"Nothing to hide, nothing to fear?", HGC report alleges police abuse of DNA database

[fela fan]

Technology in the hands of stupidity creates modern societies like those in britain, europe and the US.

The real problem is that intelligent people keep away from politics, leaving the field open to those who elevate stupidness into an art.

All these things happening in britain over security and stuff look mad to me. What the fuck is happening to this great country? Millions of cameras watching over us, biometric ID cards, passports that inform the authorities where you are, this dna database, recording every single email and mobile phone call, how totally anti-human is all of this? What madness has afflicted the stupid who gain power over us all?

Nothing to hide, nothing to fear. Whoever says this is proving beyond doubt an alarming lack of brain cells.

At what point will british people reject this gigantic surveillance state that their country has become? Is there any country in the world that has a state who watches its citizens more? Perhaps burma and north korea, but that's hardly a ringing endorsement of britain.

It looks like to me that british people need to wake up from this slumber they're in. Perhaps they're overly addled with their technology...

[obviously there's exceptions, as can be seen here on this thread]

 

[detective-boy]

The forensic service uses 10 loci, when available (fewer when the sample is degraded).

The exact same thing was done with fingerprints - for years there needed to be sixteen points of comparison for a "match" to be stated (that has now changed and there is no set number, the "match" being based on the professional judgment of the expert, involving things like the frequency of a particular feature or whatever, though anything less than 16 points can be expected to get a hard time.

16 points was NOT the whole fingerprint any more than 10 loci is the full profile (let alone the full DNA sequence!)

All of these things you say would be found in the fingeprint collection - millions and millions of partial matches at lower levels of discrimination.

 

[fela fan]

Only by fuckwits (mostly in the media) who don't understand what it is (and isn't).

So the police know about its infallibility? If so, why don't they tell the government it's a waste of time?

 

[detective-boy]

PACE and other laws have imported the Continental view that it's a tool for investigation. This civil law philosophy leads to sweeping police powers. Time we deported it.

I take it, therefore, that you believe we should have a criminal justice system which does not involve (a) anything that the suspect may say (how do you interview them if you do not arrest them?); (b) anything that the suspect may have on them - blod, stolen property, weapons ... (how do you secure it if you do not arrest them?) or (c) anything that the suspect may have in their possession at their premises (how do you search them safely and effectively if you do not arrest them?) ...

Your suggestion is an absolute blueprint for criminals to run riot with absolutely tiny chance of detection and conviction, even compared to todays low levels ...

 

[detective-boy]

We do not know how many people have been identified as suspects and eliminated or cleared at some stage prior to conviction, because those records are not being kept.

Yes, they are. "Being collated and published" is not the same as is implied by "being kept". The FSS (and, I suspect, other scientific organisations) constantly research their match rates and everything else.

What, I would suggest, we do know is that lots and lots and lots of guilty people have been convicted with the help of DNA evidence as there are lots and lots and lots of them who are not protesting their innocence at all ...

 

[ymu]

You are missing an important point and, as a result, comparing apples to oranges.

There have been lots of false positive and false negative fingerprint matches. The situation we have is not that there have never been any of them ... just that when they have been investigated they have been found to be based on a match between parts of a fingerprint or by the very slight differences being miscoded (the pattern of whorls and loops being converted into a digital entry by person (originally) or computer (now).

What we have never seen, so far as I am aware, is two identical full fingerprint sets when thoroughly examined at the minutest level of detail.

That is exactly the same with DNA. The DNA profiling technique is a method of taking a "snapshot" of the DNA sequence of the individual. Theoretically (and I very much suspect this will turn out to be absolutely true) none of us have exactly the same full DNA sequence. But we know that we share a huge amount of similarity (not only with each other but, decreasingly with other chimps, mammals, types of animal ...). Profiling, which is targetted on the areas of the sequence which are known to differ, is effectively like looking at partial fingerprints rather than a full set ... and it is absolutely no surprise to find that some of those results are matched.

But, just like the case with fingerprints, I have not heard of any case in which that match of the snapshot is not later found not to actually be a match when either examined in more detail or with more specific profiling techniques (there are many more techniques in development as science knows that, at present, it is only looking at a snapshot - the "gold standard" is the DNA sequence ... which theoretically will be absolutely unique but which is some way away.)

