Those with NFDP (or a Naive Faith in Due Process) may wish consider this scenario. You shake hands with someone who shakes hands with someone who sexually assaults a woman in pub near your home. Weeks later,after being arrested and told you may as well cough for it as they've got DNA from the victim, please give a plausible account of why you are innocent. For added realism, do this at 4am after sitting alone for 6 hours in a windowless room with a bare 100W lamp burning.

Oops, I forget, you have Naive Faith in Due Process and know this scenario could never happen.

Colin Soames, London,

Professor Hamblin. If you should achieve your aims here, and the DNA of every new-born baby in the land is compulsorily added to the database to become the property of the State, would you then rest on your laurels, satisfied with a job well done? I think you and I both know the honest answer to that question is ‘no’. I have no doubt whatsoever that, when this is all done and dusted, you would promptly start beavering away on the promotion of some even more intrusive measure that would carry us still further down the slippery slope, and that’s where the real danger to our society lies. I can make this statement with absolute confidence, because I find it a very simple matter to profile you. I don’t even need your DNA to do it.

G J Taylor, Teignmouth, uk

The writer betrays all of humanity with his views and actions in support of giving yet more power to the government to spy upon and control the citizens that should be that government's rightful masters.

I am from America. Perhaps we could work out an exchange program and we'll trade our bootlickers for your "paranoid fanatists"?

Patriot Henry, Los Altos, USA/CA

I think this is a good article, but I don't agree with it. Dixie and Bellfield were caught by DNA taken after they were convicted of a crime, so their cases are irrelevant to the argument about whether innocent people should have their DNA taken. Liberty's position wouldn't change the outcome of those cases.

I do not think that a DNA database for all innocent people is necessary or proportionate to the problems facing our country. The police are not lovely perfectionists, they are quite capable of making mistakes and false accusations and grievous miscarriages of justice do happen. I do not trust them with my DNA.

And in my opinion we ARE sleepwalking into an authoritarian society, whether you care to admit it or not.

Ziggy, London,

I was reading in the Times/Telegraph that the UK government was outraged that the Russian government had increased surveillance on its people by installing CCTV cameras. The UK government objected to this "oppressive behaviour". I thought it was 01.04.08.
The politicians would find a commercial use for it, especially with this 1 trillion and increasing public sector pension problem. If I was a foreign country and had access to the UK national DNA database, I would screen it for UK citizens who might be ill, add undesirable DNA qualities, who might be a potential criminal and anyone who did not conform to my nations DNA standard. That is going to be a lot of closed doors and a lot of irrepairable damage, to UK citizens through discrimination and lack of global opportunities.
Do not let these political people try and justify the 'need for the DNA Database. Once the DNA information is made public, then there is no going back and all for a quick buck.

Mark, Yorkshire, UK

the problem arises where people are wrongly convicted when their DNA is found on the scene and there are no other possible suspects so in a desperate attempt to prosecute, the police link DNA presence to the criminal act.
DNA evidence can be helpful but ill bet you that as well as convicting some criminals, some innocents will also be put behind bars

tim, london,

There are quite well founded fears of how this might be misused or the data lost or stolen.And DNS data would be invaluable to the insurance industry, blackmailers, fraudsters and employers etc

So why not have a trial. Firstly let it be like organ donar cards - let all those who want to be on it be on it. Then make it compulsory for all police officers and members of the government and UK Home Office. Let those who adovocte demonstrate! Let them be the lab rats for a change!.

I propose a new standard in policy making as an antidote to Blair's spinning years. Namely the "Do as I do: lead by example" movement.

Dr Society
http://bentsocietyblog.blogspot.com/

Dr Society, Nottingham, England

One of Aaronovitch's arguments seems to be that keeping only the DNAs of convicted criminals is racialist because currently not all races in the UK have produced the same prportion of criminals.

Having introduced the subject of race, has he thought how much easier their rask would have been for the gestapo if they had had the DNA of his relatives (and mine)?

Judge Sedley's comments are what might be expected from a man whose communist backjground permeates into many of his judgements.

Jack Green, London,

There's absolutley no competition for me; if it's between finding the killer of a five year-old hit and run victim on CCTV or being looked at fleetingly on that CCTV by some nonce picking his nose, well what's to argue?

Charlie, Manchester, Greater Manchester

David you have lost the plot, if our entire DNA of the UK was on a database an unscrupulous person with access to it could kill to order body parts for the rich and powerful, do you trust this Government or the next?

bill foy, Liverpool, England

I wouldn't trust the police with a picture of Noddy, never mind my DNA. Happy to review the position when there is (a) serious redress for those who suffer when the police misbehave, and (b) serious punishment for police who misbehave.

aldro, Bicester,

The continuing rise of the surveillance society is not only taking away normal peoples liberties but is also a massive waste of resources and money.

How many man hours and hundreds of millions of pounds have been wasted installing all those CCTV cameras that now litter the land. Have they forced crime off the streets? Made you any safer as you go about your daily business?

How much do you think a national database would cost to create and maintain in light of previous government IT projects. And once they have all that information what will they do with it. A life insurance company would pay a lot of money for that information.

Do you know the government already sells your details on to third parties for a profit?. Maybe you should do a little research. Our freedoms have been won by hundreds of years of struggle, in only 9 years this government have brought us to the brink of a police state. What are you going to do about it?

Mark , Southend on Sea, Essex

As HC points out, the reason those of us who are against a full DNA database, as opposed to restricting it just those convicted of a crime, is because us 'innocent' people may not be as innocent as we think we are under the full scrutiny of 'the law'.
Most of us enjoy the freedom of being able to commit 'innocent crimes' without fear of being punished - leaving the police free to target what are know as 'proper criminals'.

While I dont agree that this is the case, it would seem that peoples fears regarding the full database are more to do with the notion that it would result in the police bashing their door down for every misdemeanour under the sun - such as 'harmless' personal drug use, pirate dvds, cheap foreign fags and other such pleasures of the 'innocent'.

Harry, Liverpool,

We lose sight of the fact that the DNA information will be made available to countries with a much less robust legal system than ours. And at present we have no idea which countries will ultimately be allowed such access.

It is a dangerous game we are playing, in a dangerous world, and we are not grown up enough to keep it in check.

I know it is time to yawn when someone mentions Hitler, but his was a regime that would have given much to have such information about its citizens. Who among us is fool enough to suggest that such a regime could not once again appear in Europe? Such a fool should not be in the position of establishing legislation for a DNA database.

