DNA - Do Not Accept

Tags: DNA database bad idea unworkable Lord Justice Sedley civil liberties

Ever since Lord Justice Sedley called upon every person in the United Kingdom to be added to the national DNA database, people have been crawling out of the woodwork to climb aboard this particularly dangerous bandwagon.

Bizarrely, those most keen to take up Justice Sedley's call do so for reasons directly opposite to those invoked by Justice Sedley. I'm not 100% convinced that Justice Sedley genuinely wants every man, woman and child genetically tested and profiled - he was highlighting how unfair the DNA database is, and the grave potential for being misused that it poses.

"We have a situation where if you happen to have been in the hands of the police then your DNA is on permanent record. If you haven't, it isn't.

It means where there is ethnic profiling going on disproportionate numbers of ethnic minorities get onto the database."

Sedley's radical solution is that everyone - guilty or innocent, citizen or tourist - has their DNA sampled and profiled.

And yes, having everyone's DNA on profile would stop the racial profiling, and might even solve the odd crime. Then again, killing everyone in the country would also solve the problem of crime. That doesn't make it a good idea, no matter how tempting it might be during rush hour in London when you can't get a seat on the Tube and the person shoving their armpit into your face hasn't showered...

But I digress.

I could give you the civil liberties arguments. I could talk to you about human rights abuses. But frankly, the people who are comfortable with this form of database don't give a stuff about civil liberties, trotting out the old mantra of "the innocent have nothing to fear". Instead, I'm going for some alternative arguments...

It's going to be expensive
The government can't even put a simple patient database system in place without the cost spiralling by several billion pounds. How much do you think it is going to cost to take DNA samples from 65 million people, and then to keep taking samples of all those who are born, all those who come to visit the UK, to process them, and to keep them in a database. Let's not forget, that database needs to be designed. And staffed. However much you think it might cost, double it. Then double it again. That will be the cost it gets to when it is still 2 years away. This will be expensive. We can't run the Olympics for a month for less than £12 billion. How much more to run a database forever?

It's not going to work very well
The main argument in favour of the database has been "if you leave DNA at a crime scene we can identify the criminal and send them to prison". My lord, that's a simplistic statement about the value of DNA evidence. Firstly, it relies on DNA evidence being left behind. Despite the impression CSI may give, DNA evidence is nowhere near as prevalent at crime scenes as you might imagine. Rapes are committed that lack DNA evidence. In the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, the only DNA found has been that of the missing girl, not of any potential offender. Saying that we have a database of everyone's DNA is only of any use if there is actually something to match it against.

But what if you do have a DNA sample? What if, say for example, your house was broken into, and you discovered, lying underneath a desk, a watch that did not belong to any member of the household. What if, through the wonders of science, a DNA sample was taken from this watch? And suppose, for example, this sample matched a DNA sample you have on record for a known and past convicted criminal, notorious for committing burglaries? Why, surely the database would prove it's worth! It would be a slam dunk! A cast iron, guaranteed conviction!

You'd think. Well, the above scenario is true. The house was mine, the watch belonged to the burglar, the DNA matched him, he had multiple convictions for burglary, robbery and assault. He was arrested and tried. And found not guilty.

Despite a match on the DNA. This DNA database is not the cast iron guarantee of 100% foolproof conviction that some believe it will be. Because sometimes, even with DNA evidence, there's still the pesky problem of finding someone guilty you have to get past... Which brings me to my next point.

It can be abused
If it can be abused, chances are it will be. No government is innocent. So, you have a database of everyone's DNA. And you have a suspect. But you don't have a DNA match. No problem. Fudge the results. Cook the books. You know what the DNA of your suspect looks like. You just find him in the database, and claim that it matches whatever DNA you found at the scene of the crime. OK, the guilty person might be getting away, but you've managed to put someone who was "good for it". And if you don't think the police would fit someone up, then may I say "Birmingham Six" and "Guildford Four". For those who say "well, the police don't do that nowadays" may I just say "Forest Gate Two". Two men, raided in the early hours of the morning, one shot by anti-terrorism police, and when the police realised there was no evidence of terrorist activity, they tried to frame them on child pornography charges.

Are these the people you trust to be telling you the truth about whether or not DNA has matched?

It's mine
My DNA defines who I am. It makes me, me. Therefore it is my private property, and the government has no right to take it without my consent. I don't know what they'll use it for. Sure, they say it will be for the purposes of a criminal DNA database. But with a DNA sample of every single person in the UK, I'm sure there will be genetic research companies interested in purchasing this information and exploiting it. And why not share the information with our health service, to determine who has susceptibility to which illnesses and deny treatment on this basis. Think it won't happen? Our government loves two things - "joined up government" and wholesale parcelling out of government duties to private companies.

