I don’t deny many people like the security blankets that tech toys provide - how genuinely effective they are is a matter of debate and of cost in a wide sense.

As I understand such things, DNA profiling is distinctly different from DNA sequencing. In a DNA sequence a lab spends 100’s of thousands of pounds determining the exact sequence of amino acids in my DNA and stores it. This information may be useful in determining whether I may have an increased risk of cancer when I’m in my 40’s or hair loss in my 20’s. I would argue that, when it becomes cheaper, a responsible government that offers socialised healthcare should sequence the DNA of babies at birth. That argument, however, is for another day.

DNA profiling, on the other hand, involves taking a sample of DNA and analysing it for random mutations in non-coding bases (bits of DNA that don’t do anything). When you think about it, two healthy humans will share the DNA that successfully produces, say, eyes and teeth so analysing that DNA at a crime scene would have very little use. This information, about non-coding pairs, is then stored on a database.

IMPORTANT – No information that could be used to predict your cancer chances or baldness is stored.

Most of GL’s concerns could therefore be addressed by a law barring state agents from sequencing your DNA or, more simply, by requiring that the original sample is destroyed after the DNA fingerprint has been taken.

The ‘facetious’, your word not mine, example of frame-ups also misses a more interesting point. As technology improves it is becoming increasingly difficult to avoid leaving a DNA trail wherever you go. Your framer would leave his DNA at the scene of the framing, the various bike thieves (who treat me like their personal goose who lays the golden egg) might as well leave a signed note thanking me for my generosity. In conclusion National DNA Database + improving technology + a half-decent regulatory framework has the potential aid in solving almost all crimes that a criminal commits in person. If you seek to stop that with “oh deary deary my government is out to oppress me” arguments, it might be worth checking whether what you’re afraid of is science fact or science fantasy.

I _hate_ the idea of compulsory ID cards - but, on the other hand, I’d love to have a single card to replace my Oyster card, work ID card, library card, bank cards, etc.

I hate ANPR (automatic numberplate readers) because, in effect, they check EVERYONE, to find a few criminals. But I accept that they are a much more effective method of policing than (e.g.) bobbies on the beat. And that criminals really _are_ so stupid that they will transport thousands of pounds worth of drugs in an untaxed car.

I certainly plan, when I come to renew my passport, to give the new one 5 seconds in the microwave oven, for the benefit of the inbuilt microchip and the edification of immigration prodnoses worldwide.

I’m not even keen on universal CCTV - yet I have a CCTV camera trained ont he door to my own garage.

What a mess of contradictions I am!

However, I don’t have any problem with having my DNA on file (providing I don’t need to be arrested to achieve this - and providing Gordon Brown does, too).
I think the key thing here is that DNA evidence requires active collecting, so it’s not used in minor cases (and never in speeding cases!). If _everyone’s_ DNA were on file, the ability to ascertain who had committed (e.g.) sexual assaults and burglaries would be greatly enhanced.

I guess the issue for me is that I have to carry a passport to travel and I have to have a numberplate on my vehicle, so intrusion in that area is a real and ongoing intrusion. I don’t have to leave my DNA around crime scenes, and I plan not to do so, so a DNA register is non-intrusive.

My real reservation with a DNA database is that there _are_ ways to beat DNA. For example, pick up a load of cigarette butts outside any building (wearing gloves to do so!). When you burglarise a house, scatter these butts around. The forensic task will be thousands of times harder, there’s a good chance that one or more of the cigarette smokers will have their DNA on file … and, if your DNA is found on scene, you have established ‘reasonable doubt’ (you claim to have smoked a fag outide that building). Luckily [see above] criminals are stupid, so this won’t impact the value of the database too much, though it should change the way courts view DNA evidence (it is evidence; it is not proof).

Overall - I think DNA ‘yes’ and ID cards ‘no’.

Maybe I am wrong, but at least I thought about it.

Hoddy

What can be done is turn a real DNA sequence stored in a computer into physical DNA — this is one of the nightmare scenarios for the anti-terrorism mob because, given the appropriate lab equipment it is possible to create a deadly virus with no more than the right computer code. This is the perfect tool for framing someone as you won’t need access to the person, you only need break into a computer for the right code.

Nimbism: “Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power.” (Benjamin Franklin)

I’m sure you really do believe yourself to be uninteresting and that you are not at all prone to the slightest false modesty. I lack such a conceit