Mike Poulsen, Reading, Berkshire

I absolutely agree with the writer. Other problems raised are the technical ones regarding the setting up of a larger database and security. These can be overcome and are far less problematic than the thought that paedophiles and women haters/rapists are roaming our streets just to protect so called civil liberties.

sk, East Sussex,

The only reason to be against DNA being taken or CCTV is because you'r doing, or have done something you shouldn't - people in this country need to be protected from people in this country.

Marty, London, England

Unless you can demonstrate a substantial and sustained decline in criminal activity since the creation of the British surveillance state, there is no empiral evidence to recommend extending the state's ability to invasively monitor its citizens.

Considering that nearly every intrusive measure has instead been accompanied by a rise in crime, we may conclude that perhaps what is needed is a devolution of the police state.

One may claim, speciously, that if you are not a criminal, then you have nothing to fear from revealing everything about yourself to Big Brother.

However, when the government information collectors are the same agencies which define what constitutes a "criminal" and subsequently prosecute for said crimes, one must wonder who is left as the honest broker.

The less information that my government has about me in a database, the safer I feel. State-defined "public interest" does not outweigh the right of the individual to absolute privacy.

J Cline, New York,

only the guilty have anything to fear from a DNA database.

samara smaldon, teignmouth, uk

A universal DNA Database? What other downsides are there?

Quote:

"A SCHOOLGIRL was raped by a gang who poured caustic soda over her body to destroy DNA evidence.

The 16-year-old was left fighting for life with terrible burns from the drain-clearing chemical."

From: The Sun - Rapists throw acid on girl - 15th Jan 2008

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article688118.ece

Brian Drury, London Colney, England

This is nonsense based on knee jerk reactions to media scaremongering and a few highly touted cases where DNA evidence helped the police.

Who would control access to the database? Who would carry out the searches? What is the error rate of the DNA matches? What safeguards are there against serious / organised crime simply paying off the low paid civil servants who maintain it? (As happened with the BT link to the recent gangland killing of an old couple)

Most worryingly, when the whole nation (and all visitors) DNA is databased, what happens when the disks go missing?

What happens if you are wrongly matched - given how in love people are with DNA how would you ever prove your innocence?

DNA is not the technology police "need to bring villains to justice," they really need more officers and better public support. The idea that we have a "free press" in the UK which would prevent state injustice is almost comical. Shame on you.

Professor David Blayne, London, England

The need to catch dangerous criminals has to be balanced against the protection of civil liberties. If catching the occasional murderer is taken as an absolute necessity, then any measure can be justified. What next ? CCTV in every home? Every citizen required to register his movements at a police station every day? Aaronovitch is playing the New Labour game--create such a climate of fear that we end up with people gagging to have their rights and freedoms taken away. This is the way that tyranny begins.

Richard Bull, Blockley, Glos.,, UK

I must be missing something - I simply fail to see the case against a DNA database as currently compiled. Certainly there will be mismatches, but surely follow-up detective work will correct these. What other downsides are there?! If this can help solve crimes and catch serious offenders how can we not embrace it?

Furthermore CCTV isn't there to 'spy' on us, it's actually there for public protection. Paranoid sums it up nicely.

Chris Wharfe, Portsmouth, UK

I would like to know what is the difference between someone reading your name / address from your DNA or off a stolen laptop and giving it to your car insurer or publishing every little detail about yourself on any number of social-networking sites!

We 'violate' our own privacy everyday.

Chris Wharfe, Portsmouth, UK

How in god's name is the Govt is able to identify each and every person picked up by a CCTV camera in the UK each? Is there some secret army - ten of thousands strong that pick up the tapes each day and plow through millions of passport and drivers licence photos to identify the fat lady with the pram!!!

I suppose the IT to undertake this process on a computerised basis might be available - but this is the same Govt that can't install much cruder computer systems in the NHS, that loses data on a regular basis and which can't even control our borders.

How can anyone believe that this weak and chaotic entity known as the British Government is capable of organising anything more complex than the resupply of the stationary cupboard let alone the surveillance of 60m people?

As recent events have demonstrated, some of our academics need to get out more.

Mark, Berkhamsted,

lets say its introduced then we must be able to test how good it is as evidence alone - collect all DNA from crime scenes where the criminal has been caught already lets say. You see how many false DNA suspects could have been implicated had the suspect not been caught, and you can estimate how accurate it will be in all cases.
If it can even do what it says on the tin, then we dump it.

john, london,

Apart form the fact that according to the Police no one is actually convicted on DNA evidence alone - so DNA is not an answer to crime in itself

There is the ever so small point that this Government has lost numerous databases we were assured were "secure" including the name and address of every mother in the country

David may trust those who rule us implicitly, but Liberty and others prefer to go by experience.

Simon O'Brien, London, UK

Mr. Aaronovitch, are you aware of how many government employees have been arrested over the past 5 years for selling data, stealing data, misusing data collected from supposedly secure databases?

There were 2100 incidents of lost data last year...

When Richard Thomas wrote about sleepwalking into a surveillance society, he was speaking from inside the security establishment.

Thomas Fuller, Hove, UK

It is incorrect to dismiss people who are against the extension of the DNA database as 'paranoid fantasists'. Taking the DNA of 60 million people in reaction to a handful of high-profile cases is not what we'd call a proportional response. In fact, one could argue that all these people living in constant fear of crime are the ones who are paranoid, not us.

Just looking at it from a practical perspective, maintaining a national DNA database will require huge resources - resources that could be better focused elsewhere and make a much bigger dent in crime rates. It's not as black and white as David Aaronovitch makes out. The 'if it solves one crime it'll be worth it' argument doesn't work when you have limited resources.

These law-abiding people who happily offer up their DNA because they think it will help the police are just burdening them with a database full of useless information. When the police are searching for a needle in a haystack, why give them a bigger haystack?

Claire, Gateshead,

This the David Aaronovitch who said "if they (the WMD) are not found, I will never believe another thing this Government says" False matches have already occurred - the case of the 14 year old Nottinghamshire schoolboy fingered by a database match for the Omagh bombing. Tom McNulty asserted Jan 2008 that the database had helped police solve as many as 20,000 crimes a year. A Home Office spokesperson in Sept 2007 was quoted as saying ' Of the 200,000 samples from people neither charged nor convicted, which would have in the past been removed, the spokeswoman said 8,500 had been subsequently matched to crime scenes, involving some 14,000 offences including 114 murders, 55 attempted murders and 116 rapes.' Tony McNulty told the BBC that a national database was not a "silver bullet" and that it would raise practical as well as civil liberties issues. "How to maintain the security of a database with 4.5m people on it is one thing," he said. "Doing that for 60m people is another."