I have no choice
I heard an argument today, that your bank details, birth certificate and passport are matters of record, held on databases, and no-one complains. That is true. But my birth certificate isn't going to be left behind at the scene of a crime to implicate me, rightly or wrongly. As for the others, I can avoid having that information being held by not having a passport, not using a bank. If I'm unhappy about who has the information or how they use it, I can go to another bank, I can demand to know how they are using the information - hell, I have a government that I can complain to. But I have no-one above the government to complain about what they hold. Moreover, I won't have a right to know how the information is being used. My most intimate of all personal details, my own DNA, will doubtless be excluded from the ambit of the Freedom of Information Act.

So, those are my thoughts. I hope I haven't been too "civil liberties". I know that "innocent until proven guilty", "small government", "civil liberties" and "human rights" are unpopular concepts among some segments of society, but for those with no objection to a DNA database (or identity cards) - would you be perfectly happy with a CCTV camera in every home in the UK? After all, only the guilty have anything to fear from this measure. If you are breaking no laws, what is the problem with the government knowing everything about you?

Nooooooooooo!!!!!

Tags: iPhone UK launch O2 how much????

Dammit!!!!

Sodding O2, the network I abandoned in 2005 because it was ripping me off, have only sodding got the rights to the iPhone. Despite the fact that T-Mobile's German owner has the licence in Germany. Despite the fact that T-Mobile is the only network in the UK which uses the same technology that the iPhone was built around.

And look at the price tag! Close to £300 and the cheapest tariff is £35 per month? Ouch! I still want it, but I may just wait another year when my contract comes up for renewal in November. Reluctant to switch from T-Mobile because I like Flext, however I want to downgrade my tariff (not using the full allowance) and get Web n Walk. Whilst that would put me at the same tariff as the basic tariff on O2, I would be getting more phone time for my money. Plus my handset would be free.

We'll see what the next generation of cheaper iPhones does. Unless anyone wants to buy me one?

Northern on the Rocks...

Tags: Northern Rock hysteria panic insolvency

Northern Rock was, last week, a solvent banking institution. It was very profitable. It was safe as houses. What it couldn't do, was give out money for mortgages, because it couldn't find anyone willing to buy the mortgage debt, due to the sub-prime mortgage collapse in the US.

Northern could have covered this by using people's savings. But, being a responsible bank, it wouldn't break banking law by doing so. Regardless of what happened to the mortgage market, your money was safe with Northern Rock.

Until the panic set in. People started withdrawing cash. All of their cash. The vast majority of people who have accounts with Northern Rock have less than £34,000 with them. Below this amount, your money is guaranteed safe by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (well, if you want to get technical the first £2000 then 90% of the rest...). So, unless people panic, the money is sound.

People are panicky creatures. So people have now precipitated a crisis where none previously existed. They are creating a run on a bank. Banks tend not to withstand a run on them. Northern Rock could now potentially collapse because of this. Which means everyone money that was previously safe might not be. So more people will withdraw cash. Perpetuating the cycle.

The government has stepped in and guaranteed all money held at Northern Rock. Therefore you have absolutely no need to withdraw cash, no need to panic, no need to queue for hours outside your branch. And yet I heard a woman on the radio this morning say "yeah, but what does that guarantee mean"? Well, using my incredibly poor grasp of the English language, I would surmise that "we guaranteed you will receive all of your money, even if Northern Rock becomes insolvent" means "YOU WILL RECEIVE ALL OF YOUR MONEY EVEN IF NORTHERN ROCK BECOMES INSOLVENT".

When panic sets in, critical thinking goes out the window. Now the only smart thing to do is get the hell out of Dodge and withdraw your cash. Northern Rock's shares have plummeted (although the Chancellor's statement has propped up the share price a little) and as a knock-on effect other banks are suffering.

Sometimes market forces and unexpected events cause crashes and depressions. Other times it is just dumb panicky herd behaviour. If an economic crisis hits Britain because of this, it will be the latter to blame.

For those who have accounts with Northern Rock (or any bank) and who are concerned about what they should do, see this handy FAQ by Martin Lewis of MoneySavingExpert.com.

The Must See Movie of the Year!!!

Tags: Ben Affleck directorial debut Gone Baby Gone self-censorship for pointless reasons

I'm off the US soon. It may not be released when I am in the US, but if it is, I will be making a point of seeing the Ben Affleck film, Gone Baby Gone. I had never heard of this film until today. I don't know if it will be any good. But I'm going to see it, because I am prevented from doing so in the UK by no doubt well-intentioned, but nonetheless hysterical, reactionary pointless self-censorship.

