[Rictor]

http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=1719&date=20050708&PHPSESSID=3f47e8faa49780ad42b322ccdcdd3f49

I for one think it would be far simpler to just require everyone to be entered into the DNA database at birth, that way you needn't worry about triffling details such a "presumption of innocence" and so forth. That's the general idea, no? Though for criminals, more stringent measures would of course be necessary; some sort of subdermal tracking device ought to do the trick.

Go Sweden! Woo!

[Admiral LSD]

A lot of people will claim this as an invasion of privacy but the way I look at it is thus: If you haven't done anything wrong then you've nothing to worry about but if you have, you deserve to be on some kind of register.

[Ace]

No. ...that's the same logic being used to justify guantanamo.

[aldo_14]

Same logic that could be used to justify implanting GPS tracking tags into every person at birth.

It's simple, really.  If they have sufficient justification to hold a person as a suspect, they have sufficient justification to get a court order for DNA. But doing it de riguer for any suspect - without requiring that suspect to be plausible - is opening a pandoras box of potential civil rights abuse.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by Admiral LSD
A lot of people will claim this as an invasion of privacy but the way I look at it is thus: If you haven't done anything wrong then you've nothing to worry about but if you have, you deserve to be on some kind of register.

Tell me you're being sarcastic and all is forgiven. Otherwise, I think that your position is the direct opposite of that which ought to be taken by anyone with the tiniest bit of interest in freedom.

[WMCoolmon]

Hmm. Devil's advocate time...

What if at some point in the future,a blood/hair/etc sample were discovered, after the wrong suspect was convicted? (Say one of the suspects buried a knife used in a robbery). Without the DNA sample, there could very well be no way of connecting that new piece of evidence with the crime.

Edit: clarification

[karajorma]

Thing is I like the idea of a DNA register like the Swedes are having. It just needs the right system of checks and balances.

I say take the DNA of anyone convicted of a crime and put it in the bank but allow the police to search it only after obtaining a court order from a judge that proves that the evidence it is based on is good enough (same as is done for search warrents etc).

If you go to the judge with the murder weapon requesting the DNA found on that then fine. You go with a hair found in a public place you get laughed out of court.

[BlackDove]

Heh, I knew that too much CSI on TV will lead to this.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by karajorma
Thing is I like the idea of a DNA register like the Swedes are having. It just needs the right system of checks and balances.

I say take the DNA of anyone convicted of a crime and put it in the bank but allow the police to search it only after obtaining a court order from a judge that proves that the evidence it is based on is good enough (same as is done for search warrents etc).

If you go to the judge with the murder weapon requesting the DNA found on that then fine. You go with a hair found in a public place you get laughed out of court.

Surely this would only be warranted for serious crimes. We're talking about a significant and more or less permanent loss of privacy, so such a measure could only be considered in exceptional cases. Even then, the idea doesn't sit well with me on some basic level.

[Admiral LSD]

Originally posted by Rictor


Tell me you're being sarcastic and all is forgiven. Otherwise, I think that your position is the direct opposite of that which ought to be taken by anyone with the tiniest bit of interest in freedom.

People who value their "freedom" stay on the right side of the tracks. You going to try and convince me that jails are a bad idea because they limit peoples freedom as well?

[Rictor]

In theory, yes. Prison is an imperfect solution, and in all probability (assuming Sweden holds true more or less to world standards) the majority of those in prison are not there for violent crimes. This law applies to all crimes which carry a jail sentence, not just murder, rape etc.

The balance between saftey and liberty is not absolute, but we're not talking about a warzone here, I can only speculate but the amount of crime in Sweden of all places must be absolutely minimal. The in this case, the need for freedom outweighs the need for safety. In other circumstances, limiting freedom is essential to basic saftey and survival, but this is clearly not even close to anything resembling that.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Rictor
Surely this would only be warranted for serious crimes.

Since you can't get a search warrent for parking violations that seems reasonable.

Originally posted by Rictor
We're talking about a significant and more or less permanent loss of privacy, so such a measure could only be considered in exceptional cases. Even then, the idea doesn't sit well with me on some basic level.

What about if the DNA was only collected from convicted rapists? Would you have a problem with that? Knowing you probably.

[Rictor]

First of all, convicted is vastly different than suspected. Secondly, a rapist is different than a thief or someone who ends up in jail for a non-violent crime. With a rapist, no, I wouldn't really have a problem with that. But the majority (from what I know) of people within the prison system of any country are likely there for non-violent crimes, and in that case it's simply not warranted. To extend the criteria to suspects as well is absurd though.

[Admiral LSD]

Again, stay out of the system and you'll be fine. I still don't see what the big problem is.

[karajorma]

Lots of people get suspected of crimes and later are proved to be completely innocent. Your DNA should not be on record just because you happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Your DNA should only be on record if you are convicted. Officers should only be able to compel a DNA sample if they can provide a good reason.

Originally posted by Rictor
To extend the criteria to suspects as well is absurd though.

Of course it is. You'll notice that I said convicted not suspected.

The jail term shouldn't be the yardstick used for this either. I'd put anyone convicted of a violent crime or crimes like buglary which can easily turn violent on the list. If you're guilty of embezzlement or unpaid parking tickets there is no need for you to be there.

[kode]

Originally posted by Rictor
I for one think it would be far simpler to just require everyone to be entered into the DNA database at birth

actually, if I remember correctly, we already do that. used for researching hereditary diseases and stuff like that. it's just that the police isn't really allowed to access it, even though I seem to remember they have occasionally.

on a sidenote, my uni campus is neighbour to that crime lab their mentioning...

[Rictor]

Originally posted by kode


actually, if I remember correctly, we already do that. used for researching hereditary diseases and stuff like that. it's just that the police isn't really allowed to access it, even though I seem to remember they have occasionally.

You're kidding, right? Is it mandatory?

It's not this or that law that's important. It's the mentality that's my real gripe, the mentality which says it's OK to increase control over people in order to accomplish a marginal decrease in crime, which is already extremely low by any standard. I'm willing to risk a one in a million chance of being killed on the street in order that people not be entered into a DNA bank.

also, from a previous discussion about ID cards:

Originally posted by Rictor

The main thing that has stood in the way of governmental tyranny is not idealistic notions of liberty or even the fear of rebellion. It has always been simple incomptence. What they can see and hear, how they process it, how they store it, how they access it; all these are limited and imperfect. Therefore, any attempt to make the government more competent at surveillance must be seen, regardless of the motives, as an attempt to further the cause of tyranny. It's not enough to give someone power with the assurance that they won't (ab)use it. It's inevitable that eventually they will (ab)use it. The capability must not exist at all

[kode]

Originally posted by Rictor


You're kidding, right? Is it mandatory?
 

not kidding, and yeah I think it's mandatory. they've been doing this since 1975. apparently, they used it when investigating the stabbing of anna lindh (who at the time was our minister of foreign affairs, as some of you might remember) 2 years ago.

[Roanoke]

As with UK Identity Cards, just think all that information in one place. Probably on a single computer system.