Argee
Established Member
Why is it "alien" to fight criminals using the latest available technology and what would be your ideal alternative method(s)?RogerS":1hqctm45 said:
Ray
DNA The Thief Catcher
- Thread starter Mike.C
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
Ray
Mike.C
Established Member
studders":ea06p3v5 said:
Yeah I'm with Roger and Mike too, I have heard they are right brainy geezers.
By the way this implant, when you say that it records movements, does it include bowel movements, because I don't want SWMBO to find out that I don't always go to the little boys room to have a movement but to read and drool over my tool **** called Axminster
Cheers
Mike
Dibs-h
Established Member
What's that saying either by or attributed to George Washington about those who trade liberty for security deserve neither.
studders
Established Member
Mike.C":113dbgbv said:
Absolutely. We need to know where they go, when and why. Vital to National Security.
RogerS
Established Member
Argee":2bulg17y said:
I don't like being forced to carry a card that says who I am. I don't like the fact that my movements in my car can be tracked across the UK road network using ANPR.
It's like many of the other regulations that have been brought in to combat crime but as far as i can see are simply a pain in the backside to the ordinary citizen. I'm thinking the Money Laundering Regulations, for example.
Here is one myth about having everyones' DNA on file.
Myth 1. Keeping more people’s records on the DNA database will make it more effective
The value of entering increasing numbers of DNA profiles from individuals on the Database (unrelated to the reason for arrest) is that it may allow investigation of a past crime to be re-opened, by unexpectedly identifying a new suspect.
The purpose of retaining an individual’s DNA profile on a database is to treat them as a suspect for any future crime.
Keeping DNA profiles from convicted criminals has been shown to be effective, as has collecting more DNA from crime scenes. But keeping DNA profiles from unconvicted people on the Database has not helped to solve more crimes: the proportion of recorded crimes detected using DNA has not increased in the last 5 years, despite 2 million more people’s records being kept.
The Government has provided evidence of DNA matches with unconvicted persons, but matches are not the same as prosecutions or convictions – many matches occur with victims or passers-by or are false matches. The number of false matches will increase as the Database gets bigger.
and here is another
Myth 6. DNA evidence is foolproof
DNA evidence is not foolproof. There are two ways mistakes can happen. Your DNA can be at the crime scene because you were there earlier or later in the day, or because your DNA has been transferred from somewhere else. Or, there might be a false match between your DNA and someone else’s.
False matches can occur by chance, especially if the DNA profile from the crime scene is not complete, or if you are related to the real suspect.
The National DNA Database Annual Report 2005/06 states that between May 2001 and April 2006, 50,434 matches with crime scene profiles, or 27.6% of the total number of match reports, involved a list of potential suspects, not a single suspect, being given to the police, because matches with multiple records on the Database were made.
Argee
Established Member
You're not being forced to carry any card, are you? Why would anyone bother to track your movements anywhere?RogerS":2snx1w4g said:
If you don't like a bank asking you, for example, where the amounts of cash you deposit came from, perhaps you won't mind if some of it gets stolen and the crime goes undetected because - in your world - such questions couldn't be asked.
Keeping more people’s records on the DNA database will make it more effective - that's a mathematical certainty - unless you're able to predict with uncanny accuracy exactly when someone will start their offending behaviour?
The purpose of retaining an individual’s DNA profile on a database is to treat them as a suspect for any future crime - AND?
Keeping DNA profiles from convicted criminals has been shown to be effective, as has collecting more DNA from crime scenes. But keeping DNA profiles from unconvicted people on the Database has not helped to solve more crimes. Well, DUH! of course it hasn't, they haven't offended yet.
The number of false matches will increase as the Database gets bigger - Not proven or even necessarily so - the matching technology will improve exponentially, as it has done since inception.
DNA evidence is not foolproof. There are two ways mistakes can happen. Your DNA can be at the crime scene because you were there earlier or later in the day, or because your DNA has been transferred from somewhere else. Or, there might be a false match between your DNA and someone else’s. False matches can occur by chance, especially if the DNA profile from the crime scene is not complete, or if you are related to the real suspect. So what? You don't really imagine that someone's liberty and/or conviction turns on an incomplete profile do you? With the current CPS attitude, they wouldn't have prosecuted Guy Fawkes even if he was just about to light the fuse!
The National DNA Database Annual Report 2005/06 states that between May 2001 and April 2006, 50,434 matches with crime scene profiles, or 27.6% of the total number of match reports, involved a list of potential suspects, not a single suspect, being given to the police, because matches with multiple records on the Database were made. Of these topical and up-to-date statistics, how many went on to resolve the offence?