Dominic Pinto, London, England

Most of these comments prove conclusively that reasoned argument is powerless against prejudice, as most of the dissenters have simply picked out the bits they find easy to get indignant about, and ignored the points they might find more difficult to oppose.

sue lelliott, haslemere,

as a police inspector in bournemouth in the 90's i defended the installation of cctv camaras around the town saying that they were only there to prevent and detect crime.
we now hear that they are now to be used by local authorities to prosecute traffic offences.
is it any wonder that we are sceptical when any new procedure such as a nationwide database of dna is proposed. what use may this database be put to in the future?
we dont know and that is what is scary!!!!

r. williams, bournemouth, dorset

as a police inspector in bournemouth in the 90's i defended the installation of cctv camaras around the town saying that they were only there to prevent and detect crime.
we now hear that they are now to be used by local authorities to prosecute traffic offences.
is it any wonder that we are sceptical when any new procedure such as a nationwide database of dna is proposed. what use may this database be put to in the future?
we dont know and that is what is scary!!!!

roger, bournemouth, dorset

You'll get my DNA from my cold, dead body.

Bill , Birmingham,

Sorry David, I for one would choose a little less safety and retain my liberty. The state including the police exist for the benefit of its citizens. I do not exist for the state

S.Pearce, London, UK

Do people really believe a DNA database will help. Firstly it will take up huge resources. Secondly keeping it up to date with migrant populations will be impossible. Thirdly DNA can't prove someone is guilty. It can only give a statistical probability that the samples are from the same person. But highly improbable chances still occur otherwise why else are you playing the lottery. Measure all this against the increased lack of personal privacy this means, is it worth it? Aren't there sufficient means already for the detection of crime, or do we believe the police are incompetent? If you think the DNA databse is the last step don't be fooled. Its just the first step, if you know everything about everybody it's far easier to manipulate them. Please don't insult my opinion by making it out to be IDP. The emotive suggestion that you are consenting to being a victim if you oppose this is ridiculous. You are at the same risk with or without this database. It won't deter crime.

TS, London,

"Paranoid fantasists." What a rude way to dismiss this concerns of the innocent British public who happen to think differently on this matter!

I am neither paranoid nor a fanatasist. You however, are living in a fantasy land if you think that such a system would be 100% secure and incorruptible.

If the Government or the Police want my DNA they can wait until I die. Until that time the only way they are going to get it is by force. Let's see how that plays out in the Free Press.

Allan Scullion, London, UK

DNA evidence should not be the only evidence in any case. Remember that poor blighter (a psychiatrist ironically) who was accused by his stalker of rape? She took a used condom from his rubbish bin and police arrested him. It was actually the DNA of his girlfriend that was also in the condom that proved his innocence. So it works both ways, but only if the police are thorough in their investigation (which thankfully for him they were).

I just walked down Staines High Street to post a letter. Expect I was on CCTV most of the way, but since I haven't committed a crime I am not worried or bothered by it. It isn't intrusive on my privacy or anyone else's.

James, Staines, Middlesex

In addition to being used to convict people of littering, a database such as this could be used to trace people's votes in elections, marital infidelities, and a whole host of other events that the government has no right to know about.

The fact is that most violent crime (the deterrence of which is the purported value of such a database) is committed by people who know their victims, and most occur as crimes of passion. For committed killers, rapists and the like, the database won't be much of a deterrent...serial killers will simply get better at covering their tracks, while more rapes may actually become murders as well as rapists realise they can't afford to leave any evidence behind.

It seems that this is just the latest solution in patching up a failed society...we need to address where it is we're going wrong and work on fixing it, rather than on deterrance.

Pip, New York, via Dundee

At the monent I am bullied because of the way I look. Where are my civil liberties? Colleagues at work making all sorts of inuendoes. Of course I can not prove I haven't done anything illegal. I would be very happy with a total surveillance society and DNA database.

Already 14 men on Deatth Row who otherwise would have been executed have been freed due to DNA evidence.

The sooner everyone is put on the database the better.

quentin, Reading, UK

If my bank details are "lost in the post" I can get a new bank account.

What happens if my DNA gets "lost"?

Rob Cheeseman, Derby, UK

CCTV does not make the streets safer, otherwise we would already be living in a Utiopian society without crime, given the enormous number of cameras in use today.

A National DNA database is unlikely to make any of us actually 'safer'. In fact, given the likelihood of DNA matching errors with a database of 60 million entries and the very real possibility of illegal activity by criminals inadvertently employed by the database operators, we are all likely to really be slightly less safe, statistically, when the database is operating.

A DNA database will not prevent murders, per see, just assist the police in catching murderers.

Oh, but wait, maybe in the future they will be able to examine our DNA profiles and anticipate which of us has the potential to become a murderer ....... lock us up BEFORE we kill anyone, I mean, who could object to saving lives......

Sounds far-fetched? I bet you there has already been discussions along these lines by someone in authority.

Gordon, Worcester,

This is a difficult one. If the environment could be trusted; it is not just the police but a number of other organisations; then undoubtedly it would be advantageous. But this country is not Holland. There is a lack of scruple here which is not present in that country. Your article is narrowly based. Take a look at the broad picture. The technology has moved vastly in favour of authority in the last 40 years, the police have considerably increased in numbers, yet not only has crime increased, but in particular violent and vicious crimes. There may be other reasons for this, but on this perceived experience, having a DNA base might well do nothing to decrease the crime level. You observe that this country is under CCTV far more than other countries and you say this does not bother you, but you have failed to emphasise that it hasn t done much for the crime figures or to alter the way in which the police discriminate in the matter of those crimes they will investigate.
There is a further crucial point with regard to DNA which nobody seems to have made. Twenty years after an event, evidence can be very difficult to establish. A person who at the time could provide a cast iron alibi is unlikely 20 years later to be able so to do. If then you introduce the cast iron evidence of DNA in this perspective, you are not in fact so much solving a case as providing added scope in an unscrupulous and manipulative environment.

Henry Percy, London, UK

Why should we be treated as though we are already suspects to crimes by having our DNA stored on a national database that will be ‘managed’ by the Government who has a habit of not ensuring that proper safeguards are imposed on such valuable and sensitive data ? 25 million people’s personal details ‘misplaced’ to me is incompetence of the very highest order.

We should be innocent UNTIL proven guilty; we should be allowed to live in a FREE society where we are not subject to these over-zealous security measures carried out to prevent us from ‘terrorists’.

I for one do not want this country to slide further down the slippery slope to totalitarianism and will be dammed if I allow my children to grow up in a society where everyone is under suspicion.

