Observations and inanities by a second-shift assistant supervisor in the Puppy-Grinding division of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy® (our motto: "Sure it's cruel, but think of the jobs!"), your host, Brent Rasmussen.
Put young children on DNA list, urge police.
Primary school children should be eligible for the DNA database if they exhibit behaviour indicating they may become criminals in later life, according to Britain's most senior police forensics expert.
Gary Pugh, director of forensic sciences at Scotland Yard and the new DNA spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), said a debate was needed on how far Britain should go in identifying potential offenders, given that some experts believe it is possible to identify future offending traits in children as young as five.
'If we have a primary means of identifying people before they offend, then in the long-term the benefits of targeting younger people are extremely large,' said Pugh. 'You could argue the younger the better. Criminologists say some people will grow out of crime; others won't. We have to find who are possibly going to be the biggest threat to society.'
"We have to find who are possibly going to be the biggest threat to society" . . . and turn them into criminals by the way we treat them from the very start.
The Minority Report, anyone? No, not the movie, which was OK, but the original short story by Philip K. Dick, which also shows the dangers of a post-war military regime/mindset to a civil society.
See, here's the thing: people will largely react to the way you treat them (yes, I am generalizing.) If you take one set of people, and treat them like criminals from early childhood, guess what you'll get?
I am constantly dismayed by just how much Great Britain has become a surveillance society, to the point where it is a dis-incentive to want to travel there. In almost all towns of any real size, you are constantly within sight of multiple CCTV cameras, and there is increasing use of biometrics (such as fingerprint ID) as a general practice for even routine domestic travel.
But getting DNA of all five year olds, under the excuse that it will better allow for catching criminals? Scary. To then match that up with the notion that you can predict the future behaviour of a 5 year old, based on someone's model of personality development is just plain insane.
And you know that if they can pull this off in Britain, there will be plenty of people who think it should be instituted here.
Welcome to the future.
Jim Downey
(Via BoingBoing. Cross-posted to Communion of Dreams.)
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Naturally
You are entitled to your opinion. If it settles your stomach any I already have a substantial amount of biometric data already collected on me because of my work. For me the horse has already left the gate.
If you live in a utopia where there are no bullies, misanthropes or sociopaths then count yourself fortunate. If you have a lifestyle where you cannot be tracked by credit card purchases, by cell phone, by computer address and your image does not show up on security cameras and you don't lose hair or skin cells then count yourself free. I guess if you die in a hail of bullets with a gun in your hand in a last desperate stand of freedom you will be less dead than I with that needle in my arm.
Build all the walls of sand that you'd care to. I will put my money on the tide of fear.
Oh, and you might want to clean up that vomit. It will stain the carpet and it has your DNA in it.
The End of Privacy
Speaking of sci-fi novels, this story also reminds me of Arthur C. Clarke's book The Light of Other Days, in which technology eliminates the very concept of personal privacy. That future is drawing very near, and I doubt it can be stopped.
I am duly grateful
Not to anything in particular mind you, just grateful. That I will not live long enough to see that day dawn. And to those who live in the coming age when you can download all your memories and personality onto digital media so that you never ever die (until the maintaining technology does), you have my deepest sympathis. I think that would be pretty hellish.
Examine the evidence
I think that the real question is - Does the evidence support the proposition that children age 5 with certain characteristics are more likely to go on to a criminal career or does it not? To be followed by the question of whether the collection of DNA for a data bank is more harmful to civil liberties than helpful to correct prosecution of offenders. This is quasi-anecdotal, but I think of all those cases where people in jail have been exhonerated by further DNA evidence and it isn't like they wont come to collect it from you if you are suspected of something. All this seems to do really is save a little time. Like it or not the age of biometrics is upon us.
Gimme that juice box, criminal!
What evidence?!?
Five year olds! Even if there were serious evidence, it was only collected over five short, confused, formative years, and could only possibly apply to later life in the barest sense. Medical and criminal research is nowhere near the level where this could be feasible, and even though I am an atheist materialist, I doubt it ever will be. Life is just not that simple; learning and environment are still a part of who we are.
