‘snooping state’
Now personally, I don’t particularly mind the Lib Dems, except when it comes to civil liberties, as unfortunately they are as insecure as the Tories. Nick Clegg’s speech in London said he wanted the people to “to take their privacy back” against ID cards, DNA databases and CCTV cameras. Now I’ve done a similar rant on this in a previous blog but that was restrained to the DNA database, but really come on Clegg(y), I accept there is somewhat of an argument behind ID cards but he’s kinda forgetting they’re intended for foreign nationals.
CCTV cameras hardly ‘invade your privacy’, they’re in the streets to keep an eye out for criminals, they’re not exactly in your houses are they as well that would be a breach of privacy, but people can’t stand it not knowing who’s watching you at the other end, i.e. fear of the unknown. And finally, DNA databases, the biggest insecurity of them all, I’m all for the state to keep a record of everyone’s DNA from birth as what they going to do? Take mine find out I’ve got hay fever then send me a bunch of flowers?
Rant over
Max
Birmingham University Labour Students
John Ritchie
Brigidjones
daveborland
dorameredith
bensemens
chrisblewitt
oliverjackson
maxattacks
joshualt
suzannahrobinson
kohalloran
jakelambertonline
smurphy2010
labourluke
bulsonline
Guardian Unlimited
I have to say, while I can see the need for CCTV cameras, I am very much against both ID cards and the DNA database. In my eyes, there is something intrinsically frightening and Orwellian about everyone’s DNA being held by the state. Currently the state is run by a Labour government and it may one day, though I hope not too soon, be a Tory government. As much as I disagree with the Conservatives on many issues, Labour and Conservative are both rather mainstream and moderate. Neither are, I would call, intrinsically a threat to this country’s tradition of tolerance, liberty and justice for all. However, should, and while people can make predictions no one can ever be sure that it won’t happen, the government be put into the hands of people less moderate and less well-inclined to those traditions, I for one would be very, very worried. It is a slippery road to go down and while I do not doubt that the Labour government is doing it with the best of intentions, it is one issue with which I disagree with them on.
And before anyone says “If you have done nothing wrong, then you have nothing to hide”, I would argue what about being “Presumed innocent until proven guilty”. Until I am seriously suspected of committing a crime, I do not see why my liberty should be invaded in any way.
I also have reservations about ID cards and the DNA database, as with the rapid pace of change we are seeing in technology, e.g. being able to profile the entire genome and predict the likelihood of certain diseases, extremists would be able to seize control of our most intimate information and discriminate against ‘undesirables.’
I know the government’s record on losing data isn’t great, but I think it would be hard for an extremist group with any power to seize and use data. I’m only scared about discrimination in the workplace, and I’m pretty sure I’m never gonna work for an extremist organisation. I don’t believe employers would discriminate more against people who are susceptible to cystic fibrosis any more than against people who look unhealthy on the outside, such as those who are overweight or underweight or have yellow fingernails or varicose veins
I agree with you Suzy in that I think the chances of an extremist group gaining access to the information are slim. Despite what my post might suggest (having read it back) I do not believe an extremist government is imminent or even forseeable, but times do change.
My objection is principled, in that, I believe firmly in certain rights as free individuals and I am seriously concerned that a DNA database is a shift from presumption of innocence to one of guilt, and I cannot support that, as much as I can concede that such a database may help with criminality cases (though at the last time I checked DNA as opposed to other forms of evidence was only responsible for 1 in 15 criminal convictions in cases of serious crime).
On ID cards, I am less concerned in this regard (for we have passports, Nat. Ins. cards etc). I do think it is, however, a waste of money (not just in the cards but in the creation of new bureacracy around them) at a time when money is not readily available, for something the efficacy of which I am unconvinced.
I understand your concern, but I’m really worried about rape conviction rates, and the DNA database could really help with improving them
If an extremist government got into office it would have power over the armed forces, the police and the civil service. A DNA database would be the least of our worries. I’m not sure how access to people’s DNA data would change anything.
But thats the thing Suzy, I don’t believe it will help with the rape conviction rape at all. The DNA database would help when there are no suspects and there is a strain of DNA to help trace a suspect. In rape cases, the vast majority of suspects are people whom the victim has known; the dark alley image is largely not true. The majority of women are raped by boyfriends, husbands, male friends or acquaintances and even relatives. The overwhelming majority of victims can name their attacker! Think about it; where there is a suspect, as there is when a case goes to court, the DNA database loses its use because the suspect is there, DNA evidence is available, obtained and before the judge. The reason for the poor number of convictions for rape is not down to a failure to procure DNA evidence. It is for the failure of the police to prove the charge of rape as opposed to sexual intercourse. A DNA database will not prove that a woman was raped, it will only prove that there was sexual contact between one woman and another.
