Originally Posted by Loz (Post 535342)

I voted yes because for one thing i have nothing to hide so why would it be a problem for me or anybody else that is innocent?
Also if it means criminals being caught and dealt with that's great.
For all of you who voted no what if you were on the receiving end of a crime and the database meant your attacker was caught and punished?
Would it be worthwile then?

Originally Posted by Rosencrantz (Post 535346)

No. As I said, personal liberty is worth the extra risk.

I understand it's easy to let stuff like this through because you have nothing to hide and it's not a problem to the innocent, but can't you see how massively this could be exploited? To take an extreme example, what if a law was introduced that banned reading books or banned being any religion other than Christian? A DNA database would be intrinsic to enforcing laws that may not be for the greater good - it takes power away from the individual and hands it to the government.

A DNA database means that protesting against unfair laws it something you'll have to do through a complicated system filled with people who want power - the politicians. And how do unfair laws currently garner massive resistance right now? By people just doing it anyway. Actions speak louder than words, far louder, and sadly most MPs would rather bend to the will of a loud, physically vocal crowd than one man on a stand calmly explaining the pros and cons of why the current system is wrong.

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 535276)

You never hear old people moaning about the identity cards that were issued to the whole country, as part of the 1939 National Registration Act.

(Departs, and waits for an old person to start moaning about what a flippin' liberty a national D.N.A base would be.)

Originally Posted by Cyfr (Post 535333)

Really? How about the guy that planted someone elses DNA in a rape victim?

Originally Posted by jambutty (Post 535354)

Originally Posted by Loz (Post 535342)

I voted yes because for one thing i have nothing to hide

Originally Posted by Cyfr (Post 535308)

I voted no.

Our government simply cannot be trusted with more data after all the recent losses. We have no idea what subsequent governments will do with the data. Who knows, in 10 years time our DNA might be up for auction, I bet its quite valuable to criminals and genetic research companies.

DNA can easily convict the wrong person. It doesn't prove you did a crime, only that you were around that area at some point (even if it was before the crime even took place). It can easily lead to wrong convictions. There have been tons of cases of planted DNA, framing an innocent person.

They already have too much DNA. Taking DNA from innocent people even before they're charged? Not deleting it when its proved their innocent? What is this, a police state? We are the most watched country in Europe, have the biggest DNA database in the world (in proportion to our size), the government even want to invade our privacy in our own homes, getting internet providers to look into what we're doing on the internet whist having a massive ID database storing even more of our information, and for what? To prevent terrorism? Everyone already knows it won't do what its supposedly built for. Scare mongering government using peoples fears to restrict freedoms.

Welcome to 1984.

Originally Posted by Loz (Post 535351)

I can see where you are coming from and yes it could be exploited but like you said you came up with a rather extreme example,that is never going to happen,give me a more realistic example of how it could be exploited,not pie in the sky ideas.

Originally Posted by Less (Post 535364)

Nothing to hide? What about the abuse you seem to have done to that poor animal in your Avater? That must come from a sick mind that needs to hide itself in shame!

http://www.accringtonweb.com/forum/c...tar12029_1.gif

Originally Posted by Less (Post 535372)

If a DNA data base or Identity cards where to be used to prevent crime, then I say bring it on, (anything that stops even one rape or murder must be worthwhile), but if it is just going to be used to keep law abiding citizens in line, then I'm against it.

Originally Posted by Rosencrantz (Post 535388)

I think it's impossible to have one without the other. The police are there to stop crime, but they also keep law-abiding citizens in line. My issue is that this is like a balance - how much freedom do you want to give up to stop crime. The problem is that if we say that anything that stops one rape or murder is worthwhile then that allows crazy amounts of personal intervention. What about being filmed while you're getting changed at a swimming pool? What about being filmed on the toilet in case you do something untoward?

That's not a direction I want to head in.