I did ask for alternative strategies, but none have been offered. Tub-thumping is all very well, together with most NIMBY standpoints, but sensible, practical and workable alternatives seem very short on the ground - I wonder why?
The demise of the effective use of "D" Notices, together with the mind-boggling increase in the televising of police and other agencies' methods, etc. has contributed to the sort of society we live in. Removing excellent detection methods because of the sensibilities of some individuals is a backward-looking, almost head-in-the-sand attitude.
Not, you understand, that I've got any strong feelings about it either way, having spent a large part of my working life being strangled by ever-increasing bureaucracy and holier-than-thou attitudes from people who were (and still are) never going to be affected by the resultant, dumbed-down and unsatisfactory outcomes.
Ray.
RogerS
Established Member
You're not being forced to carry any card, are you?
No, although were ID cards to be introduced then it's not a hop, skip and a jump before it was mandatory to carry an ID card in the name of 'anti-terrorism'. If you think that carrying an ID card is going to combat terrorism then where is the evidence, from those countries that do make it mandatory to show that it has been effective? But even if it, for the moment, isn't mandatory, by custom and practice, it will be to all intents and purposes because of the interpretation put on it by banks, shops, libraries...in fact anyone.
We are, as a society, obsessed with proving who someone is and for what? What has it actually achieved?
Why would anyone bother to track your movements anywhere?
Of course, none of the items mentioned here are valid...all figments of imagination. And Liberty is just a daft set of woolly-minded sandal-wearing tofu-eating meddlers, I suppose?
If you don't like a bank asking you, for example, where the amounts of cash you deposit came from, perhaps you won't mind if some of it gets stolen and the crime goes undetected because - in your world - such questions couldn't be asked. That's errant nonsense and has no causal link between the two. Has those daft Money-Laundering regulations actually stopped money laundering? I don't think so.
Keeping more people’s records on the DNA database will make it more effective - that's a mathematical certainty - ....?
There are many mathematicians and statisticians out there who would beg to differ. But then what do they know?
The purpose of retaining an individual’s DNA profile on a database is to treat them as a suspect for any future crime- AND?
STASI springs to mind or any other totalitarian state, for that matter.
Keeping DNA profiles from convicted criminals has been shown to be effective, as has collecting more DNA from crime scenes. But keeping DNA profiles from unconvicted people on the Database has not helped to solve more crimes. Well, DUH! of course it hasn't, they haven't offended yet.
You're missing the point.
The number of false matches will increase as the Database gets bigger - Not proven or even necessarily so - the matching technology will improve exponentially, as it has done since inception.
Really? See reply above re statisticians.
DNA evidence is not foolproof. There are two ways mistakes can happen. Your DNA can be at the crime scene because you were there earlier or later in the day, or because your DNA has been transferred from somewhere else. Or, there might be a false match between your DNA and someone else’s. False matches can occur by chance, especially if the DNA profile from the crime scene is not complete, or if you are related to the real suspect. So what? You don't really imagine that someone's liberty and/or conviction turns on an incomplete profile do you? With the current CPS attitude, they wouldn't have prosecuted Guy Fawkes even if he was just about to light the fuse!
I agree re your comments and the CPS. Ian Tomlinson springs to mind and that decision by the CPS, frankly, stinks. But back to DNA and false matches. So I have no other alibi. I might also have happened to be driving by as monitored by the ANPR movement database. I might not be prosecuted in the end but I am going to have a **** load of grief trying to confirm my innocence.
The National DNA Database Annual Report 2005/06 states that between May 2001 and April 2006, 50,434 matches with crime scene profiles, or 27.6% of the total number of match reports, involved a list of potential suspects, not a single suspect, being given to the police, because matches with multiple records on the Database were made. Of these topical and up-to-date statistics, how many went on to resolve the offence?
You're missing the point again. It is saying that out of over 200,000 matches to a crime scene, your infallible DNA matching system produced over 50,000 of possible multiple matches...not one individual per match but a LIST of individuals.
I did ask for alternative strategies, but none have been offered. Tub-thumping is all very well, together with most NIMBY standpoints, but sensible, practical and workable alternatives seem very short on the ground - I wonder why? Smile
The current system works quite well, doesn't it? I agree that the police force has been shackled by over-bureacracy and a Labour Govt inflicted obsession with targets. It's also the first time that I have seen NIMBYism associated with the concept of liberty.
The demise of the effective use of "D" Notices, together with the mind-boggling increase in the televising of police and other agencies' methods, etc. has contributed to the sort of society we live in.