It’s not paranoia if they really are after you!

Anonymous, ...,

A full DNA database of every person in Britain. May be you should also have my bank statements, open all my post, tap my phone, take my fingerprints and monitor my travel patterns too. You never know the information could be useful to someone at sometime in case someone wants to commit a crime sometime. Then you can lose the laptop this information is downloaded on and anyone can access it. Brilliant.

Seriously, there has to be limits. There has to be some privacy in this country. Stop the irrational demand for more and more information.

Bryan, Luton,

If you receive a visit from the police regarding a ghastly murder and you are innocent you could always use the age old practice of having an alibi. All you have to do is watch TV and give a good account of the plot.

Ken phillips, Leicester, UK

I was subjected to several attacks and as a result my attacker was injured and i was charged with GBH for it. Thus my DNA was taken. I was subsequently found innocent yet i still have my DNA on record presuming i am a criminal. I was wrongly treated by the police and CPS, treated as a violent thug not a victim, and yet i am still the one who is presumed to be a danger or future criminal. I would be happy for my DNA to be kept if i had committed any crime, but to be found innocent and yet be retained on the list grates deeply.

Fortunately i have moved to a country of peace and relaxation, where i dont need to fear yobs at the local shops trying to rob me or idiots in pubs causing fights... and now i dont need to fear a government trying to monitor everything we do, presuming we are all criminals.

John Sheridan, Lausanne,

Why do we need to hold DNA records on women......? I'm not sure what percentage of serious crimes are committed by women but I'm sure it's pretty low. If so, that would cut down the database by half.

Al, Weybridge, UQ

National DNA database does no harm and stops crime ?

Possibly, but the logic of this argument wouldn't stop there.

Sometimes you have

-hit and run cases, so let's have transmitters in all cars to record where you are all the time.

-criminals arranging crimes over the phone, so let's have all phone calls recorded.

-people committing crimes and NOT leaving DNA, so let everybody have RFI chips embedded in their clothes (if not their bodies)

Why would you argue if you are innocent ?

Maybe you wouldn't but - now - tell me the difference between this and a police state ?

Clive, Surrey,

One of the great things about British law was that you were innocent until proven guilty. It seems that Labour has decided that we are all potential suspects, in a classically Stalinist way.

RB, Aberdeen,

If I am asked to give a DNA sample, I know that I am cooperating in a process that will save innocent people from the monsters we have been reading about all week. How pathetic I am if some notion of my personal dignity matters more to me than that.

David Barfield, Greater Manchester, U.K.

"So would Garton Ash really rather be freer and less safe to the extent of having less chance of catching a rapist or murderer? It's a brave position, but he and other upholders of the IDP should now be asked to spell it out"

Yes, David, let me spell it out to you. There are many of us who "would rather be freer and less safe to the extent of having less chance of catching a rapist or murderer".
There! Satisfied? You're the immature adult socialist version of the silly child who shouts "I dare you". Well, I dared. So what?
Let's turn the dare around and ask you - since the technology is or could very soon be available to live-track every individual's movement, location, personal associations, etc. and since the technology is already here to CCTV not only outside one's home but also inside and since all this would undoubtedly help catch criminals would you be in favour of this situation being brought to pass by legislation? It's a brave position. Perhaps YOU should spell it out?

Steve, Birmingham,

As the article says, 'the police have been allowed to take and keep a swab from anyone arrested for a recordable offence'. I might have more sympathy for the DNA database if the police were allowed only to take DNA from somebody who has been found guilty of an offence. It is my DNA and therefore my property

John Kirby, liverpool, UK

I totally disagree with your article.

You cannot base an astonishingly intrusive policy, and what is in fact a total inversion of the relationship between individual and state, on supposed benefits in a few admittedly shocking cases.

As individuals we do not belong to the government; they belong to us, they are our paid servants, performing, pretty incompetently, a necessary service for us rather like telephone sanitisers or dustbin men.

Unfortunately the terms of our tacit contract have been stretched to busting point by the current crowd, who have enlarged the remit and the costs beyond what anybody but the most fervent communist would regard as acceptable

The surveillance state is becoming a reality. You only have to compare politicians' utterances, and the state of the law with certain books (such as Animal Farm, 1984 come to mind particularly but there are obviously others) which until recently were considered wildly exaggerated...

cuffleyburgers, lucca,

Mr Aaronovitch, Professor Hamblin, it's our national governments who are the paranoid fantasists, not the general public, and the DNA database, like CCTV and the biometric passports, are not meant for our benefit, but for theirs. Given that the compilation and upkeep of this database too would be "outsourced" to a cut-price outfit in the US or the Third World without our knowledge or consent, "lost" altogether, sold on for commercial or criminal purposes, "forgotten" on a CD and/or accessed by every Tom, Dick or Harry as is already the case with most of the info about us anyway - this has the potential for another fine mess of criminal negligence, false matches, and endless wasting of everyone's time, especially that of the "suspect". Our governments have quite enough information about us online already, thank you very much. It's all for their benefit, not for ours.

Julia Iskandar, London, England

Should I be a victim of crime, I would want the CCTV to record the culprit and the crime committed. However, the government can't even maintain normal database without losing the data discs.

Carolyn, Surbiton,

So you trust the lot who have already lost personal data of several million people with the more personal data of the whole country; you must be out of your mind!

Frederick Davies, Oxford, UK

Anyone who thinks you can put 60 million people on a database and magically find a criminal is deluded, they no nothing about computers and get their science from watching Star Trek.

Adding the "Innocents" adds noise to the system making it harder to find the quality information you are after.

When most people can barely program their video; why do they place so much faith in technology?

This technology cannot prevent the crime.

It cannot change the causes of crime.

Julian Sweet, Brussels,

In philosophical terms, the most fundamental of human rights is the right to freedom, and unfortunately a state of freedom is not a natural state of man - it must be fought for. The corollary is that the state apparatus of a free nation should exist to serve the population rather than the other way round. This government is wilfully ignorant of these points, or doesn't agree with them (either option is frightening enough) and is moving to bind us into such a system of state control that we would find it almost impossible to do anything about it if a non-benign govt. got into power. This is a gross violation of the philosophical principles of freedom, but the trouble is that the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" idiots don't understand the arguments and just take the freedoms won (for a short period) after 1000 years of struggle for granted. "Those who trade freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both".

Syd, Cambridge,

"You give an inch and they take a mile" - another truism which may be applied to the current dilemma.

