Do you think a DNA database is a good idea?

In principle I suppose there's not much wrong with it. After all if you don't commit crimes then it won't affect you. Also it should help catch serious offenders such as rapists and killers.

However what I worry about is the Government's careless handling of data. The Government have practically given away names/addresses and other personal details of child benefit claimants, soldiers and other database entrants by leaving briefcases/CDs/USB sticks on trains, in taxis and in pubs. They've also mishandled driving licence data which has resulted in people having their licence effectively removed or in extra privileges being added to licences.

So what happens when suspects start questioning the DNA data that is being used against them?

Will the Legal Services Commission (aka legal aid) pay for the suspects to have their own DNA tests done in case DNA is matched to the wrong person on the database?

I agree (in principle) of convicted criminals having their DNA held on file but I don't think the Government can be trusted to manage the data. I certainly disagree with people acquitted or released without charge having their DNA kept.

lorie v - read past the first paragraph to see why you should be afraid. :-)

i'm not a peice of data, and dont want to ge catalogued like one. okay it might be used for the police, but who knows what they will use it for next, were would it stop? when they get our DNA, what will they want next? would we have to take DNA tests rather then have passports if we want to travel? would they sell our DNA for medical use, since it would be such a vast database? cant say no they wont, because you dont know what the future holds.

Those DNA are merely symbols corresponding to the real DNA. They can be only used to identify the correspondence. They can't use it to clone another you.

Nevertheless, all depends on the security. If hackers intruded into that database and change all kinds of data and victims would be much for falsing id.

all convicted criminals and those who are charged for serious sex crimes, I agree with the database, but not taking samples to rule out the innocent, then keeping it for any extra time, when the subject was never seriously under any suspicion.

Here's the problem, in our time criminals can access your DNA profile and genetically alter the DNA of more or less anything organic to put you at a crime scene, and we thought you were unhappy about your eyes and thumbs being removed for $10.

Absolutely good idea if you didn't do the crime than why be afraid!

Only if they don't use tax payer money.

It will affect you if you don't commit crimes - the percentage of people on the database who have never been found guilty is shockingly high. If the police have just stopped you for questioning and never even arrested you they can still keep your details for years. This includes the information for children.
I agree with you in that there are some positives but I would like to see stricter rules e.g. people who have never been found guilty their DNA should be destroyed, and better guidance on how to keep the information confidential.

DNA is our own personal property, to allow the government to keep individual genomic data, on individuals who remain most of there lives as a victim of crime or indeed commit no unlawful acts, by collecting DNA data from everyone, is surely insinuating that ' everyone will one day may... rob a shop or kill their neighbour etc.' and in light of a remote possibility that it would occur, it gives them the 'right' to screen and collect our own genetic information. Yes DNA database provides many advantages to providing evidence and locating suspects of a crime from 1 in a million to just one person. but by having everybody on the database, poses to many issues of concern. And the bottom line of the matter is: DNA is or own personal genetic information, allowing others to have voluntary access to it is unacceptable. Having a government which is constantly suspect of its own citizens, should be removed as they are clearly willing to make a mockery of our human rights, and yet claim to protect our best interests. Surely not...

There is one fundamental problem with your question! Any person who is arrested by the police will have there DNA taken, if they are found not guilty or released without charge they cannot demand for the DNA to be destroyed!
The European Court ruled that the UK government had to destroy all the DNA taken from people who did not later get a criminal conviction, however the government then came back with the 7 year rule. This rule means that you can have your DNA destroyed if you do not get a criminal conviction for a period of 7 years after your sample was taken.
We are currently in the middle of a recession and the government has major financial problems. It was not that long ago that it was discovered that local councils had sold the electoral role data base to commercial organisations as a revenue booster.
My problem is there is nothing stopping this or any future government selling the DNA information to interested parties.
For example there was a court ruling yesterday with respect to a woman who did not disclose that she had a previous medical condition (Depression) her employer was trying to sue her for a million pounds as they thought she should have made this information available at the interview stage. They lost and the tax man now has a 2 million pound legal bill.
What is stopping a private company setting up that will disclose the preexisting medical conditions to prospective new employees using the DNA information of the data base?
Many people argue that DNA is no worst than finger prints, however finger prints are flat information and not the building blocks of a person.
Ja.