How does that work? Any evidence to back it up? Are you saying that we should ban investigative journalism as it is counter to proper policing with integrity? Ian Tomlinson's case wouldn't have come to light.
Removing excellent detection methods because of the sensibilities of some individuals is a backward-looking, almost head-in-the-sand attitude.
No-one is suggesting getting rid of DNA matching. What many of us are objecting to is the concept of mandatory ID cards or the mandatory collection of everynes' DNA profile. Guilty unless proven innocent.
Not, you understand, that I've got any strong feelings about it either way, having spent a large part of my working life being strangled by ever-increasing bureaucracy and holier-than-thou attitudes from people who were (and still are) never going to be affected by the resultant, dumbed-down and unsatisfactory outcomes.
I don't dispute the over-bureacracy nor the mindless obsession with targets that has been inflicted on the country by bloody Labour. Get rid of all that by all means but the logical outcome of what you are proposing is a police state.
No, although were ID cards to be introduced then it's not a hop, skip and a jump before it was mandatory to carry an ID card in the name of 'anti-terrorism'. If you think that carrying an ID card is going to combat terrorism then where is the evidence, from those countries that do make it mandatory to show that it has been effective? But even if it, for the moment, isn't mandatory, by custom and practice, it will be to all intents and purposes because of the interpretation put on it by banks, shops, libraries...in fact anyone.
We are, as a society, obsessed with proving who someone is and for what? What has it actually achieved?
Why would anyone bother to track your movements anywhere?
Of course, none of the items mentioned here are valid...all figments of imagination. And Liberty is just a daft set of woolly-minded sandal-wearing tofu-eating meddlers, I suppose?
If you don't like a bank asking you, for example, where the amounts of cash you deposit came from, perhaps you won't mind if some of it gets stolen and the crime goes undetected because - in your world - such questions couldn't be asked. That's errant nonsense and has no causal link between the two. Has those daft Money-Laundering regulations actually stopped money laundering? I don't think so.
Keeping more people’s records on the DNA database will make it more effective - that's a mathematical certainty - ....?
There are many mathematicians and statisticians out there who would beg to differ. But then what do they know?
The purpose of retaining an individual’s DNA profile on a database is to treat them as a suspect for any future crime- AND?
STASI springs to mind or any other totalitarian state, for that matter.
Keeping DNA profiles from convicted criminals has been shown to be effective, as has collecting more DNA from crime scenes. But keeping DNA profiles from unconvicted people on the Database has not helped to solve more crimes. Well, DUH! of course it hasn't, they haven't offended yet.
You're missing the point.
The number of false matches will increase as the Database gets bigger - Not proven or even necessarily so - the matching technology will improve exponentially, as it has done since inception.
Really? See reply above re statisticians.
DNA evidence is not foolproof. There are two ways mistakes can happen. Your DNA can be at the crime scene because you were there earlier or later in the day, or because your DNA has been transferred from somewhere else. Or, there might be a false match between your DNA and someone else’s. False matches can occur by chance, especially if the DNA profile from the crime scene is not complete, or if you are related to the real suspect. So what? You don't really imagine that someone's liberty and/or conviction turns on an incomplete profile do you? With the current CPS attitude, they wouldn't have prosecuted Guy Fawkes even if he was just about to light the fuse!
I agree re your comments and the CPS. Ian Tomlinson springs to mind and that decision by the CPS, frankly, stinks. But back to DNA and false matches. So I have no other alibi. I might also have happened to be driving by as monitored by the ANPR movement database. I might not be prosecuted in the end but I am going to have a **** load of grief trying to confirm my innocence.
The National DNA Database Annual Report 2005/06 states that between May 2001 and April 2006, 50,434 matches with crime scene profiles, or 27.6% of the total number of match reports, involved a list of potential suspects, not a single suspect, being given to the police, because matches with multiple records on the Database were made. Of these topical and up-to-date statistics, how many went on to resolve the offence?
You're missing the point again. It is saying that out of over 200,000 matches to a crime scene, your infallible DNA matching system produced over 50,000 of possible multiple matches...not one individual per match but a LIST of individuals.
I did ask for alternative strategies, but none have been offered. Tub-thumping is all very well, together with most NIMBY standpoints, but sensible, practical and workable alternatives seem very short on the ground - I wonder why? Smile
The current system works quite well, doesn't it? I agree that the police force has been shackled by over-bureacracy and a Labour Govt inflicted obsession with targets. It's also the first time that I have seen NIMBYism associated with the concept of liberty.
