DNA profiling and ID cards

[Cympil]

He hasnt posted in a while Monsta, missing him?

He`s probably suffering from ingrown hair follicles after waxing his crack

[Malcolm Robinson]

Looks like there is an impressive data base already, and it seems without consent!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jh...MC-new_28052007

[Denzel]

He hasnt posted in a while Monsta, missing him?

Having a prolonged minute's silence following the Bindipper's failure in the Champions League. Black armbands are the order of the day.

[threegee]

So... you've heard my (and other people's) arguments why not. Now see the movie:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6705375.stm

Believe me, if there's one think you will learn as you get older it's that you can't trust big government. By the time most people wake up to this fact it could well be too late. You don't have to look too far around our World - or too far back in history - before this stark truth stares you in the face.

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." -- Thomas Jefferson.

[Pete]

Looks like there is an impressive data base already, and it seems without consent!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jh...MC-new_28052007

Several years ago when I first started working for the organization that I work for now, I was informed that I would have to undergo a CIB check. Knowing that I did not have a criminal record I willingly filled in the necessary forms and they were sent off to whoever does these checks.

Two weeks later I was called into the Directors office and asked if I would like to change any of the information that I had given on the CIB form. I replyed saying "no why". I was then informed that my CIB check had revealed that I was guilty of fifty serious offences.

Knowing this was not true I protested and was eventually allowed to have an appointment with a Police Sergent involved in the checks.

I will say at this point that the Police Sergent was very courteous and polite gentleman. However when I was in his office he told me that he saw many people who disagreed with the results of their CIB check, he told me that people want to forget about their past ( he did not use the words that I have used but the meaning was the same.).

He told me that usually when he showed someone their photograph it usually came back to them. I said to him, show me my photograph, he replyed "in this case there is no photograph but we could tell from a DNA sample" I agreed to have a DNA sample taken but he told me that they did not have a DNA sample to match it against.

He finally suggested that a finger print test would prove if it was me or not as they did have finger print evidence. I agreed, had my finger prints taken and a week later I received a letter from the Police saying that I was not the person who had committed the offences. They did return the finger prints to me for me to destroy. One thing that was not in the letter was an apology.

The strange thing was that the person I was being accused of being shared the same sure name as me had a different date of birth and a different first name.

They assured me that the finger prints would not be kept by them and as I have stated they did return them to me for me to destroy.

[Blank]

Wow, Pete thats terrifying!

You should have sued!

[Monsta®]

pete did you work for the mafia or something like? pete the cat burglar i bet! :lol: :lol:

[Pete]

pete did you work for the mafia or something like? pete the cat burglar i bet! :lol: :lol:

It felt like it.

[stu]

Several years ago when I first started working for the organization that I work for now, I was informed that I would have to undergo a CIB check. Knowing that I did not have a criminal record I willingly filled in the necessary forms and they were sent off to whoever does these checks.

Two weeks later I was called into the Directors office and asked if I would like to change any of the information that I had given on the CIB form. I replyed saying "no why". I was then informed that my CIB check had revealed that I was guilty of fifty serious offences.

Knowing this was not true I protested and was eventually allowed to have an appointment with a Police Sergent involved in the checks.

I will say at this point that the Police Sergent was very courteous and polite gentleman. However when I was in his office he told me that he saw many people who disagreed with the results of their CIB check, he told me that people want to forget about their past ( he did not use the words that I have used but the meaning was the same.).

He told me that usually when he showed someone their photograph it usually came back to them. I said to him, show me my photograph, he replyed "in this case there is no photograph but we could tell from a DNA sample" I agreed to have a DNA sample taken but he told me that they did not have a DNA sample to match it against.

He finally suggested that a finger print test would prove if it was me or not as they did have finger print evidence. I agreed, had my finger prints taken and a week later I received a letter from the Police saying that I was not the person who had committed the offences. They did return the finger prints to me for me to destroy. One thing that was not in the letter was an apology.

The strange thing was that the person I was being accused of being shared the same sure name as me had a different date of birth and a different first name.

They assured me that the finger prints would not be kept by them and as I have stated they did return them to me for me to destroy.

Pete you can be damn sure your prints are still on file,you'd be a mug to think otherwise!

Be safe.

[Malcolm Robinson]

Several years ago when I first started working for the organization that I work for now, I was informed that I would have to undergo a CIB check. Knowing that I did not have a criminal record I willingly filled in the necessary forms and they were sent off to whoever does these checks.

Two weeks later I was called into the Directors office and asked if I would like to change any of the information that I had given on the CIB form. I replyed saying "no why". I was then informed that my CIB check had revealed that I was guilty of fifty serious offences.

Knowing this was not true I protested and was eventually allowed to have an appointment with a Police Sergent involved in the checks.

I will say at this point that the Police Sergent was very courteous and polite gentleman. However when I was in his office he told me that he saw many people who disagreed with the results of their CIB check, he told me that people want to forget about their past ( he did not use the words that I have used but the meaning was the same.).

He told me that usually when he showed someone their photograph it usually came back to them. I said to him, show me my photograph, he replyed "in this case there is no photograph but we could tell from a DNA sample" I agreed to have a DNA sample taken but he told me that they did not have a DNA sample to match it against.