Rape is a serious crime and it is a huge indictment of the police and prosecution service that so few convictions are obtained, but that is why it is imperative that we get it right when we try to procure this rather than treading on civil liberties in a way which does not actually help with crime.
If it only helps with 1% of rapes or 0.1%, then I’m still not prepared to sit here and accept that a DNA database is an infringement on civil liberties.
Fine, that is your view and I accept that. But just because something is effective, does not make it right.
Good point Sean, it would only help in cases where the attacker denied any intercourse, rather than the classic “oh yeah, she was asking for it”.
The main argument for me is that it is the the start of a very slippery slope. Say we pass legislation to enable a DNA database. And that works for a few years. But then after a few years criminals, as they always tend to figure a way around it. What next? Do we then say that everyone has to wear an electronic tag? Does everyone’s phone get bugged? After all, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear? That is my concern. That when the DNA database is passed, it will open the door for other measures to be passed in interests of ‘security’. It is important to protect society, of course it is. But it is also important that we ensure that we have a society worth protecting. And for me the idea of a DNA database starts the erosion of presumed innocent until proven guilty, because automatically your DNA is there for the police to check in cases of rape until proven that it is not you, rather than having where if there is a suspicion of guilt on your part, using DNA to help prove it.
“…just because something is effective, does not make it right.”
So we now agree that over the years it would make a difference for hundreds, if not thousands of women. If it is effective, even in only a minority of cases, then that shifts the burden of persuasion to those who oppose the DNA database.
“Until I am seriously suspected of committing a crime, I do not see why my liberty should be invaded in any way.”
I’m afraid most believe that even though you may be innocent until proven guilty, you have to make certain sacrifices. You do not, for example, have the right to walk into a shopping centre carrying an AK-47. Do you carry a passport at the airport? We make sacrifices over our individual liberty all the time without being guilty of any crime.
“…just because something is effective, does not make it right.”
So we now agree that over the years it would make a difference for hundreds, if not thousands of women. If it is effective, even in only a minority of cases, then that shifts the burden of persuasion to those who oppose the DNA database.
I don’t think so. Because I was making a general point that just because something achieves its intended aim, does not make it correct. Say, on an extreme example, that you decided all men should lose their genitalia and reproduction done by a test tube. That would instantly end rape crime. Does not make it right.
“Until I am seriously suspected of committing a crime, I do not see why my liberty should be invaded in any way.”
“I’m afraid most believe that even though you may be innocent until proven guilty, you have to make certain sacrifices. You do not, for example, have the right to walk into a shopping centre carrying an AK-47. Do you carry a passport at the airport? We make sacrifices over our individual liberty all the time without being guilty of any crime.”
I can accept sacrifices to liberty to protect liberty. To take the example you have used, the AK 47 would be an instant threat to individuals and society. while of course I take a passport to the airport with me, and do not go around a shopping centre with an AK 47. Passports make sense because I am trying to access a service and that service happens to involve me going to another country. In order to access that service, I need to temporarily prove my identity. I accept that. But that is not the same thing as a permanent surrender of my most intimate details which means I can be investigated for a crime for no reason.
“…the AK 47 would be an instant threat to individuals and society.”
No it wouldn’t. If we presume that everyone is innocent and law-abiding (which is what you seem to advocate) then it would be no more a threat than a kitchen knife being sold in Debenhams. Without seriously suspecting someone of a crime we still expect them to follow certain rules. You say you accept sacrifices to defend liberty. I agree. that’s why I support a DNA database.
You have completely failed to grasp my point about something being effective: if something is effective then it shifts the burden of persuasion to its oponents. Castration is easy to oppose on the basis of the pain and emotional suffering it would cause, which would outweigh any benefits. However you haven’t come up with anything remotely convincing in terms of opposing a DNA database.
You have conceded that it would help in at least hundreds of rape cases (not to mention a 30 year+ back log of rapes, murders and other crimes). So now I ask you if you have any reasons for standing in the way of that. So far you’ve coughed up dystopian garbage about a future dictatorship (failing to explain how a DNA database would change anything even in that highly improbable contingency); and the old fall-back of the slippery slope argument.
In fact DNA data is far less sensitive than the data in my passport. It would be unintelligible to most security service personnel. An STR profile is one of the most boring things you can ever see.
Ouch. Sorry I gave a different opinion.