The demise of the effective use of "D" Notices, together with the mind-boggling increase in the televising of police and other agencies' methods, etc. has contributed to the sort of society we live in.
How does that work? Any evidence to back it up? Are you saying that we should ban investigative journalism as it is counter to proper policing with integrity? Ian Tomlinson's case wouldn't have come to light.
Removing excellent detection methods because of the sensibilities of some individuals is a backward-looking, almost head-in-the-sand attitude.
No-one is suggesting getting rid of DNA matching. What many of us are objecting to is the concept of mandatory ID cards or the mandatory collection of everynes' DNA profile. Guilty unless proven innocent.
Not, you understand, that I've got any strong feelings about it either way, having spent a large part of my working life being strangled by ever-increasing bureaucracy and holier-than-thou attitudes from people who were (and still are) never going to be affected by the resultant, dumbed-down and unsatisfactory outcomes.
I don't dispute the over-bureacracy nor the mindless obsession with targets that has been inflicted on the country by bloody Labour. Get rid of all that by all means but the logical outcome of what you are proposing is a police state.
Argee
Established Member
We're clearly not going to agree, Roger. Still no alternative suggestions forthcoming, though.
How does that work? Any evidence to back it up? Are you saying that we should ban investigative journalism as it is counter to proper policing with integrity?
Of course I'm not saying that. One classic example is that a TV programme revealed a very simple yet very commonly-used household place to stash drugs - since which none have turned up in that place. Not revealing the location would have meant more convictions, at least until the grapevine got to work. The media is now that grapevine, wittingly or otherwise.
... but the logical outcome of what you are proposing is a police state.
What's the logical outcome of your wishlist? No-one's truly "free" here, or in any other developed country that I can think of. I believe, however, that our conditional freedoms are better than those in every other country I've visited.
Ray
How does that work? Any evidence to back it up? Are you saying that we should ban investigative journalism as it is counter to proper policing with integrity?
Of course I'm not saying that. One classic example is that a TV programme revealed a very simple yet very commonly-used household place to stash drugs - since which none have turned up in that place. Not revealing the location would have meant more convictions, at least until the grapevine got to work. The media is now that grapevine, wittingly or otherwise.
... but the logical outcome of what you are proposing is a police state.
What's the logical outcome of your wishlist? No-one's truly "free" here, or in any other developed country that I can think of. I believe, however, that our conditional freedoms are better than those in every other country I've visited.
Ray
devonwoody
Established Member
Lets face it ,
Who objects to criminals being found by any DNA means?
DNA should not be a problem for innocent people.
Who objects to criminals being found by any DNA means?
DNA should not be a problem for innocent people.
bugbear
Established Member
StevieB":2f559bhq said:
But google has
http://scholar.google.com/schhp?hl=en&tab=ws
http://books.google.com/bkshp?hl=en&tab=sp
and also google has a (useful) habit of finding stuff in Citeseer, rather better than Citeseer's own search.
There's nothing wrong with google; it's up to you to use it well.
The internet is not a source of information, it's merely a channel.
If the (true) source is a ranting blogger, it's normally fairly obvious, and one might have limited faith in information from such a source.
BugBear
cambournepete
Established Member
I tend to agree with Argee on most of this.
Anyway, I do already carry a photo ID card whenever I have my wallet with me - it's called a driving licence... :roll:
Anyway, I do already carry a photo ID card whenever I have my wallet with me - it's called a driving licence... :roll:
RogerS
Established Member
Fair points, Ray, and as you say we're not going to agree on all points.
Your point our conditional freedoms are better than those in every other country I've visited is well made.
I've been mulling over my views on the Asylum Registration Card (ARC) card which is, to all intents and purposes an ID card since it carries biometric data (photo and fingerprints) on a smart chip.
The use of fingerprints is two-fold. At the initial application stage, identification is used to prevent duplicate application for asylum, identification of a prior application and identification to see if they have applied for asylum elsewhere in the EU. After this initial stage and once the card has been issued then the biometrics are used for verification. There is a third stage and that is where someone is suspected of being an asylum seeker and working (when they don't have permission to which is in 99% of cases AFAIR) when identification is used to try and match an individual (without a card) with the database.
Has it stopped illegal immigration? No.
It has stopped duplicate applications for asylum. It has saved about £500,000 a week in fraudulent claims for support money.
Could one be forged? Yes, but the processes in place would require a high-degree of insider collusion.
Could the system be screwed up? Yes. I could have done it. Even after I left. Would I have been found out? Highly unlikely. But I didn't, I hasten to add.
