There’s a disturbing article on LabourList written by a Labour candidate for a Southend Borough Council seat, which is unashamedly defending the DNA database on the following, very worrying, assumption:

everyone is a potential criminal

Just like every Muslim is a potential terrorist, yeah? So that’s why we can lock people up for 28 days, which the government wanted extended to 90 days, without sufficient evidence to be charged. It’s similar logic, that we should suspect everyone, which leads down the path to an authoritarian state. Why am I a potential criminal? I haven’t been charged, or convicted, or even arrested for any crimes. Why should my DNA be held by the government? What about my right to privacy, as enshrined under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights? Previous rulings have proven that the government’s underhand tactic of holding on to innocents’ DNA in order to create a behind-the-scenes database does not work alongside human rights legislation. Does Zarb-Cousin advocate the removal or defacing of the Human Rights Act 1998 in order for it to fit in with the government’s desire to harvest our DNA?

He points out:

Not only has the current database helped convict 270 people in the last year, but also the use of DNA has released innocent people from wrongful inprisonment.

I don’t think anyone disputes its effectiveness. But Zarb-Cousin is chasing the wrong counter arguments. Many of those who are against the database aren’t necessarily against it because, as he puts it:

the only logical objection I could possibly have to it is if I planned to commit a crime in the near future

We’re against it because it is a total infringement of our civil liberties. We’re against it because DNA evidence can be fabricated, as can be seen in this recent report by Forensic Scientists International: Genetics, whereby scientists found:

It turns out that standard molecular biology techniques such as PCR, molecular cloning, and recently developed whole genome amplification (WGA), enable anyone with basic equipment and know-how to produce practically unlimited amounts of in vitro synthesized (artificial) DNA with any desired genetic profile. This artificial DNA can then be applied to surfaces of objects or incorporated into genuine human tissues and planted in crime scenes. Here we show that the current forensic procedure fails to distinguish between such samples of blood, saliva, and touched surfaces with artificial DNA, and corresponding samples with in vivo generated (natural) DNA. Furthermore, genotyping of both artificial and natural samples with Profiler Plus® yielded full profiles with no anomalies.

Worrying, eh? That your DNA can be re-created artificially and placed at a crime scene. The government and police force want your DNA. The alarm bells in your head should be not only ringing, but smashing through your skull. Whilst I doubt that the current administration would abuse it, I certainly wouldn’t put it past them. Plus, police officers have been known to stage a fit-up, or two. What if a member of the constabulary, with a couple of sciencey contacts, had a score to settle? Maybe I’m being conspiratorial. But what about twenty years down the line? We don’t know who will be in control of this country. You may be willing to give up your DNA and your liberties to the current administration, but what if fascists take control in the future? It might seem far-fetched, but these things happen.

How about another, “what if”? We know that the government take a dim-view of protesters. What if, after an anti-government demonstration, they swabbed litter or placards that have been left behind? They’d be able to identify who was at the protest. They could compile a list of dissenters to keep under surveillance. Well, they sort of already do this, but couldn’t a DNA database be abused to make it easier to identify dissenting voices?

Zarb-Cousin’s article seems well-intentioned. However, he is, naively in my opinion, advocating the handing back of individual liberty to the state. He cites a recent murder on his street, and argues that a DNA database would help to catch this criminal quicker. But there are bigger and more long-term issues at hand.

Whilst he may trust his Labour bretherin, I don’t. And I certainly can’t forsee the future. So, we should be clutching on to our hard-won freedoms as tightly as possible. Today’s ‘friendly state’ is tomorrow’s fascist regime.

Let’s not give them a headstart.