token
VIP Member
Posts: 766
Likes: 575
|
Post by token on Apr 26, 2017 19:12:03 GMT 10
Yes, this is something i have thought about numerous times. Especially given the fact that i have seen personally open cases closed by pinning them on the wrong folk they broke down.
If someone has your DNA, then it is also easy to place some of it at the scene of a crime also.
Thing is, its easy to get it, just tale a person, wait for them to park their car and go for a walk, then swab really well the underside of the drivers side handle where your hand goes all the time, bam! You now have the persons DNA, and the only thing they might be able to pin on you is 'trespass' or 'damage' due to touching their car. I watched a show where detectives did this because the fella on an old case refused to hand over his DNA.
|
|
landy
Junior Member
Posts: 41
Likes: 52
|
Post by landy on Apr 26, 2017 19:43:29 GMT 10
www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lawreport/green-light-for-dna/4749602" 'The majority of jurisdictions in Australia (including Victoria and New South Wales) have a system for taking DNA when people are convicted, or where their DNA is needed to investigate the crime for which they have been arrested,' Professor Gans says. 'And if that person is never charged, their DNA has to be removed from the database after a year.' On the other hand, there are some jurisdictions in Australia which go further along the US path. The Northern Territory and Queensland both allow DNA to be taken automatically on arrest for sufficiently serious crimes. That DNA goes on the database and in the Northern Territory's case it stays there forever, even if the person is cleared of the charge they are arrested for. Western Australia has a narrower system which allows DNA to be taken once you are charged with an offence—arrest is not enough. But in South Australia anyone who is even suspected of a crime punishable by imprisonment can have their DNA taken and never given back. The sample stays on the database forever, even if they were instantly cleared of the crime. The SA legislation was a response to a very controversial court ruling—R v. Dean. Up until that point South Australia was more in line with east coast states. In the Dean case, a DNA sample taken in relation to a family assault that did not proceed to court was kept on the database well after the 12 month cut-off. The sample subsequently linked the defendant with the aggravated robbery of a supermarket. Dean argued that the sample should not be used and the evidence should be thrown out. The judge agreed. As a result SA changed the system to allow the indefinite retention of all lawfully obtained samples. " For the Police to use DNA evidence against you they must obtain it legally. They can use private DNA tests results with your consent. Moot point really as they can take a sample when they detain/arrest you. If the medical profession were to collect samples without your consent it may not be used by the police --legally.
|
|
|
Post by SA Hunter on Apr 26, 2017 21:13:57 GMT 10
|
|
australia
Senior Member
Posts: 137
Likes: 127
Location: Bunker
|
Post by australia on Apr 26, 2017 21:47:54 GMT 10
What about samples taken from placenta at birth ? They often ask these days if they can have for medical science ( we were asked ) , Does a sample get stored at birth ?
Plausible maybe
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2017 22:12:49 GMT 10
|
|
token
VIP Member
Posts: 766
Likes: 575
|
Post by token on Apr 29, 2017 20:26:23 GMT 10
Thats a very sad story indeed. I note though from my reading that it was not the DNA that was in question, rather a mix up of the identity of the DNA owner.
|
|
blueshoes
Senior Member
Posts: 608
Likes: 698
Location: Regional Dan-istan
|
Post by blueshoes on Oct 12, 2019 18:29:56 GMT 10
|
|
teflon
New member
Posts: 5
Likes: 12
|
Post by teflon on Oct 12, 2019 22:34:42 GMT 10
DNA is a very powerful resource.
In the wrong hands; (such as a corrupt and/or totalitarian govt); it's abuse is potentially disastrous to an individual's freedom and well-being...
I remember reading somewhere how national census data that was innocently filled-in by citizens of the Weimar Republic in the early 1930's; (including statistical information on ethnicity and religion, eg: "Jew" or "Jehovah Witness", etc); was a few years later used by Hitler and the Nazis as a 'go to' document to start the persecutions and round ups...
Our privacy and personal data including our DNA; facial recognition; finger prints and voice prints; (some of these things being so easily harvested from our mobile phones) - and which may, in the future, become potential tools of exploitation and abuse - after the world has become a different place...
|
|