However, that doesn't mean that over-ambitious bureaucracy fascists won't try to pigeonhole us all from birth, and it obviously doesn't mean that sheeple won't buy it and bray approvingly. But the pig who comes to collect my toddler's dna for criminal profiling will find a bullet in his fucking head before he gets it, and I am goddamned deadly serious about that. If that makes sheeple feel unsafe, then they need to grow up and realize that they don't own me and mine.
Also-dna testing on suspects is an entirely different issue, although I'm sure I will hear them conflated as this technology goes forward. Any suspect loses some freedom until the case is resolved-it's unfortunate but necessary. Pretending that this is anywhere in the same ballpark as mandatory registration of children that are deemed "potential criminals" is stretching to the point of dishonesty.
Have you ever noticed how reluctant most officials are to spend money on a dna test that will free a wrongly convicted person? It takes a lot of doing, all on the part of the wrongly convicted. If a technology gets a police department, or D.A. or politician some "tough on crime" publicity, they throw millions of dollars at it, and use it whenever it makes them look good. If it might backfire or make them look bad(as wrongful convictions do)it gets swept under the rug and is the responsibility of the victim.
Even in the best hands, such a system will only become a quagmire where whole lives and possible futures are sucked into the black hole of what some dickless politician or fascist cop thinks you can be. All so the sheeple can feel safe at night in their gated communities with constant police patrols and 50 cameras. FUCKING PATHETIC!
My respect for Britons seems to be falling every year since they decided to join us in our return to blatant imperialism and mass murder. But policing five-year-olds for possible future crimes? That's a new low.
And if you think kids are innocent
You're a moron. Harmful behavior patterns don't just appear out of nowhere when the kid hits puberty, like some people seem to think. Instead there are behavior patterns that can be exhibited at this young an age that can be an indicator of trouble ahead. Is it certain? No. Although that kid whose sitting there setting fire to ants with a magnifying glass is probably more likely to harm humans later in life than a kid who doesn't (animal abuse in young kids has been linked to human abuse in later life).
The possibility of stigmatization is one argument for getting the genetic print of all kids, not just the ones that are most likely to become criminals later in life, and to keep the "prediction" of which ones are higher risk a secret. This way all the kids should hopefully still be treated the same. Of course, that still leaves the question of whether it is ethical to do so. Of course those who have no intention of committing a crime won't be too concerned, after all it's a minor inconvenience that makes it less likely they will be wrongly convicted. Of course, it's just a small step from knowing someone's personal data to impersonating them, and it's all to easy to acquire someone's identity.
Frying ants with a maginfying glass is fun..
..especially if you eat them.
That was me at 8-10 years old. By age 11, I was shooting local wild birds with a slingshot, but I didn't eat any of them. I actually wish I had- I already knew how to cook, and I'm still curious as to what the flavor might be like.
In the summer of my 12th year, I was walking to a friend's house to play nintendo, and I happened to see two neighborhood kids that were a year or two younger than me.
I yelled "hello" and waved, and as they looked up I could see that they were trying to shove a small tree branch up a cat's ass. For all my bloodlust and curiosity, the idea of torturing a house pet for entertainment had never really crossed my mind. I separated them and let the cat go, and I must admit that I had to fight the urge to beat the shit out of the little bastards. Yet,somehow, none of us turned into violent felons. A total of three lukewarm schoolyard fights is the summit of my career of violence.
The funniest part is that I, and the cat torturers, were good students who were regarded by teachers and parents as decent, normal children.
That's my anecdote. Which is all that anyone, including the source of the original Guardian article, has to offer.
I usually really enjoy your comments Cat, but this topic has got my blood boiling. I'm no expert in child psychology, but I need more than a talking head's say-so before I subject a schoolkid to anything more than specialized teaching styles. If a benevolent, specialized teaching system was the intention of such policies, I would support it on your stated conditions of anonymity. But as a rationalist, I don't have that kind of faith.
True
On the one hand, I think some of your argument is the classic "slippery slope" type argument, that is to say that you are assuming that if any given thing comes to pass the worst possible outcome will inevitably come about. However, is that really the case? Well, I suppose that depends on the individual humans involved. Although personally, I detest "slippery slope" arguments, I find that they are weak in nature, anything can be argued from them, and they typically show up in debates that are more complex than black and white.
