Are the police going to turn up to interview someone who's quadriplegic if their name pops up as a match? Yes, of course they are. There is no way for the police to know whether someone was physically capable of committing a crime, just by looking at a DNA database. They will have to turn up in person, something that most people would find pretty stressful & distressing.Aaeriele wrote:The hyperbolic portion is assuming that the minimal level of suspectness that such a wide search would confer would in any way be harmful to an individual. Do you honestly think the police are going to go to someone who is quadraplegic and vigorously force them to prove that they weren't the person to beat someone to death with a sledgehammer? Do you honestly think the police aren't going to immediately rule out someone who was in a coma at the time of a crime? Do you honestly think those examples aren't hyperbolic? Seriously?
Or are you going to force everyone to have their full medical records linked to this database? Better include employment records too, in case someone tries to claim an alibi by saying they were at work. Oh, let's throw in the financial records too, they could be useful in trying to establish a motive for robbery.
[/quote]Correct, no argument there. I was pointing out that the process of collecting the tissue that will be used for creating these specific markers is very open to abuse. If you're willing to accept that someone could abuse a GPS tracking system, why should this be any different.Aaeriele wrote:Databases are not collections of swabs. Nor are they (at least for what we're discussing) collections of full gene sequencing results. They are small records of specific markers that are used for matching between two candidates.
Here's how it would work: Person A takes swab from citizen B. Person A has another sterile swab concealed on them somewhere. When they are not being watched, person A rubs the two swabs together. They then have two swabs, each with a DNA sample on. They deliver one to the laboratory, as they are supposed to, but keep hold of the other one and use it for any of the purposes I described. This would be extremely simple and practically undetectable.
A_pathetic_lizardmnan, the big flaw in your argument (apart from the various unsupported assumptions that you've made in your probability calculations) is confusing very small numbers with the number zero. Under the present system, if a crime is committed on the other side of the country and I have no link to it, the chances of the police investigating me are zero. If a mandatory DNA datase is instituted, a crime committed on the other side of the country that I have no link to results in a non-zero probability of me being investigated, should a false positive flag my name up. That is a very important difference.
Post edited once to fix quote tags, no other changes. Edited again to add this note.