The problem is not with the technique - it is sufficient to differentiate clearly between individuals in the vast majority of cases. The problem is with understanding of the technique (by police, CPS, Courts) and of what it means. You wouldn't convict someone on the fact that they look like the CCTV image of the suspect alone (though we know that most of us look very different we also know that all of us look very similar to someone somewhere) though it may be (should be) grounds to investigate that individual further. We should treat DNA in that sort of vein.

They found 3 "perfect" 13 loci matches in a database of 30,000 people.

Total number of comparisons made = (30,000/2)*29,999 = 449, 985,000, or about half a billion.

The theoretical odds of a chance "perfect" match on 13 loci is approximately one in a quadrillion.

There has been no further research to ascertain the reasons for these seemingly impossible matches. Until there has been, don't you think it would be wise to say "we don't know"?

 

[detective-boy]

It's a moral and logical mess.

Indeed.

These poor buggers, who have already served two-week sentences, are still being spoken of by the authorities as if they were guilty of something.

How the media treat arrest, charge and conviction, and their failure to effectively differentiate between them, is at the heart of the problem. They are entirely irresponsible. If they cannot act responsibily they should have their toys taken away and should be prevented from reporting anything about a prosecution (and the defendant) until the point of conviction.

 

[detective-boy]

If the police were obliged to charge or release within 24 hours (as they should be), they wouldn't have arrested with so little evidence.

The flip side of which would be that more murderous attacks (terrorist or otherwise) would take place whilst police suspected but did not intervene ...

 

[detective-boy]

A database with millions of records is most definitely harder to search, as I should know, as I write them for a living and I'm fixing one right at this moment.

That wasn't the question.

The question was whether there was a significant delay to the process caused by searching a larger rather than a smaller databse. I defy you to produce any evidence that searching a profile against the current DNA database takes anything more than a minute or two longer than searching a database of three profiles or more than a minute or two less than searching a database of the entire country ....

 

[detective-boy]

Why are you saying that a warrant in the Canadian case is pointless bureaucracy, and then adding later on that a warrant acts as a deterrent against malicious or frivolous action? Why is it OK in one case, and not in another?

It was a fuck up - the latter bit wasn't my words - it was the last bit of Azrael's post which I was replying to - this one:

*edited to add* And a warrant's usefulness doesn't just lie in it being refused. Making the police go to the trouble of attending a court and testifying to a judge if they want to search a person or property is an excellent way to discourage frivolous or malicious searches, and usefully, allows corrupt officers to be prosecuted for perjury. Classic separation of powers, and nothing to do with bureaucracy.

which I'd mistakenly left behind. Sorry.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

How the media treat arrest, charge and conviction, and their failure to effectively differentiate between them, is at the heart of the problem. They are entirely irresponsible. If they cannot act responsibily they should have their toys taken away and should be prevented from reporting anything about a prosecution (and the defendant) until the point of conviction.

This was a senior police officer who was speaking. What the media failed to do in this instance, as they so often do, was to pull him up for it.

As for restrictions on the reporting of arrests, I wouldn't object to that. Plenty of people who are subsequently cleared are put through the mill of media attention for no reason other than titillation. If there is no public interest in the reporting – for instance, there would be if, say, a serial killer were apprehended – I see no 'right' to report.

The flip side of which would be that more murderous attacks (terrorist or otherwise) would take place whilst police suspected but did not intervene ...

Is it? Are we safer now? No, we're not – we face the new danger of arbitrary arrest and detention by the authorities. 24 hours is plenty long enough. Too long, I'd say – I see no reason why it cannot be 12 hours. What purpose does longer detention serve?

 

[detective-boy]

So the police know about its infallibility? If so, why don't they tell the government it's a waste of time?

I think you mean fallability ...

But there is a difference between understanding it's limitations and what it can / can't do and saying it is "a waste of time". It is anything but a waste of time. It is without any doubt the most important development in investigative science since fingerprints and, with time, will probably eclipse that (though there are lots more ethical bridges to cross - once we can do an entire DNA sequence from the DNA of a single cell found at a crime scene and we are able to get a computer to tell us all about who it belongs to by fully understanding the impact of each and every gene we would (theoetically) be able to create a living, breathing identikit of the suspect ...)

