What's undemocratic about retaining DNA samples of people who've been arrested? While it's clearly a Bad Thing, I'm less convinced the majority of the population doesn't want it.
Intriguingly, the ruling also seems to militate against a national identity database being set up…
I suppose, in this context, I use "democratic" as a synonym for "free". Of course, I acknowledge that they are quite different. The news media, however, doesn't see how they could possibly be different.
One of Parliament's roles, as I see it, is to protect the population from its own stupidity so that, for example, privacy is protected even though most people will not care about it until it is infringed. This government has failed miserably on that count, and it is refreshing to see 17 judges unanimously agreeing on the fact.
Am I the only person that doesn't see a problem with a national DNA database? I know the government can't be trusted with a database of Nigella recipes, but surely a DNA database has much more going for it than against it. It's not like they can use it to snoop on your travelling (unlike passports or ANPR etc.) or internet/telephony usage.
Comments 3
Intriguingly, the ruling also seems to militate against a national identity database being set up…
Reply
One of Parliament's roles, as I see it, is to protect the population from its own stupidity so that, for example, privacy is protected even though most people will not care about it until it is infringed. This government has failed miserably on that count, and it is refreshing to see 17 judges unanimously agreeing on the fact.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment