Are they truly so ignorant that they don’t realise those worries exist? So arrogant that they can’t be bothered to address them? Or do they simply not have a valid argument in their favour?

http://badconscience.com/2009/06/01/dna-database-the-governments-distrust-of-citizens/

The original post isn’t great, but the comments thread brings out a good point: that it’s minority groups that are dispraportionately likely to be affected by things like ID cards (and compulsory DNA sampling).

This post was mentioned on Twitter by libcon: DNA Sampling: Wrong in principle, wrong in practice http://bit.ly/aRIP9O...

However, since Stuart asked in the comments – I’m a Labour member and I think it is a very stupid strategy.

It reminds me a little bit of the 2006 local election campaign, when Labour organisers got told to make the campaign all about how the other parties were soft on crime, up until the point a week before the election when Charles Clarke let out all the foreign criminals.

Looking at the other thread as well, both Labour and the Lib Dems seem to think that running right-wing campaigns on crime is a vote winner. It isn’t.

I struggle with the arguments both for and against DNA retention. If an individual is arrested but not prosecuted, it should be a matter of course to delete DNA data as quickly as possible. Ditto if DNA is voluntarily provided.

The problem for me is with retention of DNA data for others: those who are prosecuted and found guilty or not guilty or not proven. The technology is imperfect in the real world and should only be used as secondary evidence. The identification probabilities that apply to a specimen collected in a lab do not apply to a crime scene sample. And reliance on a technological fix for a sociological problem can only lead to bad police investigations.

For those found not guilty or not proven, my gut instinct is that the data should be deleted. If an individual is suspected of a further crime, then get a fresh DNA sample, even if that requires subterfuge. That rule permits DNA database searches for a close match, but the database would be much smaller. It puts the onus on the police to identify suspects rather than target mistaken biological matches.

And if found guilty, how long should DNA data be retained? I really don’t think that there are any hard rules for this. Why should the same rule apply to a white collar fraudster as a white collar serial rapist?

I further find it repugnant that any politician would use such a tricky question as a political argument.

Are we so unconvinced by the positive case for Labour that we have to resort to this crude exploitation of the fear card?

Have a look around the ‘net at some ‘police interaction’ message boards and blogs. Enlightening to read.