UK LARGEST DNA DATABASE ENCOURAGING OTHERS TO DO SAME

[Eliakim Profile Website]

UK LEADS THE WAY IN DEVELOPMENT OF A GLOBAL DNA DATABASE
JANUARY 31, 2006 BY PI

The UK currently maintains the largest DNA Database in the world and is encouraging other governments to implement similar systems in their respective countries. Using international organisations such as Interpol, participant governments will be able to share and exchange the DNA profiles of their citizens subject to vague legislative provisions, such as 'the interests of crime detection and prevention'.
https://www.privacyinternational.org/ar ... a-database

Now in the UK, if you are charged with a simple driving offence, you can have your DNA taken. In fact, if you are charged with anything before going to court, they can take your DNA and everything else.

Home
GENEWATCH CAMPAIGN TO 'RECLAIM YOUR DNA' FROM GROWING UK DATABASE
JULY 21, 2006 BY PI

GENEWATCH STATEMENT

The UK police now have more DNA samples than any other country - over 5% of the UK's population is on the National DNA database. Although the assumption is that by holding the DNA profiles of more individuals on the database, more crimes will be solved, there is no evidence to support this. However, evidence of abuse of the information held on the police database is increasing, including its use for controversial genetic research without consent.

GeneWatch UK is calling for people concerned about their DNA being retained by the police to seek removal from the National DNA Database. Thousands of people, including children, who have never been charged or cautioned for any offence are now kept permanently on the database. Many others have been acquitted or convicted of minor offences but are still kept on the Database for life.


An investigation by GeneWatch UK and the Observer newspaper has revealed that DNA samples collected by the police are being used for controversial genetic research, and that a commercial company has kept its own copy of part of the database. This makes a mockery of claims that access to and uses of the Database are tightly controlled. Observer article: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/ ... 76,00.html .
https://www.privacyinternational.org/ar ... k-database

I am going to have a field day with this one.

[Eliakim Profile Website]

Baroness Hale of Richmond disagreed more substantially. She disputed the proposition that retention and storage was not an interference with the appellant's rights under Article 8(1). Furthermore, she distinguished between fingerprints and DNA, relying on the Canadian Privacy Commissioner's report on Genetic Testing and Privacy, citing:

"The measure of our privacy is the degree of control we exercise over what others know about us. No one, of course, has absolute control. As social animals, few would want total privacy. However, we are all entitled to expect enough control over what is known about us to live with dignity and to be free to experience our individuality. Our fundamental rights and freedoms - of thought, belief, expression and association - depend in part upon a meaningful measure of individual privacy. Unless we each retain the power to decide who should know our political allegiances, our sexual preferences, our confidences, our fears and aspirations, then the very basis of a civilised, free and democratic society could be undermined."
and

https://www.privacyinternational.org/ar ... -law-lords

"No surveillance technology is more threatening to privacy than that designed to unlock the information contained in human genes."


She argues that samples are taken precisely because they contain information relating to an individual and for no other reason and therefore the policy does interfere with privacy rights.

Having argued that the taking of fingerprints and DNA is an interference of privacy because of the information they contain, Baroness Hale continues to assert that it logically follows that the storage of this information is also an interference, even if no use is made of them. She states that even if someone has read her private correspondence or seen her bank accounts, it is an interference with privacy even of that person does not disclose what they have seen. The fact that only a few people can understand the information contained on a genetic code does not affect the principle, though it may affect the justification.

Baroness Hale considers the predicted future uses of DNA and states that although no one is thinking of using the samples collected for undefined purposes, the fact that they could be so used, even if many years away, means the appellants have a very real interest in how they are stored and who has access to them. She concludes that if keeping and storing this information was not an interference with the right guaranteed by Article 8(1), the consequences would be surprising. There would be no need to find justification under Article 8(2) if the state were free to keep such information without a legitimate aim. Secondly, if Article 8(1) was not engaged by keeping private information, then the state would be able to be thoroughly discriminatory in choosing which information to keep without ever contravening Article 14. She uses the example of a hypothetical decision to keep all information from black suspects, but not white suspects, as undoubtedly contravening Article 14, but asserts that unless the prima facie policy falls within Article 8(1), this could not be described as a discriminatory policy in law.

Baroness Hale argues therefore that the policy is an interference with the right under Article 8(1), but one that is justified under Article 8(2).

[Illuminated Profile]

shit give it 5 years you'll have to lick a gov dna post at a checkout to even buy anything.
guess not enough people see where its all headed..
-


So, you thought that DNA evidence was foolproof? Think again.
Israeli scientists have discovered a way to prove that DNA evidence can be faked

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/132965
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/science/18dna.html




so there you go the suposed people that 'want to (or are) running the world' the 'jews' are outing that dna can be B.S.

pure technocracy by technocratic elites ruling down on the peasants with their unquestionable scientific dictatorship!