 

[detective-boy]

There has been no further research to ascertain the reasons for these seemingly impossible matches. Until there has been, don't you think it would be wise to say "we don't know"?

You are entirely ignoring my point about our current process looking at a snapshot of a bit of a massive sequence that we know has huge amounts of similarity between individuals and even between species. Why should we expect there not to be any partial matches or even some complete matches of the snapshot?

 

[ymu]

You are entirely ignoring my point about our current process looking at a snapshot of a bit of a massive sequence that we know has huge amounts of similarity between individuals and even between species. Why should we expect there not to be any partial matches or even some complete matches of the snapshot?

Read it again.

They were 13 loci matches. We currently use 10.

13 is considered "perfect" as there is no SGM+ test in routine use that assesses more sites.

They found 3 matches in half a billion comparisons, for something that should only happen once in a quadrillion tests. Theoretically.

Why are we still using theoretical probabilities of chance matches when we now have DNA databases which would allow us to establish the probabilities empirically? Why is that?

 

[detective-boy]

This was a senior police officer who was speaking. What the media failed to do in this instance, as they so often do, was to pull him up for it.

The relevant word there is "senior" ... I cringe when I hear some of the ill-informed shite that they come out with ...

Is it?

Yes, most definitely. The issue is where we as a society draw the line. Personally I believe we should move a little towards risking attack and away from arrest on less evidence ... but if we could be grown up about what arrest means (and dosn't mean) and put in place appropriate safeguards and compensation arrangements for those later found to be arrested on (genuine) suspicion but (on further investigation) found to be innocent then we could move a little way back from risking attack.

That is NOT the general consensus though - look at the "Why didn't you arrest and lock up the 7/7 bombers ... one of them had appeared as a vague associate of a known terrorism suspect ..." furore when it came out that police knew of them but had not concluded that they had sufficient grounds to arrest. Or the "Why was this madman not locked up / let out early" whenever there is a murder by someone known for violence or whatever.

 

[detective-boy]

Theoretically.

Based on (effectively) guesswork (though the FSS and others do use their databases to inform their frequency estimates (and that work has, over the years, massively reduced the quoted figures

Why are we still using theoretical probabilities of chance matches when we now have DNA databases which would allow us to establish the probabilities empirically? Why is that?

I don't know. I would have no problem with the data being used for that. I suspect the issue is one of how the results would be interpreted by the public / media (I can see the (entirely misleading) "DNA is fucking useless!" tabloid headlines and Richard Littledick's "Who, oh, why" column now ... ). It may also be a work in progress.

 

[ymu]

It's better to get it right now than to allow legitimate uses of DNA evidence to be discredited completely by association.

There are statistically sound ways to use DNA databases, but they are not being used.

If you read Azrael's link, you'll know that the FBI is blocking research on CODIS. They've been wrangling over it in the courts for a few years now. Some searches have been forced through by individual judges (and determined lawyers) - but most courts have refused to allow/insist on them, under threat of their state being removed from the CODIS system.

No research has been done into why this theoretically impossible number of matches has arisen from the searches they have done.

 

[ymu]

I don't know. I would have no problem with the data being used for that. I suspect the issue is one of how the results would be interpreted by the public / media (I can see the (entirely misleading) "DNA is fucking useless!" tabloid headlines and Richard Littledick's "Who, oh, why" column now ... ). It may also be a work in progress.

So if it is, in fact, is fucking useless (due to the current way it is being used), we shouldn't find out because the media will make a big fuss?

That seems to be the FBI's take on it too.

 

[detective-boy]

So if it is, in fact, is fucking useless (due to the current way it is being used), we shouldn't find out because the media will make a big fuss?

That seems to be the FBI's take on it too.

Please don't resort to telling me what I think and misrepresenting my posts.

That is not what I said, not least because I do not consider it is "fucking useless" and, as I have repeatedly posted, I would argue that the evidence available is anything but it is "fucking useless".

You seem to conflate the effectiveness of the technique as a way of identifying a person from physica trace evidence with the use of statistics in the communication of the result of using that technique and, because you have issues with the latter (which, as a statistician, you do understand in detail) you state categorically that there are issues with the former (which, as you are not an investigator and / or physical scientist, you do not understand in such detail).