Ella, London, UK

It's about trust. Mr A is using the well known "If you haven't done anything wrong" thesis. At present we may not have done anything wrong. Neither had the Jews of pre war Germany by the way, Mr A. But governments change, even democratically (and as we are no longer a democracy but a minor department of the EU this is important) and what is wholly innocent today may not be so tomorrow. And as we know, Brown had planned - maybe still does - to sell data from the national ID database to commercial interests; he is quite capable of selling your DNA to insurance companies or drug companies. If we trusted the government or the police, it might be different. But we have learned that can't and don't.

George Edwards, Rawcliffe, UK

Trusting *any* govenment with my genetic material is not an option, especially one which is unable to uphold the most simple of security measures.

What the writer fails to acknowledge is that, if the police had done their jobs correctly in the first place (especially in the case of the Bellfield, by watching the *correct* CCTV footage), many of these individuals would not have had the chance to offend again.

Passing off the failings of the police to do their jobs correctly as an excuse to have a compulsory database with everone's genetic material is ridiculous.

And to Ted Beston who said:
"Don't make me laugh. People who are against the expansion of the DNA database are the same fools who spend their lives stuffing their faces full of organic food and cycling everywhere. Great. The air that you breathe is now pure. Your body is a temple. Nobody knows anything about you. You are an island. What are you going to do now?"

We are going to live in a free and fair society. Thanks.

Mike, London, UK

I'm no expert, but surely even if a partial DNA sample recovered from a crime scene brings back 200 potential suspects, then this must be comparable to a partial fingerprint taken from a crime scene. What possible evil intentions can there be, with a view to misusing DNA data. I'm not being naive, but to what use could DNA info on an innocent person be put? If the police/government/crazy non-public corporate evil doers wanted to frame someone I'm pretty certain they could do it now, without DNA data.
Genuinely, I'm not being rhetorical, can someone explain what even the most evil and immoral government could do with our DNA?

Alex, York, UK

Hey DA.

I agree with you completely - not enough is being done to protect people from dangerous criminals.

My idea: why doesn't the government profile potential criminals while they are still at school, grading them in terms of a 'risk of offending' scale. The police will then be able to monitor the people at higher risk of offending. Widespread pychological profiling, together with extensive biometric and other personal data would put law enforcement authorities in a much stronger position to deal with crime.

Or - let's microchip everyone in the country so a central computer can establish everyone's whereabouts at any given time, evidence which could be used in a court of law. Why not? If you're innocent you've nothing to fear, right?

It kind of depends on how far you want to take the rational project, doesn't it. Do you want a 'perfect system' and want to try to eliminate crime completely or accept that there will always be crime - some of it violent and shocking.

Kerime Isbad, Luanshya, Zambia

If you are afraid of terrorists you should stop importing them in the first place, rather than subject your existing population to the gross indignities of a police state.

MaryJ, San Francisco , Calif.

If we get a full DNA database, then we should insist that only scientists sit on the juries of those cases which depend on such evidence.

The vast majority of the public (including judges, lawyers, politicians and police) lack an understanding of the serious statistical issues surrounding the use of DNA evidence. A jury of laypeople would be a prosecutor's dream.

Steve, Cardiff, UK

How very odd some people are. There seems to be a trend flowing through many comments that the Police would seek to charge and convict solely on DNA evidence. Now either people watch far too many episodes of The Bill or they simply don't realise that evidence is tested and corroberated and that the 'lone hair or flake of skin' would provide a line of enquiry to be pursued and discounted if necessary. Do people really believe that with 4.5 million people already on the data base that there aren't already DNA hits coming back from crime scenes where the 'hit' person has nothing to do with the crime? Now I don't believe there should be a compulsary national database but I certainly don't advocate scrapping the one we've got.

John , Douglas,

There is no need for a national dna database. The vast majority of violent or sexual crimes are committed by a small number of perpetrators. Generally, they will be lower class males between 14 - 48 who will have a career progression in offending - theft, drug possession, vehicle interference, assault etc before moving onto the most serious offences. By extracting dna from these at the earliest stage it will allow the police to readily identify those dangerous and predatory offenders. This can also be done through linking dna with relatives - so casting the net wider and improving the chances of detection. Of course, if a serious offender has managed to avoid his dna being taken before a first serious offence then old-fashioned policing methods will have to be used. But this does not invalidate the fact that many serious offenders will be caught by having their profile taken at the earliest possibility. It is lunacy to delete an entry just because there has been no match.

RAJEN DALAL, MANCHESTER, UK

Nobody's going to oppose catching rapists but it's possible to be concerned about unchecked government power without being a paranoid fantasist.

Information that the government collects about us can be put to bad uses as well as good ones. Bureaucratic expansion into our private lives -- be it in the area of health, education or relationships -- may come at a cost which exceeds the benefits of solving specific crimes or other social problems.

Privacy is vital to our freedom and well being. We must be allowed to live in ways that the majority consider wrong but which are not against the law.

The resulting diversity is what makes the growth of knowledge possible -- including knowledge of right and wrong.

Tom, Bristol,

What if a truly evil regime got hold of my DNA markers?! Oh no.. they could.. well they could um.. perform paternity tests.. that's right, against my will.. boy oh boy, it'd be like the Holocaust all over again..

Wake up and smell it folks, DNA is the most important crime-fighting measure that we have. There are two ways of getting DNA from people; getting it from everyone, or getting it from people when they offend. I'm sure you'll all be glad to know that now that he has been caught, Steve Wright's DNA is on record. So after he completes his five life sentences, if he ever offends again we'll have him caught in a flash. I bet the families of his last victim are comforted by that.

I don't mind the police having my DNA because it's not a huge problem. It doesn't lead to the Government implanting chips in our brains and being followed around by our own personal camera that records everything we do so that the police can watch us 24/7. Those are completely seperate issues.

Dan Xuereb, Cardiff, Wales

The problem, as even DA must acknowledge, is not what *this* government might do with so much personal data (although UK governments and databases are not exactly a match made in heaven...), but what could so easily happen in the future - all sorts of discrimination and predetermination. Worse though, is the loss of freedom. If we allow a universal DNA database, then as soon as the technology will allow, we will doubtless all be required to have a GPS transponder implanted in us too. Lost will be any sense of public trust - replaced by forensic data. I want no part of such a world.

Nullius, burnham,

Here's another IDP - "sledgehammer to crack a nut".

How in practical terms are we going to capture DNA from every living person in the UK? How long would this take? It's preposterous to suppose that the logistics of this could ever be completed even if considered desirable. Do we even know who is in the UK at any one time?

And what happens when the entire database is left on 2 disks in a cab one night?

JC, London,

Brian Drury, your comment is made on the false premise that we should all believe what we read in the Guardian.