On the other hand, I respect that there is cause for concern. Of course, that's the case whenever humans are concerned (as you may be able to tell I'm a bit of a misanthrope, in the definition of "one who distrusts humans", although I do not hate them).
Truthfully, I'm not exactly sure what you're afraid of. Are you afraid that people will scan the DNA of others to get an idea of whether or not they will be psychopaths? If that's the case the article does not state that, and in any event whether someone becomes a killer is most likely determined by both nature and nurture. Of course, that's the scientific perspective, and most humans are illogical so they may not take the most logical course. Is it that the children who are "labeled" as potential psychopaths will be mistreated? If so that is a valid fear, which is why I stated that if such a thing were done it must be done to all children. The truth is, this could eventually be done without even labeling the children as anything, simply under the guise of obtaining DNA from children, either for the purposes of determining what genetic defects they may have or for the purpose of obtaining their DNA so it is available if they exhibit an unknown genetic disease. Once the data's in the hands of the government, well, they'll do what they like with it. Then they'll probably sell your genetic profile to whoever wants it if they have the cash.
Biology and destiny
Naturally that question would need to be directed at those making the claim that behavioral tendencies at age five are linked (strongly or weakly) to later criminal activity.
I will say only that even at a young age I could look around at my peers and tell that some of my fellow children were likely to come to a bad end (a supposition which proved true in some cases).
I will not say that the oncoming biometrics revolution is a good thing or a bad thing, but I will say that I think it is an inevitable thing and its likely that genetic testing will become as commonplace as fingerprinting.
The sheeple in the U.S. were led by their tender noses to make war on a people who did not attack them. You underestimate the power of their fear at your peril. Good luck in resisting them.
Let's actually think on this a bit...
I suppose I was a bit hasty, but the thought of a liberal western government using such a controlling policy, combined with your immediate surrender to the supposed inevitability of it made me want to
Pughpuke.I would really like to hear what evidence they have and how it is determined, and I guess I'll have to research a bit because the original article gives no real information on the scientific basis for instituting (or even debating)such a policy, as per usual with police state advocacy. Just trust us, it's for your own good......no, really!
From the Guardian article:
'If we have a primary means of identifying people before they offend, then in the long-term the benefits of targeting younger people are extremely large,' said Pugh. 'You could argue the younger the better. Criminologists say some people will grow out of crime; others won't. We have to find who are possibly going to be the biggest threat to society.'
Pugh admitted that the deeply controversial suggestion raised issues of parental consent, potential stigmatisation and the role of teachers in identifying future offenders, but said society needed an open, mature discussion on how best to tackle crime before it took place. There are currently 4.5 million genetic samples on the UK database - the largest in Europe - but police believe more are required to reduce crime further. 'The number of unsolved crimes says we are not sampling enough of the right people,' Pugh told The Observer. However, he said the notion of universal sampling - everyone being forced to give their genetic samples to the database - is currently prohibited by cost and logistics.'
I bolded the parts I thought more relevant, but I also find some of them just baffling.
Hmmmmm-who are the people that are "possibly the biggest threat to society." I will put aside the fact that this phrase is meaningless except as a vague threat to his audience. I will also put aside the chillingly Orwellian connotations that such an open-ended, paranoia riddled phrase brings up, and offer an opinion contrary to Pugh's. Perhaps the biggest possible threats to society are the reactionary, technology-addled zealots who actually think that they can, or need to, stop all crime. DNA testing is a major breakthrough in criminology, but the unholy matrimony here between a mostly legitimate scientific enterprise and some pet psychology theories is nothing but a hiding place for an authoritarian ideology.
In the second paragraph, Pugh admits a very few of the many obvious problems-"parental consent, potential stigmatisation and the role of teachers in identifying future offenders," and then proceeds to dismiss those real world concerns in favor of a societal debate on "how best to tackle crime before it took place." How about showing that such measures have any basis in reality first, hmmm? I know that the parents, children, and teachers are real, but I'm supposed to believe in mind-reading? Pfffft! Are parapsychology and "hunches" now policy considerations in Britain?
