I gave a ridiculous example which is impossible to do. Do you even know what a non-coding SNP is?(Original post by PAPAdawg)
you gave some examples yourself. it is a skeleton key in a court of law....the idea of any single entity, government or n ot, having total control over it should terrify any normal person. framing people who disagree with the govt, using it to stitch up the opposition or just your everyday citizen......all these things are basically just modern/futuristic forms of the way that dictators have and still do operate. just look at hitler, mussloinim or saddam. british people are too complacent about their govt imo. govt should be kept small anyway, but that's just my opinion.
If a government is willing to fabricate evidence against you, which is the only thing you seem to be able to come up with, having a dna database isn't going to make a slight bit of difference. I think that'd be the least of your worries. Just like if they really wanted they could alter or plant evidence, alter records, bribe juries, or hell, just get rid of a dair trial at all.
Police told to ignore human rights ruling over DNA database Watch
- 10-08-2009 14:28
(Original post by Kiwiguy)
- 10-08-2009 14:54
Its also ironic that a supposed left wing goverment is acting like a right wing sub facist party..
(Original post by DayneD89)
- 10-08-2009 14:56
well the court of human rights has no real power here. It gives a judgment, but there is no reason for us to implement their decision.
Offline21ReputationRep:Community AssistantWiki Support Team
- Community Assistant
- Wiki Support Team
(Original post by L i b)
- 10-08-2009 15:01
Because it is the law, presumably, and that all public authorities - whenever possible within the strictest meaning of the law - are obliged to comply with it?
(Original post by DayneD89)
- 10-08-2009 15:07
Not really. The courts have to read the law in a way that conforms with the declaration of human rights unless it expressly says it is going against one of its articles, but the court of human rights only advises really. The courts here can ignore it.
(Original post by PAPAdawg)
- 10-08-2009 15:14
my point is you don't know. remember, the future is vast and history tells you how remarkably common the elctorate find themselves living under a dictatorship. the dna databse ios just one example of the kind of surveillence state which would be just one more barrier in the way of deposing such a person
i'm sure if you told people that 6 million jews would be killed by an elected politician prior to the last century you'd have been laughed at....remarkable things can happen when power gets into the wrong hands...which is why the state needs to be as small as it can possibly be. that'd a classical liberal view and not an unreasonable one i dont think
No extreme government, communist, fascist, has ever been elected democratically in a major country.
Britain has had a functioning moderate democracy for 300 years.
You don't have history to support you so you come up with the "anything can happen in the future argument". No. Anything can't happen in the future. Why? Because anything HASN'T happened in the "future" of the past. The only reason to assume that it must is to back up your extremely paranoid and illogical argument.
- 10-08-2009 15:34
This is insane. A DNA database is next to useless anyway because of the insanely high probability of false matches, even if the probability of a coincidental match may appear low. Here, try this quick 'n dirty exercise to see what I'm talking about:
From the telegraph.co.uk (Saturday, 24 October 2006): Tony Blair called yesterday for the national DNA database to be expanded to include every citizen.
• Assume a murder has been committed and that a DNA sample found on the crime
scene is compared against 60,000,000 UK citizens who have their DNA on record
in a database.
• A suspect is identified by virtue of his profile providing the only match in the DNA
• At the trial it is testified that the probability that two DNA profiles match by
chance is only 1 in 20,000,000.
What is the probability that there is at least one DNA match by chance?
(Original post by PAPAdawg)
- 11-08-2009 00:39
exactly my point, and given the infinity that is the future who knows what else. it only takes one dictator to come along and the database will be a useful tool for him
But not everyone.
- 11-08-2009 09:10
If a person with aspergers syndrome can hack into the US computers, what to say a terrorist can't hack into the database in the UK. A person can easily hack into and change stuff such as the dna on the database.
Why do we need to an id card? When we have passports, bills etc...to prove who that person genuinely is...In order to obtain an id card you need identification, so the id is frankly pointless...
Even the head of MI5 intelligence services, police forces etc... say we do not an id card, or have keep the dna on the database. It is going against privacy rights of individuals living in the UK. They even said we don't need these measures...
The real threat in the UK is from Gordon Brown and the labour party.
I have nothing to hide, but I certainly am against this Politcally correct Big Brother Orwellian dictatorship in this country.
It is ironic that if this happened in Communist China or even in Iran it would be called a dictatorship. If it is in the UK, it is democracy.
Left Leo- That is what they said to the Jews when Hitler came into power. It can be abused and has been before... In this democracy, it is ironic that the House of Lords the unelected body in Parliament has done more protect our civil liberties from this treacherous government than elected body the House of Commons. Our last fringe hope lies with the HoL.