There most definitely are issues in the use of the statistics. There are, in my experience, far, far less issues in the effectiveness of the technique itself. It is infinitely more reliable than facial identification or blood grouping (which was it's immediate predecessor) and it is getting better all the time as the science develops and the knowledge improves.

Personally I believe the debate should be had in public ... but I can thoroughly understand the reluctance to do so because of the damage to the public interest which would be caused by irresponsible and inaccurate / hysterical media coverage (look at the damage caused to the health of children by the MMR / autism shite ...).

 

[Azrael]

Before you base a wholesale change of the process on [police arresting to seize DNA], I think you need to get it into perspective.

Preventing needless arrests is just one of several reasons I think police should be obliged to get a search warrant to seize DNA, although from the way it was described, it sounds endemic. (The Telegraph reported rank-and-file officers voicing the same attitude.) You seem to want it both ways with this: you take the smooth-running of the Canadian CJS as proof warrants aren't needed; but if they did prove a burden, as you describe pre-PACE, you'd take that as grounds to abolish them. I don't agree about the Canadian situation. Canadian police will know not to apply if the evidence is insufficient: if so, warrants are doing their job, in preventing unreasonable search and seizure.

I take the view of the 1928 Commission on Police Powers, that the police should be citizens in uniform, and have as few powers as possible that are not available to regular Joes and Jills. Also, there's no reason that prisoners should automatically loose rights upon arrest. Having the police authorize themselves is a serious conflict of interest. Logically, there's no reason they couldn't remand suspects on the same grounds. (They've already requested that custody-extensions be handed over to a superintendent.) Or even conduct trials.

If JPs are insufficiently rigorous or available, it's an argument for better training for JPs, a higher burden of proof for warrants, and night-courts. Likewise, if officers are too lazy to get a warrant if reasonable provision has been made, they're not fit for purpose in general. It's reason to retrain or dismiss them, not remove rights!

You entirely ignore that DNA is important in far, far more of the most serious cases ... largely because of cost - it could be used in solving lots of thefts from motor vehicles and burglaries ... but the cost can't be justified.

Perhaps if the government weren't wasting money databasing people for the most petty misdemeanours, DNA could be used in more cases.

They should be searched against the database at that point.

Can't agree, since that's a fishing trip, which violates due process. Good point about bureaucracy and taking samples on conviction.

What is it that you are concerned about? [...] The intrusiveness of the sample itself? (my DNA is more personal to me than my fingerprints)

This. DNA reveals far more info than fingerprints, which reveal, well, the contours of my fingertip.

I take it, therefore, that you believe we should have a criminal justice system which does not involve (a) anything that the suspect may say (how do you interview them if you do not arrest them?); (b) anything that the suspect may have on them - blod, stolen property, weapons ... (how do you secure it if you do not arrest them?) or (c) anything that the suspect may have in their possession at their premises (how do you search them safely and effectively if you do not arrest them?) ...

That's a radical interpretation of the text. I've no problem with a search of the prisoner incident to arrest, nor do I have a problem with the police interviewing them. I just don't think it should be grounds for extending custody.

Your suggestion is an absolute blueprint for criminals to run riot with absolutely tiny chance of detection and conviction, even compared to todays low levels ...

Yet when we had that system, crime appears to have been low. We abolish a raft of due process safeguards, yet crime is high, and our prisons crammed to bursting. It looks like procedural safeguards don't increase crime at all. Canada has this system, as do Australia, New Zealand, and, to a lesser degree, Scotland.

The flip side of which would be that more murderous attacks (terrorist or otherwise) would take place whilst police suspected but did not intervene ...

Example of one such attack, please. American police generally have 48 hours to charge and release. New York police have only 24 hours, but it hasn't stopped them arresting and charging several would-be terrorists.

In the post 9/11 panic, Canada introduced a law that allowed police to hold terrorist suspects for three days of "preventative detention". It was used once, generally thought to be a draconian waste of time, and was repealed in 2007.

 

[Azrael]

Is it? Are we safer now? No, we're not – we face the new danger of arbitrary arrest and detention by the authorities. 24 hours is plenty long enough. Too long, I'd say – I see no reason why it cannot be 12 hours. What purpose does longer detention serve?