Oliver, London,

Wonderful piece. Yet again the writer is spot on. Too much CCTV? Loss of liberty? Don't make me laugh. People who are against the expansion of the DNA database are the same fools who spend their lives stuffing their faces full of organic food and cycling everywhere. Great. The air that you breathe is now pure. Your body is a temple. Nobody knows anything about you. You are an island. What are you going to do now?

Ted Beston, Birmingham, UK

DNA evidence has its faults and inaccuracies, but it is harder to misuse or manipulate that many other forms of evidence. All CCTV cameras do is increase the likelyhood of a crime being witnessed - good! I have never heard any of the civil liberty complainers say what the theoretical ill effects of a universal DNA database or more CCTV are - who are the potential victims of this technology?

John D, Birmingham, UK

phil, I wouldn't worry about the higher rate of convictions if I were you. the idea of improved policing is surely to deter people from committing crimes. with higher conviction rates, there could be fewer people in jail.

of course, there is a lower tech alternative, which would be to put significantly more police on the streets (as opposed to form filling or attending diversity training courses).

I would suggest that a little education and putting some pride into youngsters would also achieve results, but no doubt some "oh-my-god-it's-just-like-1984!" nutter would suggest that was brainwashing the masses to make them easier to control.

jem, london, uk

Whether you are a criminal or not depends on what laws are passed, right? This sort of thing could be used to track down criminals who discard rubbish unlawfully, or find out who is mailing anonymous letters criticising government officials.

Jonathan, NYC, USA

It is not helpful to call people who are concerned to preserve traditional English liberties "Paranoid fantasists". The state should leave us alone unless we do something wrong. If the author has not yet been abused by the increasingly arrogant British state, he has just been lucky. The same cannot be said of all decent law-abiding people, including both myself and my sister. Give the state more powers, and it will abuse us more, that is simply an inevitable consequence of human nature.

Oliver Chettle, Bedford,

Well everything would be tickety-boo if we could catch these frightful criminals - the only trouble is where are we going to put them when we have done so?

Joined up thinking?

A National DNA database is an outrage and should be resisted as rigorously possible, assuming the British public can rouse themselves from their torpor.

E Craig, Gourin,

We need a good piece of research (which I understand is currently going on) to quantify the benefits of a national DNA database.
Pending that, I am inclined to agree with the article. If your DNA were mistakenly associated with a crime (a tiny, but admittedly possible, chance), the overwhelming probability is that you’d be ruled out because of an alibi, lack of motive or other reasons. So you’ve got a tiny possibility times a tiny possibility of a false accusation. Then, of course, juries and judges would be looking for corroborating evidence or behaviour.
I also feel there would be a significant deterrent effect.

John, Manchester, UK

There have always been miscarriages of justice and probably always will be but I wonder how many might have been avoided if DNA testing could have been utilised. For instance, the odds are that Christie would have been caught and Timothy Evans freed.
Statistics might help in targeting a selective approach; how many women are guilty of rape and how many males under the age of fourteen etc:. If a national database of DNA existed with access then denied except in appropriate circumstances some of the objections might be answered.
In no case should unauthorised bodies be allowed access and usage or extraction of information for commercial or discriminatory purposes should be a criminal offence in itself.

David Cotterell, Cheltenham, UK

There are so many holes in Aaronovitch's logic you could drive a bus through them. Shami Chakrabarty is shameless and brilliant lobbyist, but sometimes she's right too: the police were showboating. They shamelessly used two especially grotesque cases where DNA evidence lead them to a suspect to push for a nasty authoritarian and largely useless extension of their powers.

Three things to look up before giving us the benefit of your wisdom in the future: false positive rates for DNA profiles, especially when matched against a large database; how willing and able the police and Home Office have been to correct faults in their existing databases; and the strong evidence that increasing CCTV coverage has done nothing to reduce street crime.

Stu, London,

Back in September 2004, when there were “only” 2.5 million records on the DNA database, Sir Alec Jeffreys - the pioneer of DNA profiling, was worried that the enormous size of the database could lead to false matches, see:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2004/sep/09/sciencenews.crime

The chance of a false match increases dramatically as more and more samples are put on the DNA database - which, of course, is what happens when you take samples from everyone.

Obviously, if your DNA is not on the database it is impossible for you to be incorrectly matched.

Once your DNA is on the database, you will be at the mercy of the matching technology for the rest of your life.

You can wave goodbye to your peace of mind if you live in a country when the police can call at your door at any time, because your DNA has been falsely matched.

You might have nothing to hide, but you've got plenty to fear if your DNA is ever taken.

Brian Drury, London Colney, England

Ah, the moonbat hath pontificated yet again. Who will rid us of this irritating menace to our freedom of speech and thought as he carelessly disposes of our privacy, as our civil liberties are trashed more soundly than even the Stasi could have achieved?

The police want it? Well, of course they do! They have the Stasi mentality nowadays, anyway. Mass DNA profiling will be extremely dangerous, cost a huge amount of money, require yet another government database with the concomitant problems we have come to expect from the government's IT fiascoes, lead to major miscarriages of justice, and the low copy number method of investigating DNA, as used only in Britain and New Zealand, is flawed, as a recent acquittal in Northern Ireland has shown.

It will also make for lazy policing. The police will just trawl the database, and it will then be up to random individuals to prove their innocence. A blanket DNA database means a police state that we should fight every step of the way.

Mike Mitchell, Spalding, England

I think a national dna database could be a good idea providing there were adequate safeguards to prevent life insurance companies using it to rip us off and from idiots burning it onto cds which then get "lost".

Luke, London, UK

This is an interesting debate. All things being equal a national DNA database is a great idea. However all things arnt equal. The level of corruption in the police force is huge. If a frustrated office had to make his target of arrests what is to stop him delving into the database and fabricating evidence. What if a CD of the nations DNA is left in a draw at the CPS for a year and a criminal finds it.

Surely rather than trying to catch criminals once the crime has been committed our efforts would be better spent on creating s better environment to stop the people becoming criminals. Eg free sports centres for the youth, better education and better housing

john, Bath, UK

It was the Jewish Council in Germany that agreed in the thirties to have Jew stamped on their ID cards, on the grounds they had nothing to fear. Aaronovitch worries me a great deal as does Professor Terry Hamblin. They talk like this because in Britain nobody has any living experience of an authoritarian state. They are the spin doctors of the creed that the more the state knows about you the safer you wil be. Weird logic and well as weird science, I think. But if this is the only way of controlling modern Britain and making life 'safe' then I for one must remark that Britain is therefore a very dangerous and volatile place to live. If you need all this stuff, even watchposts in parks shouting at people to pick up litter as in the Midlands, then you citizens must in some way deserve to be under the thumb of the state. Thinking it's not you but the next bloke they are watching is the first mistake East Germans made before the truth came out.

