Hat Tip to UK Liberty for pointing me in the direction of this report in The Guardian. Apparently the government is proposing to massively extend the scope of the UK DNA database. According to The Guardian:

"Currently, the police do not have the power to place details such as DNA and fingerprints of anyone who has committed a minor, or 'non-recordable', offence such as dropping litter or speeding on to the relevant database. "However, the government believes there may be a case for recording the details of people who have committed minor crimes. In a briefing document promoting the consultation exercise, the Home Office claims its inability to take personal details such as fingerprints or DNA from all offenders 'may be considered to undermine the value and purpose' of having a searchable database."

The last part is especially worrying. That logic leads ultimately to a compulsory DNA database of all UK citizens - DNA recorded from birth and linked to the National Identity Register (NIR). As Gareth Crossman of Liberty says:

"The danger is that if we start adding the details of people convicted of these sort of minor offences to the database we'll come to a tipping point,' said Gareth Crossman, director of Liberty. 'The government will say: "Actually it's a bit unfair some people aren't on the database; maybe everyone should be on it."'"

Why should this matter? What danger to the innocent is there from this proposal?

Well there's a practical one. DNA identification is not infallible. Mistakes are rare but can happen. The more we rely on DNA identification the greater the chance of such mistakes occurring. And the result of such a mistake is likely to be a miscarriage of justice with an innocent person - perhaps you or me - wrongly convicted of a crime.

There's also the practical issue that an automatic reliance on a DNA database is likely to devalue intelligence led policing. Why bother trying to investigate a complex case when you can just take a few swabs and get the computer to spit out names of suspects? That approach could lead to police overlooking the very intelligence required to tackle major crime syndicates. Or terrorist cells.

Despite the practical dangers my objections are mainly ones of principle. This is another step into turning us all from citizens into suspects. We would all be suspects for every crime committed in the UK. If the computer throws up a match for our DNA then we become suspect number one even if all the facts point elsewhere.

Then there's the invasion of privacy. If such a database exists then police will be able to go to any location - maybe a coffee shop or an alternative bookshop - take swabs and get a list of everyone who's visited recently. Everywhere you go you'll leave a trail of DNA that anyone with access to the database will be able to follow. Once children are added to the database ("for their own protection") this truly would be surveillance from cradle to grave.

DNA of children stored on a database of potential criminals? Am I not just scare-mongering? I wish I was. Pressure for just such a move is growing. The Guardian reports that Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate, a former president of the Police Superintendents' Association, recently wrote:

"If I had my way, the DNA we now take from newborn babies to check for genetic disorders would be added to the national database in the national interest"

DNA UK politics ukpolitics

Labels: DNA