previous post<\/a>) – despite the fact the government already has the largest DNA database in the world. As always, there is a never ending stream of talking heads who say how the perpetrator of Crime XYZ would have been identified in a few seconds if we had a national DNA database. These commentators range from the understandably grieving relatives (who are always the WORST people to have opinions on a topic) to, in at least one case, the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO).<\/p>\nThere is certainly a strong argument that recording the DNA of every person in the UK (including, I assume, all visitors and immigrants) would increase the detection rate of some crimes. On national news yesterday one senior police officer even went as far as to say that crimes were taking longer to solve because police had to use “traditional” methods to determine who the offender was. This is certainly the line taken by relatives of dead people and large portions of the right wing media.<\/p>\n
However, it has (IMHO of course) some major fundamental flaws. The most basic of these is the overhaul of the presumption of innocence. If we had a national DNA database the police could turn up at a crime scene, sample any DNA found and then arrest who ever it matched in the database. The person whose DNA has matched is then put in the position of having to prove that they are innocent of the crime and give alternative reasons for their DNA being present. Now they must do the almost impossible task of proving their innocence.<\/p>\n
In a similar vein, we (the public at least) have no idea of the accuracy with which a DNA match is made. If you think of all the steps required to collect a national database, store it, collect crime scene DNA and then compare it, there are numerous stages where an error can creep in. If we assume the process has an error rate as low as 1 in 1,000,000 (which would be bloody impressive) then it becomes really scary.\u00a0 At any given time there are around 60 million residents and another 10 million transients within the UK. That DNA sample found at the crime scene could, through sheer accident alone, match any one of 69 innocent people. What is really scary is that it is unlikely anyone will ever actually know what the false positive rate is – does anyone know what the accuracy bars of a fingerprint match are? Will a jury be able to understand the statistics when the person in the dock is claiming they are innocent? Or will the CSI magic take effect and sentence innocent people?<\/p>\n
Last (for now) but certainly not least, would you trust any government or private organisation with that much data? For a DNA database to work as a crime solving tool it needs to have details on who you<\/strong> are, where you<\/strong> live, how the police can find you<\/strong> (etc). This is a scary amount of information to put in one place. If you think ID fraud is rife as a result of people getting hold of your bank statements just think what can happen if all the data is housed in one place…<\/p>\nThe most worrying thing about centralised data registries (such as national ID cards, DNA databases) is that no one wants to pay for them. The staff who maintain them are often the lowest grade in their organisation and quite often the ones with no prospects of advancement. It is trivial for Nefarious Individual X to offer poorly paid (and usually badly managed) person Y some money to either get access to the data or have an “accident” with it. When we establish the national register as the “Gold Standard” it becomes impossible for people to escape the consequences.<\/p>\n
A tragic example of this was ironically headline news today as well. A couple lost their lives after a “gangland boss” infiltrated the “witness protection” scheme that was looking after them (quotes from the Guardian<\/a>). More worryingly, this was not actually a case of gangsters infiltrating the Police Witness Protection scheme (which you would hope was one of the more secure government institutions) but the simple case of bribing BT employees to do lookups of confidential phone records:<\/p>\nThe Stirlands [The couple killed] were ultimately betrayed by two BT staff misusing computer records at the request of the gang, without knowing or asking why they were wanted.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It really is that easy. This was nothing more than an act of revenge, so can you imagine how much bargaining power a gangster could bring if he wanted to, for example, get the national DNA register to point to an innocent person rather than him…<\/p>\n
This blog has mentioned it many times in the past, but one of the biggest problems of total state surveillance is the significant shift in the balance of power. The government and public bodies serve the will of the people. They should be worried about the people. They should be 100% accountable to the public who grant them their rights and privileges. With the steady shift towards 1984 this is changing. The people will have to learn to worry about the government and what it is doing in “their” name.<\/p>\n
When I was growing up I remember seeing TV programmes and news items about how Communist Russia was the great Evil and how oppressive regimes like Nazi Germany (and East Germany post WWII) were symbolised by how they oppressed the public – demanding “papers” on a regular basis, controlling who could travel and where and when, bugging everyone calls and monitoring their every movement. All my life I thought this was supposed to be teaching people what was wrong with some nations – I never realised it was a blueprint for the new millennium.<\/p>\n