Oooh, there's a spooky similarity in names and appearances. Oooh, the plot Involves a missing girl. Big deal. Does every show that contains a kidnap plot have to get shelved/axed/cancelled/deleted/locked away in the vault of forbidden media?

After the death of Princess Diana, Sky TV piss-poorly edited an episode of the Simpsons because of a joke that mentioned Diana. It wasn't a joke about Diana, or her death (indeed, the episode was made several years beforehand), in fact the joke would have worked if any famous person had been mentioned. But in the name of well-meaning but pointless self-censorship, this joke was excised.

Sky also refuse to show one of the funniest Simpsons episodes ever, because much of the action takes place around about the World Trade Centre in New York. For obvious reasons, it would be in poor taste to have shown this in autumn 2001, but to never show it again? Hell, I saw it again recently in the US of all places - if they can handle the fact that something that was made prior to a tragedy, that has nothing to do with the tragedy can still be shown, then why can't we.

Which brings us to a film about a missing girl. The girl who plays her bears a passing resemblance to Britain's most famous (but lest we forget, not the only) missing child. Thing is though, most pre-school blonde girls look alike. The resemblance is hardly uncanny. Oh wait, they have the same first name. Is that a good enough reason to pull the film? No, it is not.

This film is a fiction. It has a story archetype that mirrors an archetype currently playing out. That is where the similarity stops. This is not a film about the McCanns, this is not a film that potentially prejudices the investigation, so why not let the cinema going public decide if they want to see it?

The attrocities of Idi Amin's regime happened. Was it insensitive to release The Last King of Scotland? United 93 was released to critical acclaim, despite the recentness of the events it depicted. With a release date in the UK that is still three months off, perhaps Buena Vista International will come to their senses.

For those of you interested, you can find out more about the film here, the book it is based on is available here, and with luck they might release the DVD in the UK next year.

It's not spying, it's inquisitiveness...

Tags: curiosity StatCounter IP address who are you

I am a naturally inquisitive person. I like to know things. I've always enjoyed finding out new information.

So, since running my websites, I've enjoyed using StatCounter to keep track of the visitors to my site. I like to see how people have found me, what strange Google searches they have used that led them to my site. Where in the world they are visiting from. That kind of thing.

But occasionally it gets more than that. When people come with no referring link, it means they typed the address in directly, had it saved to their favourites, or copied and pasted the link from somewhere. You guys get me very curious. Because it suggests you know me. And if you do, I'd like to know you. Especially those of you who are repeat visitors, and keep coming back for more.

If this were a commercial site, then I wouldn't be interested in who the visitors were, only the numbers. I regularly visit a number of sites where there is no one person behind it. They don't really pay attention to the fact that I'm me, visiting regularly, only that they have X number of regular visitors.

But this is not a commercial site. It's a one-man show, just me. Just one guy. So if you are a regular visitor, there's something that keeps you coming back. So I'd like to know who you are, because as much as anything, it lets me know that I'm getting something right.

Especially if you spend a long time on the site, going through it all, then keep coming back to it. I'm talking to you Mr/Mrs T-Mobile user who spent 2 hours on here in the early hours of this morning! That's dedication.

It would be nice to get to know the audience a little better - you're a small number, it would be easily done. I already know some of you - you've left comments on blog entries, sent feedback etc.

For the rest of you, why not introduce yourself, say hi. Comment on a blog post. Use the "mail me" links on the sidebar. Send feedback using the comments form. After all, if you're going to be visiting regularly, the least I can do is make the place welcoming for you...

Universal Code of Ethics for Scientists

Tags: BA Festival of Science Code of Ethics seven principles satire

With apologies to my wife, but my mind works in strange and unusual ways... I see this story and my mind thinks this...

The Seven Principles of Ethics for Scientists (Alternative)

• Ensure that you wear a white lab coat, have unkempt hair, and carry a scientific device at all times. This will reassure the public that you are a genuine scientist, and know what you are doing.
  
• Keep the Tesla coils clean at all times - this is more energy efficient and therefore environmentally friendly.
  
• Try not to antagonise the villagers who live in the shadow of your forbidden castle. They are ignorant and superstitious, and very quick to burn your castle down, whether you are raising the dead or merely performing some midnight titration.
  
• Insane cackling after midnight is considered impolite. Keep the volume down during working hours. Consider a short insane chuckle as an alternative.
  