To clarify on the 24 hours point, it's not just about the duration of detention without charge, but its purpose. (A point the Lib Dems completely missed, or ignored, in supporting two weeks of detention without charge.) I take the traditional common law view and oppose any detention for the purpose of investigation, including Scotland's six hours.

My purpose in supporting 24 hours is to give the police time to bring a suspect before a magistrate. The police need sufficient time to book a suspect, find a magistrate, and prepare evidence to present in court. 24 hours should be an upper limit, not routine. The prisoner should be charged before a JP/judge "as soon as is practical", to quote the common law view.

 

[detective-boy]

If JPs are insufficiently rigorous or available, it's an argument for better training for JPs, a higher burden of proof for warrants, and night-courts. Likewise, if officers are too lazy to get a warrant if reasonable provision has been made, they're not fit for purpose in general. It's reason to retrain or dismiss them, not remove rights!

I have no problem with suspects having rights. My point is that what you are advocating would actually make no (or, at best, very little difference) and cost a huge amount in added bureaucracy. If you want to genuinely improve rights at less cost, put in place an effective, independent dip-sample of the search, etc. authorisations made by the police. That would confirm what I am saying: there is no wholesale breaching of the rules going on. The same body could also be charged with investigating specific complaints of breaches. I would suggest that the IPCC would be the appropriate body to have it's remit increased rather than invent another one ... but you will no doubt disagree.

Can't agree, since that's a fishing trip, which violates due process. Good point about bureaucracy and taking samples on conviction.

I am afraid you are in a tiny minority who believe it would be right for (eg) south-east London's night stalker rapist to repeatedly pass through police hands without them having any way of knowing or for (eg) a wanted paedophile to repeatedly pass through police hands without them having any way of knowing ...

That's a radical interpretation of the text. I've no problem with a search of the prisoner incident to arrest, nor do I have a problem with the police interviewing them. I just don't think it should be grounds for extending custody.

No, it isn't. It's the actual effect of what you advocate. None of that could practically be achieved (at least in any sort of efficient / effective way) without arrest and detention (How do you search someone if you don't stop them wandering off (i.e. arrest them)?)

Example of one such attack, please.

7/7. The police knew of links but were gathering more evidence when the attack happened. Surely you've noticed how they've been slagged off for that!

I take the traditional common law view and oppose any detention for the purpose of investigation, including Scotland's six hours.

You must, therefore, accept massive post-charge delays, and the right to carry out post-charge investigative interviews, before the prosecution are expected to be able to proceed with the case. If you do not, you simply display your absolute ignorance of the investigative process.

 

[SpookyFrank]

I take the traditional common law view and oppose any detention for the purpose of investigation, including Scotland's six hours.

I'm confused about Scotland. It seemed to me when I got lifted for troublemaking north of the border that because you are charged at the point of arrest they can more or less keep you in as long as they feel like it. I was in the cells for well over 24 hours and I'm pretty sure no actual investigation was taking place during that time

 

[detective-boy]

I'm confused about Scotland. It seemed to me when I got lifted for troublemaking north of the border that because you are charged at the point of arrest they can more or less keep you in as long as they feel like it. I was in the cells for well over 24 hours and I'm pretty sure no actual investigation was taking place during that time

You must be charged within 6 hours. There are then rules about putting you in front of a Court (I think they are pretty much the same as in the rest of the UK, i.e. next available and max. 24hrs (not counting Sun / Bank Hols)). The issue of bail or being kept in custody is pretty much the same as the rest of the UK.

There is nothing to stop them investigating the matter whilst you remain in custody ... but I don't think they are able to re-interview you after charge any more than they can in the rest of the UK where PACE applies.

Azrael is arguing for a return to the days when investigative detention was not used (not least because anything said by the defendant was simply not admissible at trial at all, even if they wanted it used!). Any competent investigator or lawyer would explain that in those days conviction by a jury was pretty much entirely based on wheher or not they liked the cut of your jib, whether they believed your witnesses or the prosecution witnesses as there was basically no investigative science available to provide other sources of evidence even if you wanted to look. That simply was NOT a better or fairer system - yes, trials took place quicker and suspects were charged almost immediately ... but justice was a lottery. Only a befuddled fool would argue for a return to that (which is what Azrael is doing when you take their points as a whole, regardless of their protestations that they are not - if you do not have investigative pre-charge detention you effectively remove a whole raft of sources of potential evidence).