John Walter, Bonn, Germany

"I have a hunch that a lot of this objection has to do with another ever popular news article on here - men afraid of being busted going to prostitutes. Sorry guys, you might all have to move to Holland instead.

Claudia, Atlanta, USA"

My worry is more that the first piece of DNA evidence the police find, is good enough for them to lock someone up, without actually checking if the person was the one who done the crime.

The police see DNA as a quick-fix. Find some DNA, charge them, get promoted. Repeat.

Arthur, Newcastle,

"sleepwalking into a surveillance society.... constantly watched” So? What are these people worried about, being seen by 'someone' to be picking their noses? If they knew that someone was lurking around the next corner to mug them, wouldn't they be happier to also know that a policeman was on his way to arrest him [or her, as it is increasingly becoming]. I am perfectly happy to know that someone is keeping an eye on me for my safety, as I have no intention of doing anything illegal. I am therefore suspicious of the motives of anyone who objects to MY safety being thus improved.

S. Barraclough, Huddersfield, W. Yorkshire

Destroy the fingerprint database too?

I live in a tourist area and I would say during a ten minute stroll where ever I go I am photographed and video filmed a couple of dozen times - none of which with my consent and with no control of what happens to my image.

If Central Conspiracy Control ever has it in for me, I shall be doomed.

Can we have a law banning all public photography?

I should also prefer it if people walk past me with their eyes closed, particularly the police - more legislation please.

John Bowman, Sarlat, France

This DNA database of innocents should not be allowed. It would be the easiest thing to frame someone for murder based upon DNA evidence and if they were not lucky enough to have a solid allibi then they would go down. I do not want that type of justice.

The idea the number plates and passports are the same is a complete falsehood. Number plates and passports are there to give identification and this identification is sought by people in the main. This is very different to being called up on a murder charge because you had the misfortune to been in a location prior to a crime.

I would rather not be locked up for 28 days for a crime I did not commit whilst the police dragged their heels trying not to identify the holes in their case.

John, Egremont,

This is a fair article.
It would, of course, be monumentally costly and inefficient to have everybody's DNA on a database. Probably 90% of the population will never be criminals in any meaningful sense (I don't include taking paper clips from the office). Why DNA-test a 90-year-old granny?
But the police have a pretty clear idea of who the real criminals and potential criminals are and should get testing. If we have 4.5 million DNA samples now, about 6 million should probably do it. This is one thing (at last!) the Government has got just about right.
More power to their elbow - it was one way in which Guiliani cleaned up crime in New York.

Michael, Aston Clinton Bucks, England

Yes we will catch a few more people (except of course in Scotland where they must destroy any DNA taken if no one is charged, one rule for England yet another for the Scotts) but even if they do convict more people they have no where to keep them. Next of course will be hand held reader operated b y the rent a mob crowd of traffic wardens, now will get a bonus for every fag end/drinks can they test and issue a fixed penalty for, great you might say, but you only then need to have some one take a can out of the bin you put it in to fit you up. We are mad in this country, we need to wake and fast to what is happening to our lives, the C charge in London was about cutting traffic ques, Livingston made the ques worse by change the lights squence to justify all the camera in the first place. I suspect that our wonderfull police will in a few years take the view that "no DNA then no point taking it any further" a bit like the way traffic offences are dealt with now. Time to move abroad

Phil Jowett, Swadlincote, England

Such a database risks the police getting lazy. The probability of a miscarriage of justice is substantailly greater if there is a quick shortcut to solving crime.

There is a murder, flying fox of the yard finds a blood drop containing David's DNA, which actually got there from a small cut on the finger whilst travelling on the tube. The DNA evidence is conclusive in the eyes of the overstretched police who don't investigate further.

David pleads not guilty but the trace evidence is strong - this is why we have the database to ensure dangerous criminals cna be caught rapidly, he spends the rest of his life in prison.

William Thompson, London,

Assuming there was a full national database, this in my opinion would be dangerous and make investigators lazy.

What happens when criminals start leaving a hair they found in the hairdressers or a flake of skin at the scene of crimes.

Mike, Leeds, EU

So you mention the Stasi, but not their predecessors in the Gestapo. Just be grateful Mr Aaronovitch that the Nazis didn't have a DNA database available. They did the next best thing of course, where citizens of Germany and the countries it had to prove that none of their ancestry was Jewish.

Paul, Coventry,

For all the conspiracy theorists here, now what could the government do with the DNA database that they can't already do? If they wanted to frame someone now, they could already just grab a few of that person's hair or their used cigarette and put it at a crime scene, and then trump up an excuse to test that person. They don't need a databse to do that. The framing can already be done. What the DNA database will do is save the lives of many women and children.

I have a hunch that a lot of this objection has to do with another ever popular news article on here - men afraid of being busted going to prostitutes. Sorry guys, you might all have to move to Holland instead.

Claudia, Atlanta, USA

This article is quite ironic coming from the guy who won the 2001 Orwell journalism award. I have come to despise the nanny/police state of Britain and they way they screw the world up for the rest of us.

chris, Melbourne,

Professor Hamblin, my friend was recently very seriously injured in a totally unprovoked attack. The police acknowledged that there was CCTV footage of the incident but argued that it would cost so many 'man hours' of police time to track down the incident on the tape that they weren't able to look through it.

What purpose do these things serve if the police are too busy to check the film they produce?

Meanwhile, the increasing levels of petty crime and vandalism contradict your theory that CCTV is a deterrent.

David Space, London, UK

The problem with any database is when it is used/mis-used for purposes other than the reason for it being created. I wonder what influence the Data Protection Act has on the DNA database.
The recent lost data fiascos show how insecure Government and bank databases are: wherever computer "experts" design security, stupid or unthinking or under-pressure people will defeat it and we know that there are many people whose lives are dedicated to breaking computer security (hackers).
The usefullness of DNA testing to Insurance and Banking companies is obvious. A person whose DNA suggested a high risk of heart attack is unlikely to get life insurance and hence mortgage or bank loan: is this forewarning good or bad for the victim?
I have yet to see any evidence that any organisation, government or private, has the ability to securely and validly collect and store data.

John Neal, Chania, Crete

'Liberty' sometimes seems to have forgotten about 'Responsibility'. Thank you for supporting the rights of victims and making a case for justice.