He finally suggested that a finger print test would prove if it was me or not as they did have finger print evidence. I agreed, had my finger prints taken and a week later I received a letter from the Police saying that I was not the person who had committed the offences. They did return the finger prints to me for me to destroy. One thing that was not in the letter was an apology.

The strange thing was that the person I was being accused of being shared the same sure name as me had a different date of birth and a different first name.

They assured me that the finger prints would not be kept by them and as I have stated they did return them to me for me to destroy.

Listen to the people willing to give away the very very few rights we have coz that can't happen Pete, you must have dreamt it!!!!!!! What if one of those offences was an outstanding arrest you would have been in deep do do and all because of a mistake by the "state"! Never mind databases etc it is time for a proper constitution.

[Pete]

Listen to the people willing to give away the very very few rights we have coz that can't happen Pete, you must have dreamt it!!!!!!! What if one of those offences was an outstanding arrest you would have been in deep do do and all because of a mistake by the "state"! Never mind databases etc it is time for a proper constitution.

Malcolm, When you think about it logical and I did see the offences that I was supposed to have committed, they were very serious offences, if each of those offences carried a two year sentence I would be more that a 100 years old.

What I would like to know is what criteria was used in their database search (query) to produce this result.

I still have the letter from the Police clearing me of these offences as they told me that it would probably happen again if I had to have another CIB check. Fortunately I have had other CIB checks as the organization that I work for demands this every three year, all have come back completely clear.

[Pete]

Pete you can be damn sure your prints are still on file,you'd be a mug to think otherwise!

Be safe.

Your probably right Stu, but they did assure me that the prints were for elimination purposes only.

[Symptoms]

It's all going to turn into some gruesome Kafkaesque nightmare (of funny Ealing comedy) where we are all going about living our normal lives when some uniformed brute barks, "Your papers please". Under the proposed legislation is wouldn't be an offense to 'fail to carry' but just wait for a quiet amendment to be slipped in later by a future Home Secretary. Your ID would be scanned by the brute's handheld and your details (including your DNA) checked against the central data-base. You get a mis-match (a bit like Pete's situation) and get lifted then disappear into the system. Forget the 28 day detention period - Gordon Brown is reported today as wanting unlimited detention - yes I know it's for terror stuff but just wait for the quiet amendment to extend the measure to all offenses.

Lets not be sidetracked by the spurious arguement that "it's all OK 'cos I've got nothing to hide". Every major IT project commisioned by the Government has, or will fail to meet specification - in other words in won't work properly. You want to trust your freedom to a crippled piece of kit? Your DNA profile will be sold to the commercial sector; so the insurance companies will load-up premiums to individuals belonging to certain groups, jobs will be refused because you belong to some vague group who statistically are pre-disposed to certain behaviour. It doesn't matter that the innocent are harmed.

[Monsta®]

It's all going to turn into some gruesome Kafkaesque nightmare (of funny Ealing comedy) where we are all going about living our normal lives when some uniformed brute barks, "Your papers please". Under the proposed legislation is wouldn't be an offense to 'fail to carry' but just wait for a quiet amendment to be slipped in later by a future Home Secretary. Your ID would be scanned by the brute's handheld and your details (including your DNA) checked against the central data-base. You get a mis-match (a bit like Pete's situation) and get lifted then disappear into the system. Forget the 28 day detention period - Gordon Brown is reported today as wanting unlimited detention - yes I know it's for terror stuff but just wait for the quiet amendment to extend the measure to all offenses.

Lets not be sidetracked by the spurious arguement that "it's all OK 'cos I've got nothing to hide". Every major IT project commisioned by the Government has, or will fail to meet specification - in other words in won't work properly. You want to trust your freedom to a crippled piece of kit? Your DNA profile will be sold to the commercial sector; so the insurance companies will load-up premiums to individuals belonging to certain groups, jobs will be refused because you belong to some vague group who statistically are pre-disposed to certain behaviour. It doesn't matter that the innocent are harmed.

argh! i thought that was a film! next you'll be tell us were to be arrested for future crimes!

[Hamburger Pimp]

It's true. Missvic has already deleted most of your posts from next week.

[Monsta®]

It's true. Missvic has already deleted most of your posts from next week.

that's probably true!

[Blank]

It's all going to turn into some gruesome Kafkaesque nightmare (of funny Ealing comedy) where we are all going about living our normal lives when some uniformed brute barks, "Your papers please". Under the proposed legislation is wouldn't be an offense to 'fail to carry' but just wait for a quiet amendment to be slipped in later by a future Home Secretary. Your ID would be scanned by the brute's handheld and your details (including your DNA) checked against the central data-base. You get a mis-match (a bit like Pete's situation) and get lifted then disappear into the system. Forget the 28 day detention period - Gordon Brown is reported today as wanting unlimited detention - yes I know it's for terror stuff but just wait for the quiet amendment to extend the measure to all offenses.

Lets not be sidetracked by the spurious arguement that "it's all OK 'cos I've got nothing to hide". Every major IT project commisioned by the Government has, or will fail to meet specification - in other words in won't work properly. You want to trust your freedom to a crippled piece of kit? Your DNA profile will be sold to the commercial sector; so the insurance companies will load-up premiums to individuals belonging to certain groups, jobs will be refused because you belong to some vague group who statistically are pre-disposed to certain behaviour. It doesn't matter that the innocent are harmed.

Scary thought.