It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Police want DNA from all arrests

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 01:46 AM

Police want DNA from all arrests

WEST Australian police want the power to take a DNA sample from anyone arrested, even for minor offences such as trespass.

Police can take samples only from people charged with or suspected of committing a serious offence that carries a minimum jail sentence of 12 months.
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 01:46 AM
Another story of rights trying to be eroded.

So all they need to do is to arrest you for any reason, which will give them the power to store your DNA.

Yeah, right. Welcome to the library of the future and we'll all be in the catalog.
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 01:51 AM
I have a friend who informed me that when he was caught doing something he shouldn't (assisting another "friend" in a crime and taking the rap for it, the nutter), he tells me the cops took DNA evidence from him.

I think that means pretty much that we already have DNA databasing in the U.K, and have done for some time now.

I think Australia is playing catch-up where DNA is concerned.

As a secondary concern, i certainly hope they don't intend to use the DNA they have on the database to create clones of us and play havoc with our lives.

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 01:59 AM
That is pretty scary stuff when you think about it. Can you imagine a world 100 years from now, when cloning technology has been perfected and is about as easy as checking you email? The next generation of hackers could be going around commiting crimes and leaving your DNA at the scene. I know it sounds out there but you never know.

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 02:00 AM
there's plenty of "serious" crimes eh !!

Drive while disqualified
Drive under influence
Unlicensed fishing
Refuse to leave licensed premises
Possession of implement
Presenting an overdrawn credit card

All carry max term including jail.

And they want to swab for that?

Now rape, robbery, serious assault, deprivation of liberty etc would be valid IMO

I say NO !



[edit on 7/7/2008 by mungodave]

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 03:05 AM
So, expect every "suspect" to be arrested and swabbed as a matter of policy.
Now, when any charges are subsequently unsubstantiated and dropped and a person is freed without charge, do the DNA and fingerprint records get destroyed? I very much doubt it.

I see a time coming when they'll start to rely more and more on DNA sampling as a means to establisg guilt, more than any actual proof or other evidence, because it's expedient and helps to meet targets.
Imagine being arrested because your fingerprints or DNA were found at a crime scene. These days the burden of proof lies with the defendant, NOT the police so, you'll get banged up on DNA evidence alone. Of course, the DNA evidence does not prove you committed the crime, just that you were at the crime scene at some point in time, likely before it even became a crime scene. If you can't provide witnesses or other evidence showing you were elsewhere at the time the crime was committed then you are screwed.

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 03:29 AM

Originally posted by Britguy
Of course, the DNA evidence does not prove you committed the crime, just that you were at the crime scene at some point in time, likely before it even became a crime scene.

After they clone your DNA and grow tissue samples from it, the only thing that DNA evidence will prove is that your DNA was at the scene of a crime! It won't mean that YOU were at the crime.

Imagine how EASY it will be in the future for any of them to plant your DNA at a crime scene to frame you.

I have a fundamental problem with the whole aspect of law and order. While I agree with punishing GUILTY people, even executing the scum that exist on this planet, I have a fear that innocent people can (and have been) framed.

I consider myself 'law-abiding' despiting hating the law. However, I can see how easy it would be for a few people to hatch a plan to frame me for something and there would be nothing that I could do to fight spending years in jail.

Control measures like these might help locate guilty people, but they will also subject innocent people to some very nasty treatment, whether deliberately, or by consequence of having their DNA present at a crime scene.

Screw this world.

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 03:45 AM
Seems that the creation of the global DNA database is well underway. Here in the states, they’re actually taking blood if you refuse a breath test for drunken driving. I mean that the cops take your blood, not a phlebotomist. Imagine if you’re a hemophiliac or more commonly, a diabetic. You might well bleed to death, or have to suffer through dozens of tries to get a blood sample. I’ve no doubt that all blood samples taken are DNA data based as well. The brave new world is here folks.

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 03:47 AM
If they're going to take DNA from everyone arrested then they might as well just take DNA from everyone at birth.

If they're going to begin a DNA database for adults how about we first have a DNA database for all government officials and employees first, so we can make sure they are who they say they are etc.

First the UK then Australia, coming to the U.S. soon I would guess.

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 03:50 AM
sounds good to me
DNA is just like a finger print

I say go for it

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 04:03 AM
I say put cameras to every living quarter. That is like fingerprint too.

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 04:05 AM
reply to post by PsykoOps

Its nothign like fingerprints what so ever.

Nobody complains that criminals get fingerprinted for identification.

Now the problem is? They can wear gloves. good gloves = no finger prints = no clues

Store their DNA (which is exactly like a fingerprint, everyone has a different version)

and now you increase your chances of solving crimes.

I guess i find comfort in knowing that, no matter if you disagree with me or not, the government does agree with me. If you dont want your DNA collected for reasons of identification

dont break the law :shk:

[edit on 7/7/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 04:10 AM

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
If you dont want your DNA collected for reasons of identification dont break the law :shk:

Do you know what the word arrested means?

It doesn't mean that you have broken the law.

Try looking up what being arrested means and tell me that it only happens if you break the law.

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 04:10 AM
Fortunately, if this happens, its only going to happen in Western Australia...Thank Goodness...

If the jacks think they're getting my DNA when I am ACCUSED of a crime, they can kiss my keester...If I commit a crime, then MAYBE they're on to something, depending on the nature of the crime...

Lucky and proud to be a Victorian

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 05:58 AM
Just suppose you are having an affair.....
you aint leaving the missus and kids.....
she's just a troll anyways....