The next step now is for the Government to find a way to keep those CDs in the right place!

Mariella Gatt, Guildford, UK

Those who believe that more crimes will be solved because everyone has a DNA record do not realise that there is neither the infrastructure nor funding in place to process all these newly caught criminals and nor will there be. We have seen prison populations rise above acceptable levels because of the all the new criminal offenses created by the New Labour.

I would personally prefer to be 'a bit more free, even if it means being less safe.' The only reason why my DNA would need to be taken would be on the presumption that I will one day commit a crime otherwise there would be no point in keeping it permanently on record. It is not a presumption that I am happy to consider.

Pete Wood, Nottingham,

I totally agree with Professor Hamblin. Comparing surveillance cameras to a police state etc is total rubbish.
I just wish we had more of them in this country. All the stores
have them both inside and outside. Just wait until some poor
person probably a child is kidnapped and murdered and the evildoer is caught via DNA then everyone will be praising the DNA database to the skies again. You can't have it both
ways.

Kate, Victoria BC, Canada

We hear all the time about "boundaries" in interpersonal relationships yet we are allowing the government to step over one boundary after another. Microsoft has come up with software that can monitor the pulse, blood pressure and even emotional state of workers using computers. When are people going to wake up to the fact that privacy is precious, it's meant to protect us.

Do you seriously want to walk into Harrods and have them suss out your net worth because a chip inside your hand or on your national ID tells them? Don't you realize the slippery slope we are on?

What if this technology ever gets into the hands of a truly evil regime? Come on, man, use your brain!!!

As for some murderers being discovered, if the death penalty were used more often that lone would save many, many lives.

Right. We'll have the bleeding heart nanny-police state and we'll have as many if not more criminals and murderers than before.

Camille, Chicago, USA

The more I read about the "progress" of British society, the more I am glad my parents got out and migrated to another country. A database containing the DNA profile of all citizens would have to be the ultimate invasion of privacy. My concern for Australia is that we often follow British (and American) trends a couple of years down the track, often even after they've proven to be a mistake! Professor Hablin, Bournemouth, claims the free press as a safeguard. However the ownership of the media is in very few hands, and is not as "free" as we are led to believe. The standard of journalism of this free press is also to be questioned, with the British tabloids being classed as some of the worst newspapers in the world. Their mantra is "trial by sensationalism". While it is a very emotional subject when DNA testing has resulted in the convictions of criminals, to have every citizen on a database "just in case" speaks of the end justifying the means.

MM, Melbourne, Australia

I assume it would be easy for a clever criminal to frame someone by dropping a few stolen hairs or article of clothing at the crime scene? DNA evidence alone is not sufficient.

Phil, Hong Kong,

I agree with Arthur from Newcastle, "Complete rubbish".
With the current Government`s dreadful record of data security
the thought of a larger DNA database gives me the shivers. A
13% reduction of the database seems a step in the right
direction.

Denver Watt, Osaka,

I agree it would be useful, but it's still a bad idea because a DNA database of the kind suggested WOULD NOT WORK!
Come on, David, we all know the kind of cretins who get these contracts: the government's negotiators are not capable of knowing what is really needed, and the suits dictating their own terms simply do not care. Like all the other duff contracts this government has handed out it would be the unscrupulous and the clueless conspiring to spend a bottomless pit of (our!) money!.

Rosemary, Liverpool,

The motivations behind a full DNA database are all very laudable, but it presupposes the police and government are operating in our best interests. They may well be now, but there are no guarantees that will always be the case and once we have a full DNA database it cannot be undone. Such a database will also make it much easier to prosecute the most petty of crimes. That is fine if we are all law abiding citizens, but let’s face it we all break the law at different times in little ways – it is partly what makes life more bearable. Already the public are up in arms over speed cameras - the complaint is that it is a money-making exercise – but I would wager it is because ordinary citizens get a frisson of excitement from breaking little laws. Life would be very dull if we were to find ourselves forced to obey every petty rule and regulation through an all pervading state watching our every move.

HC, London,

jonathan - are you suggesting life would be more difficult for the police if they could narrow down the search to 6 people?

perhaps you could credit them with looking for a little more evidence than a mere dna match.

d.a. is right. terry hamblin is right. the only opposition seems to be practical - concerned with the security of information or the possibility of contamination or planting of evidence.

there is no argument in principle. handing over a sample of your dna is not an invasion of privacy. and liberty for all requires limitations on all. you might as well argue that you should not have an identity.

jem, london, uk

If there is one thing more disgusting than a Stasi state, it's the middle class intellectuals who defend it, thinking that they personally have nothing to fear.

Do you imagine there were no middle class intellectuals who initially supported the Stasi on the grounds that it would protect them, only to be caught up int clutches?

And the sheer foolishness of Professor Hamblin's argument is mind-boggling. Enthusiasm for putting more and more invasive technologies in the hands of the ethical state always ignores one thing - a future less ethical state.

jon livesey, Sunnyvale, CA/USA

I really dislike David Aaronovich, but he's absolutely spot-on on this matter.

It is true, however, that we have a legal system which not that many people either can or want to understand, and in that context, an enlarged DNA database would initially not dispel the paranoia of innocent people - this would take a few years to subside.

In the meantime, the benefits in terms of the effects on offenders and crime clear-up would be tremendous.

Jonathan, Baldock, UK

Has anyone stopped to think what happens if you have the entire population of the UK on a DNA register? DNA testing does not profile the whole genome, just a few markers on it. That means it is not infallible - there's about a one in 10 million chance of two strangers having the same DNA match. That chance is much higher for people who are related especially siblings and parents/chlidren. So stick 60 million people on a register and for each crime you're going to throw up 6 matches from random people unconnected to the crime and probably a few more from relatives of the individual. All but one of whom are innocent but will inevitable be treated as suspects - not because they were seen near the scene of the crime, or had a motive or connection with the victim, but simply on the basis of a random DNA match. That's why this database will make us into a nation of suspects - as well as actually decreasing the effectiveness of DNA testing compared to a targeted database.

Jonathan, London,

Complete rubbish!

Arthur, Newcastle,

A full DNA database for the UK would be non-discriminatory and completely justifiable. We do not have a police state in this country and giving the police the technology they need to bring villains to justice would not create one. Goodness knows the detection rate is low enough. The safeguards against '1984' are a free press, an independent judiciary and an open parliament. Only the last is in jeopardy as members seek to conceal their operations from public scrutiny. DNA not only catches criminals, it exonerates the innocent. CCTV not only deters vandals and petty criminals it helps to find lost children.

Professor Terry Hamblin, Bournemouth,