Lately I've heard that the UK is building up a DNA database containing DNA samples from all who have been convicted or were suspects in cases in which their DNA material was used.
Sounds kind of scary because the info that can be retained from a single strain of DNA is quite high, and is increasing more and more due to scientific development. Do you think that this is infringement of the right to privacy? Or is this a way in which governments can protect us better against criminality? I'm very curious about your opinions.

I'm generally tend to believe it's good for all of us: more security, criminals being convicted, etc. I have nothing to hide, so what should I be afraid of? However, it's a frightening idea that there is so much information about you out there, in combination with everything the internet is collecting on you there is a total package of who you are just available for anyone with bad intentions. Because I don't think the state is going to make abuse of the DNA information (at least not the current UK or Dutch state, but maybe I'm naive, and maybe that is going to change in the future, who knows?). But there are people working, real people with interests, goals and ideas. And it's a scary thought these people have access to your complete identity I guess...

What do you think?

From an archaeologists point of view it's kinda nice. We can see migration over the past centuries, lineage etc. Also it can be used to find out where your ancestors were from. But in the end it's just the same as fingerprints. Because we dutchies have to give our fingerprints any fingerprints found on a crime scene are worth less. The error margin is just too big. Also fingerprints can be copied etc. DNA exact the same. The more data we have the less incriminating it becomes, especially seen the fact that an Israeli company did already succeed in creating human DNA, so even DNA can be faked!

I thinkt that the problem that many have with the retention of DNA is that the information could fall into the wrong hands. I don't really beleive that a donation of my DNA to the Dutch government would be a problem at the moment but there are already examples of criminals who leave the DNA samples of other persons at a crime scene. When your DNA is held in a database, there would be a larger chance for criminals to do so.

Furthermore, there are lots of examples where this sort of information was abused in the past. For instance in World War two, where lists of jews and communists which where previously used just for administrative goals were now used to track down these persons and transport them to concetration camps.

Besides the idea of privacy that might be harmed, there are also some problems that could come to a rise when the information that can be retained from a single DNA sample is increasing as much as it does now. Pesonally I don't see this problem in the near future, but there are some who think that insurance companies could abuse such information for their policies.

That does not mean that I think that the retention of DNA never should be allowed. However, I think that we should be really careful about it

David: it's true we could do massively interesting researches once we will have this system for some years!

But I agree that abuse will be so easily, not only from the 'government side' (people who work there) but also at the criminal side indeed. That would be really messy
But still, it seems like such a good initiative so see who was at the place the crime happened.. And wouldn't there be additional test to see if it's not fake DNA, or someone left it there on purpose?

I agree the findings of DNA should not be sufficient to lock someone up, but it can lead you to people who maybe know something (witnesses too for example).

I still don't have a strong opionin in favour or against a DNA database...

I'm not in favor of such systems unless I give such thing voluntary. Otherwise they take information of my body and that is sort of a violation of my privacy.

Also you can't tell if DNA is fake or not, just as you can't tell if fingerprints are fake or not. If you replicate DNA you have to use exact the same enzymes (or whatever you have in DNA) as the original DNA. Even if you have normal DNA you can alter it and the only way to tell if it has been altered is by looking if there are certain combinations or information stored that never can be in DNA on that place.


And any security can be broken, storage is not 100% secure ever. So best would only to take DNA of people who have been in contact with the police due criminal matters.

I don't see much use of people giving their DNA voluntarily, this would probably be the people that will never be involved in criminal acts..
Collecting DNA of people who are already suspicious is perhaps better, but then you'll miss the great opportunity not finding those suspects because the police has no idea where to start searching.

Shouldn't it be possible to come to a perfect system?
And if not, aren't the advantages out weighting the (possible) failures and disadvantages?