Could one be abused? Yes. When I was there the Home Office had some pretty duff procedures in place that you could drive a horse and cart through. For example, if an asylum seeker was given leave to remain then in some instances they were asked to send in a photo of themselves which was then added to a paper document which in itself was used as a form of ID. No validation that the person on the form was the person who actually was given leave to remain or whos' name was OBL!
Was the ARC card proportionate? I think that it was as among the demographics of asylum seekers there was a disproportionate number of economic migrants.
Your point our conditional freedoms are better than those in every other country I've visited is well made.
I've been mulling over my views on the Asylum Registration Card (ARC) card which is, to all intents and purposes an ID card since it carries biometric data (photo and fingerprints) on a smart chip.
The use of fingerprints is two-fold. At the initial application stage, identification is used to prevent duplicate application for asylum, identification of a prior application and identification to see if they have applied for asylum elsewhere in the EU. After this initial stage and once the card has been issued then the biometrics are used for verification. There is a third stage and that is where someone is suspected of being an asylum seeker and working (when they don't have permission to which is in 99% of cases AFAIR) when identification is used to try and match an individual (without a card) with the database.
Has it stopped illegal immigration? No.
It has stopped duplicate applications for asylum. It has saved about £500,000 a week in fraudulent claims for support money.
Could one be forged? Yes, but the processes in place would require a high-degree of insider collusion.
Could the system be screwed up? Yes. I could have done it. Even after I left. Would I have been found out? Highly unlikely. But I didn't, I hasten to add.
Could one be abused? Yes. When I was there the Home Office had some pretty duff procedures in place that you could drive a horse and cart through. For example, if an asylum seeker was given leave to remain then in some instances they were asked to send in a photo of themselves which was then added to a paper document which in itself was used as a form of ID. No validation that the person on the form was the person who actually was given leave to remain or whos' name was OBL!
Was the ARC card proportionate? I think that it was as among the demographics of asylum seekers there was a disproportionate number of economic migrants.
RogerS
Established Member
cambournepete":2b8qasvs said:
True but for those who still have a paper one like my wife? Look at the trouble Digit has had trying to prove he is who he is. I'd have the same problem if I didn't have a passport. Even without that, there are some occasions where it's difficult to 'prove' you live where you do. Like getting a library ticket FFS. Utility bill to prove you live there. Sorry..my wife pays those bills and so they are in her name. Bank statement. Sorry...living in London during the week it was easier to have my bank statements sent to that address.
In a perverse way, I'm really tempted to try and create another identity. Have they blocked that one where you find the grave of a child who is about the same age as one ? That was in all the good Frederick Forsyth books!
Actually here's a challenge. How would you go about creating another identity?
cambournepete
Established Member
I've read "The Odessa File" too...RogerS":18ebstyf said:
I've no idea how to create another identity, but then why on earth would I want to? And that's a rhetorical question...
Walter Hall
Established Member
RogerS":w7zabaag said:
Still without a strong opinion either way, so not questioning yours Roger, but your reply does not really answer my question. No-one (with any credibility) is suggesting that we destroy the existing databases of fingerprints and photographs which are means of identification with imperfections as great if not greater than a DNA database. What I would like to know, in order to inform my judgement in developing an opinion based upon knowledge rather than prejudice, is why is a DNA database considered more intrusive or unreliable than these existing tools?
RogerS
Established Member
No-one is suggesting that a DNA database is anymore an invasion of privacy than a fingerprint database and so I don't really follow your line of reasoning.
Dibs-h
Established Member
RogerS":okjfy5x5 said:
A birth certificate now says on it something to the affect of - this is not proof of identity. Go figure! :roll:
As for identity creation - without the collusion of folk who work in certain sectors - I don't think you could create one - certainly not one that could stand up to scrutiny. You'd have to take over someone else's. Perhaps someone who's emigrated or lives in the UK but for whatever reason doesn't have the need for a passport/driving license.
Walter Hall
Established Member
RogerS":cyng5zq9 said:
OK then, if a DNA database is no more an invasion of privacy than a fingerprint database then it is no more of an issue either. Ergo I do not have a problem with it, just as I do not have a problem with a fingerprint database. I guess that puts me on the side of those who do not think it is a big deal as far as my personal privacy is concerned. Clearly you disagree, but thank you anyway for helping me form my own opinion.
devonwoody
Established Member
I've been using superglue and titebond all day and I am quite certain they will not be asking for my fingerprints today.
BTW
How do you get parted from timber and superglue when you haven't got any release agent?
BTW
How do you get parted from timber and superglue when you haven't got any release agent?
