h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Actually, most of the last twenty or thirty posts illustrate exactly Zagreb's point about what people do and do not know about the law. Just as a sample;

>Needles in parks, discarded by drug users, those drug users could already be arrested, they are breaking the law, we don't need an ASBO for it.<

No, they are not breaking the law. Possession of drugs is illegal, consumption is not, and one does not presume the other. A passed out addict cannot be arrested for anything, though I suppose a desperate force might try them for littering because they leave their needles about, but they are not breaking the law per se.

Much has been made of the 600 new offences introduced by this government. A whopping 10% of that is made up from the new Sexual Offences Act *alone*, which was a desperately needed overhaul of a massively out-dated set of offences. Another large section of it is made up of race, religious and homophobic hate crimes which the modern judiciary needed in order to properly sentence those aggravated sentences. Yet more of it was to do with measures in courts to make witnesses and jurors safer. In any event, to a very real extent, the government can be said to be acting at the public request - only yesterday the Mirror was calling for a ban on certain breeds of dogs following events after the weekend. That clamour will grow following another attack on a child by a rottweiler last night. So before long it couldf be 601, but in that case the Government could fairly honestly say they were acting at the request of the public.

Much is made about the loss of 'right to silence'. That hasn't been lost it has been amended to counter-act the continued growth of rent-a-witness types in trials, so that if you rely on your right to silence at the initial stages on an investigation your sudden production of an alibi at the 11th hour the judge can allow the jury to draw conclusions as to why it wasn't raised at the initial stages.

It's a pretty simple move from the old caution;

'you have the right to remain silent but anything you say may be used against you in a court of law'

to the new caution;

'You are not obliged to say anything, but if you do not raise at this stage a defence which you later rely on, that may be used against you in a court of law.'

I don't anybody who actually worked in a court of law who felt this was unwarranted or draconian. On the contrary it was generally held to be a long overdue measure.

I've seen habeas corpus raised here as something we've lost, which we have - during the 1920's when it ceased to be a defence. And of course we have the obligatory quote from that knight of the civil liberties brigade, that wretched Chakribati woman, the one who believes that 'civil liberties' and the *potential* for abuse of cctv takes precedence over the right of women (and others) to be safe on the streets of Britain.

Blues,

I'm going to write this out for the benefit of anyone else reading this so it's entirely clear what has been said.

McKay said:

"You may also like to consider that once arrested a person may be fingerprinted, photographed, and a sample of their dna taken, by oral swab - by force if necessary. This information is retained, regardless of the person's innocence or otherwise."

You said:

"Wrong. If found not guilty or not charged, the Police must BY LAW destroy all fingerprint, photos and DNA/Forensdic samples. You have the right to attend the station in order to view the destruction, if you wish."

I challenged you on this citing as evidence an article from the Observer written on July 16 of this year saying:

"With almost 3 million samples, Britain's DNA database is the largest in the world, as police are allowed to retain DNA from anyone arrested whether or not they are found guilty of a crime. It contains more than 50,000 DNA samples taken from children."

Your reply to this challenge was:

"The Court of Appeal have made it very plain, by releasing several offenders, that DNA held illegally on the database is not to be considered as evidence."

with the additional

"you'll just have to take my word for it"

rather than producing any evidence in favour of your view.

To sum up: you explicitly said that McKay's claim that DNA is retained regardless of whether or not the person is subsequently found to be innocent was false. You made a very explicit statement that the police are forced by law to destroy the evidence and that we have the specific right to see it being destroyed. However, if the Observer article (and literally every other web page I could find on the internet, including the Lib Dems' DNA campaign page) is right, you are simply wrong about this. The police can retain these samples, and they are doing. Your response to my challenge is irrelevant because it doesn't relate to what was actually claimed by McKay or by you in your initial challenge. They are not forced by law to destroy the evidence, and you do not have the right to watch them doing it.

Now, normally I wouldn't go so far in demonstrating that someone has made a mistake, but I think it was important here because for whatever reason you seem to have some sort of position of authority here on H2G2 and people defer to your opinion. Even after I pointed out that what you had said was wrong, people were still congratulating you on how you're always pointing out other peoples mistakes and bemoaning the ignorance of the populace about matters of legal procedure and civil liberties. Also, your statement

"Personally, I'd be able to take the idea of our civil liberties being eroded if people told the truth when they were complaining about it."

had the implication that McKay was not only wrong, but actually lying about it. I think this sort of ad hominem statement is always a cheap shot which has no place in a serious discussion, but it's going too far when you include it in a post where you yourself have either misrepresented or misunderstood what was being said and what the facts of the matter are.

