awaited news that certain agencies would report that the pirates had their rights infringed upon and for someone to claim that the shootings were unjustifiable because after all, how does anyone know that the pirates truly intended on shooting Captain Phillips? I could have sworn someone said call Al Sharpton but that may have been the little voice inside my head.

I'm gonna ask him the same question, but in the meantime I'm posing the question to all you liberals; What's the worst that could happen?

Well, the government could lose the data for starters, but I think the main point is that it is open to abuse, people could be fitted up for crimes based on DNA evidence quite easily.

Why didn't they just smash it up?

So back on the DNA thing as it's back in the headlines;

I've actually got a good mate whose DNA is sitting on the database after someone totally out of the blue fingered him for an assault while they were being driven around the general area of the incident in the back of a police car.

I'm gonna ask him the same question, but in the meantime I'm posing the question to all you liberals; What's the worst that could happen?

What's the worst that could happen if people give up their rights to the state? Is that your question?

i think you mean if you are convicted of a crime perhaps? http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y86/gulrober/33.gif
and hopefully only very serious ones :straightface:
of course, after convicted violent felons, it would be a good idea to take dna swabs of pigs, erm i mean "the police" :barf:
that way they might not get away with as many crimes as they do these days :cool:

Yes, if they are convicted of a crime.

I do not see why some people have problems with criminals having their DNA kept on a database. In some states, convicted felons are denied the right to vote and own firearms. Sex Offenders of children must register as such and allow residents to know they were convicted of sex crimes so that they are kept away from children. Why not a DNA swab?

Foxnews had a little laugh over the Pirate situation that made me chuckle. They said that they awaited news that certain agencies would report that the pirates had their rights infringed upon and for someone to claim that the shootings were unjustifiable because after all, how does anyone know that the pirates truly intended on shooting Captain Phillips? I could have sworn someone said call Al Sharpton but that may have been the little voice inside my head.

I was just reading some out of the outrage over that, and was discussing it last night.It is one thing if they dropped their weapons and let go of hostages and were then shot down , but I can't find any fault in them shooting pirates while they are armed,willing to shoot back and holding hostages.
This is not the movies , Kevin Spacey is not going to walk into the scene and talk them out of things and show them the error in their ways.

i think you mean if you are convicted of a crime perhaps? http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y86/gulrober/33.gif
and hopefully only very serious ones :straightface:
of course, after convicted violent felons, it would be a good idea to take dna swabs of pigs, erm i mean "the police" :barf:
that way they might not get away with as many crimes as they do these days :cool:

Even if you're only arrested for a minor offence and released without charge, they still take and keep your DNA.

What you believe to be no reason is irrelevant to the actual reason. When a police officer stops you for what you may consider to be no good reason there may very well be a reason.

You brought this up before and I asked several of my friends, all police officers or former police officers (now firemen) their take on this. One had replied that they are looking for someone and the person they stopped fit the description. (Ex: someone grabbing a police officer and saying "White male wearing jeans and a black hooded sweatshirt punched me and took my iPod.) In a several block radius the police WILL indeed stop any white male wearing jeans and a black hooded sweatshirt if the victim plans on pressing charges.

A friend of mine, his son, shot and killed a man that was going into a bodega. He "looked suspicious" and looked to be picking up his pants as if something was weighing them down. His partner and he decided to stop the guy and ask for identification. The guy immediately pulled a weapon and started firing. My friend's son and his partner shot and killed the guy. Of course the community cried out and overlooked the fact that the dead gentleman was one of the FBI's most wanted for murdering a police officer in another state.

I have been stopped several times through checkpoints on a Friday or Saturday night. The police will check inspection stickers (US certificates to make sure your car is declared road worthy - we have to renew them once a year) and as they check them they will look into your eyes to see if you show signs of being inebriated or under the influence. What you may see as harassment I see as necessary. As someone who has a cousin who murdered someone due to their drunk driving I welcome things like that. (My family may sugarcoat it but that is what my cousin did.)

Let me know if you want want further explanations.

The thing is, the police in this country are fairly open about their intentions when it comes to many of these tactics. Taking pictures of people indiscrimately was first used on people at football matches, and then extended to people attending peaceful protests. They say it's to help identify individuals in the case of disorder, but they don't delete the photos even if no disorder takes place.

It's completely different if you are stopped because you resemble a suspect. My complaint is with when people are stopped for resembling themselves, when they've never been arrested and the police have no evidence or reason to suspect a crime has been committed. In this context, the search isn't random. They target people who they want to intimidate, it's a tactic to try and prevent people from attending demonstrations. Other ones include the cops shouting out people's names, telling them where they live, what they did last weekend, who their friends are. All of this to people who have never been arrested.

I think this is absolutely right and proper.We are living in a cctv ridden country as it is.:mad:

Keeping DNA records wouldn't just be "anticipating crime" or whatever, if something happens to you having it on record would be very useful.


How so?

I cannot think of one single good reason not to have your DNA on a database.

I wouldn't mind.After all what have I got to hide?They know practically everything there is to know one way or another anyway.

If everyone ever stopped by the police had it done think of all the good it could do. My brother is a policeman and they recently solved a rape over a decade old from taking DNA.

People opposed to it have nothing to fear unless they've done something wrong.

The court of human rights should get stuffed.I hope this is overturned.

I cannot think of one single good reason not to have your DNA on a database.

I wouldn't mind.After all what have I got to hide?They know practically everything there is to know one way or another anyway.

If everyone ever stopped by the police had it done think of all the good it could do. My brother is a policeman and they recently solved a rape over a decade old from taking DNA.

People opposed to it have nothing to fear unless they've done something wrong.

The court of human rights should get stuffed.I hope this is overturned.


In desparate situation Police might use DNA to fabricate the evidence.
It may lead miscarridge of justice.


I recently got a letter from NHS to be a volunteer for gene technology research.
However, I declined because I don't trust the system.

In desparate situation Police might use DNA to fabricate the evidence.
It may lead miscarridge of justice.


I recently got a letter from NHS to be a volunteer for gene technology research.
However, I declined because I don't trust the system.

This could be true ofcourse because there will always in any profession be someone who is corrupt.

However I think that the good would out weigh the negative.

If something happened to one of my children and the only thing they had to go on was some DNA and one day someone for example got stopped for drink driving and their DNA turned out to be a match I wouldn't give too hoots for what human rights said.