 

[detective-boy]

The police need sufficient time to book a suspect, find a magistrate, and prepare evidence to present in court. 24 hours should be an upper limit, not routine.

Your ignorance is fucking spectacular!

How the fuck do you expect to be able to take dozens of statements; conduct house-to-house enquiries; search several premises; conduct detailed crime scene examinations; run all the scientific tests on fingerprints, DNA, fibres, tool marks, shoe marks, etc; establish if there is useful evidence on mobile phones, hand held computer devices, computers, etc and all the other things that are required by the Courts in 24 fucking hours.

Or do you think we should just turn up with whatever we've managed to cobble together in 24 hours and see how we go ...

You're just simply nuts!

 

[littlebabyjesus]

if you do not have investigative pre-charge detention you effectively remove a whole raft of sources of potential evidence

What compensation would you offer to those not charged, then? £200 for the first day, perhaps, rising to £500 per day thereafter, to come directly from the police budget. There needs to be something, plus legal safeguards to ensure that employers cannot sack you for your enforced absence. Arbitrary detention can wreck lives, d-b.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Your ignorance is fucking spectacular!

How the fuck do you expect to be able to take dozens of statements; conduct house-to-house enquiries; search several premises; conduct detailed crime scene examinations; run all the scientific tests on fingerprints, DNA, fibres, tool marks, shoe marks, etc; establish if there is useful evidence on mobile phones, hand held computer devices, computers, etc and all the other things that are required by the Courts in 24 fucking hours.

Or do you think we should just turn up with whatever we've managed to cobble together in 24 hours and see how we go ...

You're just simply nuts!

So length of detention should be determined by the state of technology and resources? If a new technique is developed that takes two months to carry out, should the length of detention be extended to two months? This kind of investigation can be carried out after charge. The point is that there should be enough evidence for a prima facie case before anyone is arrested. Otherwise, you are simply depriving innocent people of their liberty on the say-so of a policeman's hunch. Sorry, d-b, but my experience with the police has shown me that most coppers are simply not bright enough to be entrusted with such power.

ETA: What is nuts is the idea that a person's right to liberty should be a movable feast, to be changed at the whim of the authorities as technology improves, as decided by coppers. What you advocate is a police state, nothing less.

 

[detective-boy]

Arbitrary detention can wreck lives, d-b.

No-one's talking about arbitrary detention, just an acknowledgement of the real world we live in which must involve some level of intervention "on reasonable grounds to suspect" and, thus, will inevitably sometimes interfere with entirely innocent people's lives.

I would have absolutely no problem with some protection in employment law preventing any action being taken simply on the basis of an arrest on suspicion of something - for action to be justified it would need to be based on evidence (perhaps some or all of that being the grounds for arrest / prosecution if relevant) or a conviction.

And this sort of thing only "wrecks lives" because we allow the media and others to (a) peddle inaccuracy and ignorance and (b) misrepresent the facts and sensationalise things which are not, of themselves, sensational.

There is no choice in this matter: we simply cannot have an effective society / criminal justice system where we only ever allow the police to act on "knowing" something - we must have power to investigate stuff and that must include the power to ask questions / search premises, etc. and so, if that is the case, we must ensure that "no smoke without fire" reporting and attitudes are banished.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

And this sort of thing only "wrecks lives" because we allow the media and others to (a) peddle inaccuracy and ignorance and (b) misrepresent the facts and sensationalise things which are not, of themselves, sensational.

.

The kids who spent two weeks in jail before being unceremoniously kicked out of the country will no doubt recover, but their plans for study and future employment will have been blown out of the water. I think you underestimate the effect of being thrown into prison for days or weeks when there is no good evidence against you.

As I understand it, the level of evidence you need to make a charge is not the level you need for conviction. I repeat – before arrest, there should be enough evidence for a charge. Take someone in for questioning, fine. But 'questioning' is something that should be measured in hours, not days.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

No-one's talking about arbitrary detention, just an acknowledgement of the real world we live in which must involve some level of intervention "on reasonable grounds to suspect" and, thus, will inevitably sometimes interfere with entirely innocent people's lives.

Detention solely on the say-so of the police is arbitrary detention.