OK, just a couple more points about what you said.

"In effect it is a moor point as to whether they keep your DNA or not - what they can't do is use it to form the basis of a prosecution against you, because it is illegally held."

It's not a moot point, because even if you are right - and I apparently just have to trust you on that in spite of everything above - that in practice they can't use this DNA as part of a prosecution, that is subject to change in the future (e.g. by the introduction of new legislation making it explicitly legal to do so). Also, the DNA can be used and is being used (along with name, age, skin colour and address) by the police, and by the companies that store the DNA.

http://www.lynnefeatherstone.org/column104-dna-database.htm
http://campaigns.libdems.org.uk/dna

"And guess what, you'll just have to take my word for it, just as if we were down the pub, or do you ask everyone there to produce links as well?"

When someone is saying something that is so at variance with all the apparent facts, to the point where you are the only person who is claiming what you are claiming, then no I don't have to take your word for it. If we were in the pub, I'd just say you were wrong. Fortunately we're not and we're able to engage in discussion at a slightly more sophisticated level. Or are you claiming that the pub is the source of all truth?

"Much has been made of the 600 new offences introduced by this government."

Not here it hasn't. I count two posts by SWL which merely mentioned this fact with no particular spin on it, and one post by Fanny saying it was a load of rubbish. This is just a straw man you're attacking here.

Anyway, I have to go now so you're spared the rest of my ranting. (And for Arnie, I haven't had time to read over what I've written before posting. )

The 'facts' you claim to be such truth are at variance with how I do my job on a day to day basis.

Which is more likely to be correct - my working knowledge of the Criminal Justrice System over 18 years or a link to a website?

Think about it.

Well this is getting a bit childish, but a little bit more digging seems to have gotten to the bottom of this. The following quote is a written question and answer in parliament on 1 July 2002. Although it's a link, hopefully quotes from and links to Hansard are acceptable to you (after all, you could go to the library to read it if you preferred)?

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmhansrd/vo020701/text/20701w47.htm

"Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether an individual who has been required to provide a DNA sample by the police has the right to have that sample destroyed in the event of an acquittal for the charge which prompted the sample being taken. [64242]

"Mr. Denham [holding answer 25 June 2002]: An individual does not have the right for their DNA sample to be destroyed in the event of an acquittal. Under section 82 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, amending section 64 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, a chief constable may decide to retain DNA samples in all cases, including following acquittal or a decision to drop a prosecution, except where the sample was taken as part of a mass screening process and the individual does not consent to the retention of the sample. Samples can only be used for purposes related to the prevention or detection of crime, the investigation of an offence or the conduct of a prosecution."


What you might have been referring to are cases that came up before 2001? For example apparently there was a case R v B (2000) in which DNA evidence which should have been destroyed was used, and therefore the DNA evidence was inadmissible.

Admissibility of samples does seem an odd issue in any case.
After all, if a match were found, what would stop police just happening to interview the person concerned ("We've had an anonymous tip-off") and get a fresh sample which presumably would be admissible?

"Admissibility of samples does seem an odd issue in any case.
After all, if a match were found, what would stop police just happening to interview the person concerned ("We've had an anonymous tip-off") and get a fresh sample which presumably would be admissible?"

A very good point. Dogster seems to be trying to scare us all with things that are, when you think about it, don't really change anything that much.

"Not here it hasn't. I count two posts by SWL which merely mentioned this fact with no particular spin on it, and one post by Fanny saying it was a load of rubbish. This is just a straw man you're attacking here."

People have mentioned it, it's been brought-up a couple of times as you said. So, no straw man at all.

"Samples can only be used for purposes related to the prevention or detection of crime, the investigation of an offence or the conduct of a prosecution."

So, they can't actually legally use them for anything except in prosecuting someone for a crime. Sorry, but if they were to allow (for example) commercial companies access to DNA samples or various state bodies access to the same for research purposes that would be a major invasion of privacy. What's wrong with using DNA evidence to solve a crime? It minimises the risk of mistrials or wrongful convictions (DNA evidence being more reliable than just about anything else).

