"Sheer Practicality" - sheer madness on DNA

The second reading of the Crime and Security Bill got underway on Monday, with Home Secretary Alan Johnson facing contempt from all quarters regarding government plans for the retention of the DNA profiles of innocent people on the national database.

Johnson began by extolling the virtues of the DNA database, claiming that it “has actually been a contributory factor to the astonishing reductions in crime achieved in this country.” The facts, however, provide underwhelming support.

Thankfully, Mr Johnson did address the issue of privacy, stating that “many people find the idea of someone retaining their genetic material disturbing, which is why, this Bill will require all DNA samples - namely, the actual genetic material - to be destroyed after six months. What is retained by the database is the unique 20-digit code that forms the DNA profile.”

Before attending the launch of Big Brother Watch, Conservative MP David Davis was present in the chamber and invoked the example of David Sweeney. In 2004, Mr Sweeney was assaulted by two other men and arrested on a charge of affray, which was then dropped when it became clear that he was not at fault.

Two months ago, however, Mr Sweeney reports that he “dropped a friend off at Manchester Airport and double parked. On returning to my car the police had arrived and given me a ticket. They asked if I was ‘known to the police’ and I said no, having no criminal record. But when they then heard over the radio that I was on the DNA database, they treated me with total contempt—as if I were a serious criminal. ‘You lied to us’, they said. ‘You're on the database. So you’ve obviously done something wrong’”— an interesting assumption— “‘what are you trying to conceal now.’ Sadly, this case is far from unique.

At one point, clearly frustrated by the contempt shown for DNA profiling, Mr Johnson claimed that "after all DNA is a British invention" – granted, we boast an admirable scientific heritage, but our legal system, with those long-forgotten treasures such as Habeas Corpus, is also to be admired.

It was at this point that Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Grayling, asked the pertinent question as to why the government are not proposing a compulsory DNA database for the whole nation. To which the Home Secretary, horrifyingly replied “so far as I am aware, only one country is currently looking at that possibility: the United Arab Emirates. For reasons of sheer practicality, no Government of any persuasion in this country would introduce such a scheme.”

So there we have it: "sheer practicality" is all that stands between our current situation and the biometric data of every man, woman and child in Britain catalogued on a government database. Moreover, the 20-digit code is as close an approximation to the ‘actual genetic material’ as is possible. This is poor trickery by the government; the infringements upon our privacy remain in full view.

By Edward Hockings

- - UPDATE - -

There is a full transcript of Chris Grayling's comments to the House available on Conservative Home and is well worth a read.

Meanwhile, from the same debate, David Davies MP (the Tory MP for Monmouth not to be confused with the terrific Davis) caught the eye of Alex Massie at the Spectator. Proving that not all the Tory MPs are singing from the same hymn sheet on civil liberties.

Comments

[alastair]

"Moreover, the 20-digit code is as close an approximation to the ‘actual genetic material’ as is possible."

NO, NO, NO!!!

Get your facts right, please.

The 20 digit code is a *profile*, which looks at particular sections of DNA and assigns each of them a number. In the case of the U.K., the numbers relate to the number of repetitions in a particular “Short Tandem Repeat” or STR for short. It only looks at 10 loci (different places) in your DNA sequence, and *only* at the counts of these repeated sequences of nucleotides.

This is *NOWHERE NEAR* being “as close an approximation to the ‘actual generic material’ as is possible”. Not even close; your genome consists of approximately 3 billion nucleotide pairs; SGM+ looks at ten locations, and measures the number of repeats at those locations… the numbers are typically in the tens or twenties as far as I can tell, and the STR repeat sequences are four or five units long so we're talking at most 10 * 20 * 5 = 1,000 nucleotides out of a total of 3 billion.

[Chris H]

If the 10 digit code is uniuqe to each inidividual then, for identification purposes, it's just the same as holding the DNA profile itself. With 10 digits that allows for 1 billion unique codes which is plenty to cover the UK population and lots to spare.

[alastair]

@Chris H:

1. It's a 20 digit code.

2. You've made all kinds of (very probably invalid) assumptions about the statistics there. Even if they're uniform (and I have no idea whether they are), there's no reason to suppose that every digit has the full range 0 to 9.

3. "DNA profile" is the name for the collection of digits, *NOT* the name for the original DNA sample.

4. I'm *solely* complaining here about the accuracy of the remarks about the science. The DNA profile is in no way shape or form equivalent to the DNA sample, which is what the author of this post wrote.

[Chris H]

@alastair

1) Yes - 20 digits not 10. I was unable to edit my previous post. Therefore allows for potentially even more unique records.

2) What (very improbable) assumptions have I made? Like you I don't know for sure if each digit is 0-9. So yes - an assumption but perfectly valid. Even if this were not the case, with 20 digits there is still plenty of scope to cater for 1 code per person globally (too late to do the maths). I assume the 20 digit code is unique per person. Again I think is valid as if it's not unique how can DNA samples taken from crime scenes be matched against individuals whose profile is held in the database?

3) I understand that and thank you for clarifying the distinction.

4) I think the main point of contention is that if the 20 digit profile is unique to a person, then it matters not that the actual sample is not retained. If for identification purposes the profile is of equal usefulness then the comparison made in the original article is valid.

[Glenslade]

@ Chris H

The privacy issue with retaining the whole genetic sample is that it could be used for unethical profiling (such as ethnic origin and perhaps in future something like the propensity to commit crimes).

The 'clever' bit with the 20 character profile is that it is taken from parts of the genome that vary between individuals but do not correlate to things like race.

I would happily be on the database. My DNA profile is neither deniable nor in itself subject to stigma or embarassment. Yes, we need to ensure the fact it's a police database is not misconstrued, but that is a much smaller problem than, say, racial discrimination at job interviews.

As for the statistics about the database's contribution to crime solving. I agree it's important to keep the data honest. But I don't think the differences are material to the argument. To solve or prevent even one serious crime is hugely valuable to both the victim and the taxpayer.

[j]

@ Glenslade
"I would happily be on the database"
Fine, that is your choice.
Other people make take the choice not to be happily on the database.
This issue here is DNA being "harvested" by police for trivial "offences" and against the will of the subject.