• Treat your hunchbacked assistants well. You may rely on them to take a pitchfork for you in the future.
  
• Where possible, avoid re-animating the dead, or recreating extinct species. This only leads to trouble, and can hinder your chances at future funding, particularly as these creatures are known to turn on their masters and creators.
  
• Death rays are wicked cool, but generally frowned upon. If you must invent them, keep them for private consumption.

Tax needn't be taxing, but it may break your back...

Tags: Tolley's Yellow Tax Handbook complex verbose small print

Back in my third year of law school, I did tax law. At that time, I had to purchase (and know inside and out) Tolley's Yellow Tax Handbook and Tolley's Orange Tax Handbook. The Yellow Book came in two parts (one thick book, two thin books, called Part I, Part IIa and Part IIb respectively), and the Orange Book came in one volume as thick as the first Yellow Book. The pages were thin, the print tiny. This was a book that ruined the eyesight of many a student. Heavy buggers too.

I pity the law student of today. I only had to deal with almost 6000 pages of Toley's. Tax law has become so complex that the Tolley's Yellow Tax Handbook alone now stands at close to 10,000 pages spread across four volumes. Ouch. that's only because they crammed more words per page than they had previously, by reducing white space and font size (an amazing feat in itself, I didn't think the text could get much smaller!). Had they not done that, it would have covered 5 volumes and been about 10,500 pages - again, still not including the Orange Tax Handbook!

And this gets released every year. If you use an out of date version, you are likely going to get questions about tax wrong. How many trees are dying to teach UK law students about tax?

It used to be that if a child spent all his time alone in his bedroom, steadily going blind and hunched over, his parents might assume he was doing something solitary and filthy. Now, they could be secretly studying tax law. And that is disgusting and shameful...

Freedom of conscience means accepting ideas you find abhorrent

Tags: Mark Walker BNP suspended teacher Sunnydale Community College freedom of thought

Hang around my blog long enough, and you start to get a feel for the issues I'm passionate about. Human rights, and particularly the freedoms of speech, conscience and thought are particular interests.

One of my favourite quotes is by Adlai Stevenson - "My definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular." And what does such unpopularity entail? Well, it might be that you advocate greater rights for sections of society that have been traditionally shunned. Those who advocate reform of prisons, those who campaigned for the abolition of the death penalty - these were and are "unpopular" opinions, and in our free society, we can say things that go against the sentiments of the mob.

There is a darker side to this freedom, and it is the price we pay for freedom of speech. It means we have to accept opinions we don't want to hear. It means that if you are a religious cleric, you can advocate the death penalty for someone who claims your religion is violent. It means that if you believe the rubbish printed in the Mail or Express, you are free to spout it. Other members of society may not like it, but we all have to accept it. My opinions may not chime with you, but if I want to have the right to express my opinions, I have to accept your right to express yours.

Which is why, despite the fact that his political affiliation reveals him to be somewhat ignorant, vile and unpleasant, Mark Walker should be reinstated to his position as a Technology teacher at Sunnydale Community College, County Durham. You cannot suspend an employee for their political opinions, no matter how ill-informed, racist, sick, twisted and vile they may be. So long as he can do his job effectively and impartially (and for all I know, he may be a brilliant Technology teacher) then he must be allowed to continue in his work. It is not for an employer to dictate how an employee votes, or thinks, or what his politics are.

If his membership of the type of political party that our grandparents' generation laid down their lives to defeat interfered with his work, then it would be a different issue. If he refused to help, teach, or even allow in his class black children, Asian children, Muslim children, the children of immigrants and asylum seekers, or gay children (which would be in accordance with, presumably, his personal politics since the BNP hate these groups) then he would be failing in his job, and only then should action be taken. But I have to agree - had he been looking at the websites of the Green Party, or the Commission for Racial Equality, then he would not have had action taken against him. Without further evidence of discrimination against children, or attempts to indoctrinate them, then it appears he is being punished for his political affiliations, and that is not acceptable in a free and democratic society.

If he can retain sufficient intelligence and just enough shreds of common decency and humanity to allow him to get through the day teaching before descending back into the twisted, vindictive, hateful and intellectually vacant brand of hate-fueled politics that the BNP represents, then fair play to him - let the man teach. Revoke this suspension. It is shameful, and plays into the hands of BNP rhetoric - "they want to ban us because we are right". Rather, we ought to expose the BNP to the full rigour of critical thinking and honest debate. Only then can you expose how wrong-headed their arguments are.

It's all about freedom of thought. He must be free to have his own opinions, no matter how wrong someone else feels they are.

Just as I am free to have mine.