But she has other plans....

"leave em or else" ....

Then they turn up dead because you told her to take the G string and split....
They find your DNA ( from last night) on the axe handle....

Nah... you wont convince me.

It'll all be too convenient...
And make the cops clean up rate look great.

And here in Aus... we just dont have the jail yards for it.


posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 06:47 AM
I was 'arrested' many years ago on a trumped up charge, The police said I tried to steal a car ie break the window and then get in to start it up. Now the story is I squeezed inbetween the mirror and the railing the car was parked next to to get past, The police car that was passing arrested me and took me across the road to the police station ( like I'd try to steal a car from outisde the bloody police station anyway).
They later said I damaged the car but couldn't prove any of this.
So fast forward to today or tomorrow, will the police forces try to demand a DNA sample for even this fookup?
If they did I'd have to say you can have a sample IF and WHEN I'm found guilty. As to try and get a sample from me before is a breach of human rights and a physical violation, when they stick the bud in your mouth and take cells from your body.
I'd have to say that any use of said DNA either in storage of on record if I'm proven innocent is a violation of privacy.
Man this world is heading to a big brother civilisation really fast , I think I want to get off this world..

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 07:35 AM
In America the erosion of civil and constitutional rights has gone unrestricted by our own government that do not have any regards toward the same constitution that they swore to upheld.

In January 5, 2006, a little-noticed piece of legislation entitled the “DNA Fingerprint Act of 2005” was signed into law by President George W. Bush, greatly expanding the government’s authority to collect and permanently retain DNA samples.1 These ninety-nine lines of text, introduced initially by Senator Jon Kyl [R-AZ], slipped virtually unnoticed through the halls of Congress, buried in the back of the broadly popular, 284-page Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) reauthorization bill. Notwithstanding the lack of public reaction and policy debate, this new law raises extraordinary questions for the future of civil liberties. Among
other provisions, it grants the government authority to obtain and permanently store DNA from anyone who is arrested as well as non-U.S. citizens detained under federal authorities.

Actually this is a violation of our Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.”5 The conduct of a “search” generally requires probable cause and a judicial warrant, or at least individualized suspicion.

So as you can see in America people are dumb and blind and our politicians have no regards toward protecting the law abiding citizens of this countries.

The proposed DNA database was first introduced by the UK and is becoming a profitable business supported by the US corporate rule government along with the UK, as usual we the citizens have the right to challenge in the supreme court as per violation of the 4th amendment of the constitution but nobody has done anything about it.

At least when asked to submit DNA testing in the US we can claim a violation of our constitutional Rights under the 4th amendment, but then this will stat an unprecedented step that will take it all he way to the supreme court.

And now a days even our own supreme court is nothing but a another proxy to corporate corruption.

[edit on 7-7-2008 by marg6043]

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 08:43 AM
In Canada here my buddy got his DNA taken for possessing a double bladed knife in his apartment, which was on display like an antique, which it was intended for...

The police had showed up for a noise complaint and decided to invite themselves in when they seen his knife on the shelf with various other things...

I bet he could have fought it in court because he didn't give them permission to enter his house, but after he pleaded guilty to possession of an illegal weapon they took his DNA, just for opening his door... what a shame, really ruined his permanent record.

Then he got fired from my office a week later, jeeze...

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 08:48 AM
Key issues, an objections, relating to the collection of DNA involve primarily two very distinct strong points.

1) Privacy - general: While DNA can be useful towards narrowing or even identifying a particular suspect of an alleged crime; it's protection is not subject to any stringent controls. Local and regional governments will most assuredly contract with local technologically competent private firms to both process and maintain the stored data. This means all the incidental information stored within in persons DNA is available to them. With your DNA sequence specified, mining medical and heritage information becomes open to whomever can access the raw data. While the FBI may not be interested that your genetic makeup predisposes you to kidney disease, the insurance companies would find such information, especially en masse, to be a very valuable addition to their actuarial calculations. How long do you think it would be before legislation was in place to allow those insurance agencies involved in the routine handling of your health information access to DNA information the government has readily available?

2) Expectation of Privacy: A person has a reasonable expectation that those aspects of his life which are personal and concealed from public view will remain so unless their is just cause for a change. Just cause should not include anything other than a reason someone other than himself needs to know to conduct necessary affairs. Hence, it was always assumed that DNA collection would be the result of a crime, or accusation of crime, that necessitates DNA to prove or refute. Should that DNA refute the charges, why should the government keep an imprint of the DNA? Should the DNA prove the defendant guilty, the job is done and again, why should the government keep it?

There are two possible reasons for the large scale collection of DNA, research of the human condition, and eugenics. Neither is a mandate of law enforcement, so I think this DNA collection is both misplaced and open for abuse.

The key indication that this law enforcement trend must be resisted is that it is being implemented out of fear. Fear is an excuse. We should never enact legal policy with excuses - there has to be a legitimate reason to engage in this activity. Private corporations know this is a gold-mine, especially since the government itself has no expertise in the field and will rely on them - regardless of the propriety of their actions.

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 09:12 AM
it is a creep creep process that is gathering with alarming pace *certainly in the UK, can't speak for Australia*

This is a natural consequence of the NEW EUROPE- in the UK, freedom has traditionally been viewed as an automatic right with the state having to justify any intrusion- the opposite appears to be happening now with the state having automatic access and info on us, with the onus on the individual to justify why it should not be collected

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in