And finally, the masterpiece: "However, he said the notion of universal sampling - everyone being forced to give their genetic samples to the database - is currently prohibited by cost and logistics."
If that doesn't demonstrate the level of bureaucratic disdain and lack of respect he has for the people he serves, then I don't know what does. But for want of money and power, we are all potential criminals and have no more rights than a stray dog. Thanks for clearing that up, Pugh!
So Britons are supposed to engage in a mature, serious debate over whether they should give up their last shred of self-ownership so that the cops can quit doing dirty work and chase some naive distopian fairytale.
Brilliant! Have another Guinness, Pugh, you're getting ahead of yourself.
People like Pugh are the reason why I think that strategic public assassinations(or at least a good rail-ride) are sometimes necessary. But everyone already knows that defending your society against internal tyranny...That's A Crime!
As far as your bland, weak apathy goes, I just hope you don't go blaming anyone else when you feel the black bag slipping over your head and the needle in your arm. Just enjoy knowing that somewhere, somehow, a criminal has been caught, and all it cost was the entirety of your liberty. Woo Hoo!
Naturally
You are entitled to your opinion. If it settles your stomach any I already have a substantial amount of biometric data already collected on me because of my work. For me the horse has already left the gate.
If you live in a utopia where there are no bullies, misanthropes or sociopaths then count yourself fortunate. If you have a lifestyle where you cannot be tracked by credit card purchases, by cell phone, by computer address and your image does not show up on security cameras and you don't lose hair or skin cells then count yourself free. I guess if you die in a hail of bullets with a gun in your hand in a last desperate stand of freedom you will be less dead than I with that needle in my arm.
Build all the walls of sand that you'd care to. I will put my money on the tide of fear.
Oh, and you might want to clean up that vomit. It will stain the carpet and it has your DNA in it.
Don't get the wrong idea...
I don't actually froth at the mouth, curse at the screen as I type, or fire guns on a regular basis; just once in a while. Perhaps my emotive response seems silly or even potentially dangerous to you. Do you think that gives you the right to invade my body to gather more information about me? If so, I would like to nominate you for the Biggest Pussy in the World Award!
Okay, seriously.
At the heart, I think we are talking about separate though related issues. Your scope is much wider here than mine.
You are talking about every type of biometric data collected since Sherlock Holmes all the way through Gattica, and I am talking about liberal democratic governments claiming outright ownership of it's citizens bodies and future, based on still-debated psychological research.
I realize that many people are subject to extensive physical scrutiny and background analysis when they work in potentially dangerous industries, or where a great amount of trust is involved. In America, it is still usually done with consent, or a warrant. I know that I shed hair and skin and saliva and sweat and shit and piss and breath which can be analyzed and collected into a database, used against me as evidence, or used to cast a voodoo spell. Not being a vampire or a ghost, I am detectable on video surveillance, audio surveillance, and mirrors.
But you insist on dancing around the issue like a crack-addicted ballerina in denial. You are comparing the voluntary collection of simple, accurate biological information for an immediate useful purpose to the almost random, involuntary collection of information and anecdotes for tracking and perhaps rehabilitative purposes. On toddlers and adolescents.
In short, step up to the plate or shut the fuck up.
Let's be quite clear about this
I won't be coming for your fucking DNA and invading your body is just about the last thing on earth I would like to do.
I won't be coming for your fucking children's DNA either.
In fact I would be happy if you kept all that family DNA far, far away.
And I won't be there raining bullets down on you for being unscannable.
I only said that some of the people who were real assholes as kids grew into criminals as adults so maybe there is a genetic behavioral component. Scientists certainly won't be able to make a case one way or the other about that if they can't collect data. I only said that I thought universal DNA collection is inevitable. At this point a rational person would have made a logical case for why they thought it was not inevitable rather than resorting to excretion metaphors. You can dispute it's inevitability if you want. You can even fight it if you want to, but don't expect any help from me because right now no representative of The Evil State is on here doing an expulsive sphincter impersonation, and if you want to try to make me shut the fuck up, well here I am Mr. Brave Anonymous Internet Person. You going to come to my door and do some violence to show me what a freedom lover you are and how evil the state is? I guess now if you don't take up the challenge you can give yourself that pussy award.
Post new comment