Wait a minute - A national DNA registry?
The national DNA registry is something that has been debated here in Denmark over the last couple of years. It is strangely a system that is seen, by it supporters, as analogous to a magic bullet that would make us all safe from rape and other violent crimes. It will properly not come as a surprise that I am adamant averse to the whole idea of a national registry, a database that contains everyone’s genetic information is not only the ultimate Orwellian nightmare but in it self contains a series of possible problems.
But before I dig in to that, I would like to first address the most comment counter argument averse to any opposition to a DNA registry the “If you do not have anything to hide”-argument. The underlying premise of that argument is that if you don’t have anything to hide, meaning that you haven’t done anything wrong, why would you mind voluntary giving the requested information, in this case your DNA – But, the premise is flawed; the issue of having once DNA registered is not an issue of what if I do any wrongdoing but an issue of what if the individuals in charge of the register did something wrong. Which leads me to the series of possible problems with the register? First, there is the issue of trust. On what grounds should the individuals registered in the DNA registry trust that the government would not use their access to other goals then the capture of violent criminals.
I know that this makes me sound like a conspiracy theorist, but I would like to point out that the same utilitarian arguments that are used in support of the DNA registry could be used to use the DNA registry as a preventive measures. Because why should society wait for the criminals to actually cause someone harm, when a search in the DNA registry could identify those that with a high probability would at some point commit a violent crime. Another and more practical dilemma is the issue of expectation. If such a registry where to be created then society would expect that any violent crime will be solved swiftly, since the police would have access to the DNA information of everyone in society. Regardless, that it presently takes an estimated 4 weeks to process any DNA found at a crime scene, and with the increase of DNA need to be processed we can contemplate, with a high probability, that this estimation would increase. Both do increase in volume of DNA material and the numbers of false positive results.
In the end, we return to the debate between freedom, the right to privacy (and what is more private then DNA?) and societies needs to feel safe. It is an age-old debate, and one we probably never will solve, not even with the creation of the Orwellian DNA database.
But before I dig in to that, I would like to first address the most comment counter argument averse to any opposition to a DNA registry the “If you do not have anything to hide”-argument. The underlying premise of that argument is that if you don’t have anything to hide, meaning that you haven’t done anything wrong, why would you mind voluntary giving the requested information, in this case your DNA – But, the premise is flawed; the issue of having once DNA registered is not an issue of what if I do any wrongdoing but an issue of what if the individuals in charge of the register did something wrong. Which leads me to the series of possible problems with the register? First, there is the issue of trust. On what grounds should the individuals registered in the DNA registry trust that the government would not use their access to other goals then the capture of violent criminals.
I know that this makes me sound like a conspiracy theorist, but I would like to point out that the same utilitarian arguments that are used in support of the DNA registry could be used to use the DNA registry as a preventive measures. Because why should society wait for the criminals to actually cause someone harm, when a search in the DNA registry could identify those that with a high probability would at some point commit a violent crime. Another and more practical dilemma is the issue of expectation. If such a registry where to be created then society would expect that any violent crime will be solved swiftly, since the police would have access to the DNA information of everyone in society. Regardless, that it presently takes an estimated 4 weeks to process any DNA found at a crime scene, and with the increase of DNA need to be processed we can contemplate, with a high probability, that this estimation would increase. Both do increase in volume of DNA material and the numbers of false positive results.
In the end, we return to the debate between freedom, the right to privacy (and what is more private then DNA?) and societies needs to feel safe. It is an age-old debate, and one we probably never will solve, not even with the creation of the Orwellian DNA database.