Potholer,

I think it's not just about admissibility, it's also about whether or not the police can query the database looking for a match. Otherwise of course they could do what you said. There are also the other issues which I mentioned in an earlier post about how the police and the companies holding the data are using it in other ways.

>>"I think it's not just about admissibility, it's also about whether or not the police can query the database looking for a match."

Is that can as in 'are able to' or can as in 'are supposed to'?
As long as the data is in a database, there's going to be some way to get it out.

In the long run, the issue would seem to be made moot by technology anyway, with the possibility of homing in on suspects from even distant familial matching presumably getting greater, and maybe the ability to predict what people look like from a genetic sample becoming available at some point.

I think the maintenance of a DNA database is a double-edged sword. Used as intended, it's no bad thing. If my wife was raped and DNA evidence led the police straight to someone on file, that's a good thing (as long as they get to him 15 minutes after me).

However, where abuse is possible and money is involved, it will inevitably occur without specific legislation to prevent it, (more laws to add to the 3023 since 2007). Look how DVLA evidence is being used by companies such as Tescos !

How valuable would that DNA database be to insurers in assessing genetic disposition to disease?

>>"How valuable would that DNA database be to insurers in assessing genetic disposition to disease?"

At the moment, pretty chuffing useless, I'd guess, given the kind of data I think it has in it - as far as I uderstand it, the data isn't remotely like a complete genetic listing, Human Genome Project style, but a list of numbers characterising lengths of particular selected bits of DNA which are very variable across the population. The amount of information about disease susceptibility is zero, or as good as.

Allowing access to the actual stored *biological samples* might be a different matter. However, as long as using them for insurance purposes was illegal, it'd seem hard to do so without being pretty obvious.

If I apply for life insurance online, is the company going to make me wait for days until they get a dodgy mate in the DNA service to run part of my sample through a full life-expectancy test?

If I apply giving my details but a false name, will they refuse to give me a quote, or give me a different one to the one I'd get as really me?

If using DNA for insurance purposes *wasn't* illegal, someone with a bad genetic makeup would be ****ed anyway - the company could simply ask for a sample before giveng a quote, database or no database.

Good thread

As an aside, DNA fingerprinting is not the same as DNA sequencing. DNA fingerprinting generates a unique signature from your DNA using enzymes to cut your DNA up into a unique set of fragments whose sizes should be unique to you. DNA sequencing figures out the actual order of bases of the DNA (the As, Cs, Gs and Ts).

The data stored by police is the fingerprint data. It's used for identification purposes only. It cannot be used to figure out predisposition to diseases or in the future used to determine physical characteristics. For that you need DNA sequence data. As for storage, DNA is a very stable molecule, but even at -80C it will degrade significantly in a few years. DNA sequencing is still too expensive for police to routinely sequence DNA.

Ste

Simulpost!



Talking about debunking myths of erosions of civil liberties (without making any judgements on the debate so far) - I've always been unclear on the stop-and-search powers police have in the UK.

Under what circumstances can the police legally search you against your will? What happens to you if you refuse?

Can the police search your vehicle against your will?

[It seems to me the police have way more powers in the UK compared to the US, but US police seem to be far more authoritarian and strict.]

Cheers,
Ste

Out of interest;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/stoke/content/articles/2005/12/12/local_heroes_finger_prints_feature.shtml

I'm quite sure with a modern mass media available the invention of the use of fingerprints, would have seemed quite as momentous and threatening at that time as DNA fingerprinting is today. I think given the reality of today's multimedia communications systems, which can only enhance the effectiveness of the criminal or terrorist, DNA fingerprinting is only to be welcomed to balance the scales a bit

Potholer,

"As long as the data is in a database, there's going to be some way to get it out."

Precisely why there are campaigns to get the samples destroyed and the entries in the database deleted.

"In the long run, the issue would seem to be made moot by technology anyway, with the possibility of homing in on suspects from even distant familial matching presumably getting greater, and maybe the ability to predict what people look like from a genetic sample becoming available at some point."

I think that's very long term though, right?

Ste,

"As for storage, DNA is a very stable molecule, but even at -80C it will degrade significantly in a few years."

That's actually quite reassuring. I don't think it means that we don't need to campaign against the retention of DNA samples of innocent people by the police though.

>Although it's a link, hopefully quotes from and links to Hansard are acceptable to you (after all, you could go to the library to read it if you preferred)?<


Your approach has devolved into what my wife described last night as 'internet-winkery''(1).

You have so far in this thread stated that I have launched an ad hominem attack on McKay, which I did not. I wouldn't do that because a) I respect Mckay and b) it was an attack on the civil liberties lobby as a whole.

You've deliberately misinterpreted posts, particularly my point about the pub. The point was of course that nowhere other than on the net would you feel able to abuse people and effectively label them as liars. Internet-winkery of the worst type.

You think the production of an internet link *automatically* makes you right and others wrong. Well here's the skinny - I can find sites that say teh Earth isd Flat, the moon landings were fake and that chrystal healing works. Bunkum. All of 'em. You compound the error by then doing a little victory jig when the perosn you are 'debating' (2) can't produce a link. Out of interest would you feel able to do this with an academic who clearly knew more about the subject under discussion than you? I thought not.

You have failed completely to state *exactly* whayt the problem with the DNA database is, and why the citizens of the UK should be so afraid of it. I suggest you try going down the pub (yeah that place again) and seeing how many people agree that it's a problem. Obviously like the majority of the liberal do-gooding left that won't concern you because you obviously know so much better for people what is good for them than they do themselves, but it might give you a different perspective on the 'problem'.

In the meantime I'm off on holiday for three weeks, so I doubt I'll bother posting to this thread again. Suffice to say that if my house is burgled while I'm away I'll sleep easy knowing you are defending the civil liberties of the perpertrator. Meanwhile I'll think you'll find most of the population is thoroughly sick to death of talk about 'civil liberties' and 'human rights' and wants a little more talk about 'human responsibilities'.

Oh, and please stop quoting sophomoric b*ll*cks like Niemoller. It makes you look like a 6th former or worse yet and under-graduate, who are the only people who are really impressed by that poem.



(1) She of course used a different vowel, but I am pleased by the way the phrase 'internet-winkery' both gets past the mods and sums up the methodology of moving blame from the guy stamping on someones nethers to the guy saying 'Oi ref! That was out of order!' I may copyright it.

(2) A polite alternative for 'argueing the toss'.

PS - yes, this *was* an ad hominem attack.

I'm still curious what the troublesome scenarios are that most worry people from a civil liberties point of view.

Presumably, when it comes to investigating serious violent crimes, most people would think it a good thing to get a match against the database, *however* the sample got there.

Is it that there's some level of crime below which people think DNA matching shouldn't be used? (In which case, should it not be used even for people whose DNA fingerprint *is* legally in the database?)

Is it that people are worried that the authorities wil try and trace people attending political rallies from discarded cigarette ends, etc?

Since the database would seem useless (and using the samples impractical) for abuse by insurance companies, etc, could someone provide a few examples of situations where the database as it now is has the potential for abuse.

It seems entirely possible that the database is useful purely for identity searching - asking "who has a profile somewhat like this forensic sample?".
Only being able to ask that question doesn't seem much use to anyone but the police (or people asking the same kinds of questions as the police).

Well Blues, you're absolutely right about links on the internet, but could you provide *some* form of reference? B/c the hypothetical academic you mention would provide those...

The law as far as Im aware on stop and search is so very loose that it can be abused by the police almost anytime they feel like it.

The police should have a reasonable reason to stop you eg. they have reports of a crime where you or one of your group is alleged to be the culprit or resembles the description they have received.

If its common assault they should only be allowed to stop and search the person resembling the description, but where there is a threat with a weapon or a theft they will often stop and search the whole group on the premise that the weapon or goods might now be in someone leses possesion.

You are acting suspiciously. This can have a lot of latitude and if you remonstrate boisterously or loudly this itself is further cause fot he police to take stronger action. Sometimes police use stop and search to goad people into getting themselves arrested. A friend of mine told me how when on patrol in CCTV covered city centres he makes friendly gestures but says insulting things to men who have been harassing women so that when they attack him he has a charge that will stick. Its not hard to imagine how this same tactic can be employed in a more sinister way.

Under the law you should be issued with information about the officer searching you and why you ar being searched and have the right to be searched in a private place ie not on the street in view of the public. Many people do not know this and the police often abuse this situation.