|
Ouch! Ouch! Ouch!
I have received quite a few emails in response to
my piece concerning the
benefits of establishing a national DNA database. The vast majority came from
Americans and, of these, absolutely all of them were negative!
LOL!
Well, as someone who runs a website which is pretty much devoted to
lambasting governments
for abusing their powers - particularly when it comes to discriminating against
men - I am clearly aware
that governments are not to be trusted.
And I demonstrably spend much of my life trying to point out
this fact to
whomsoever will listen to me.
So, I was quite surprised at the volume of
protest.
Nevertheless, I still stand by my claim that, on balance, a
national DNA database would turn out to be of tremendous benefit
for people. Further, one could even argue that it is precisely because so many
Americans are so fiercely determined to remain free from governmental abuses of
power that one would never really have to worry too much about an American government
being able to get away with very much by having access to a DNA database.
One only has to look at the general furore currently being created over the way in
which suspected foreign Islamic terrorist suspects are currently
being treated in America to realise how difficult it would be, nowadays, for a
US government to start mistreating its very own people on, say, the basis of their
DNA.
Goodness me. Isn't it the case that even after the terrible tragedy of 9/11 the US
airport security staff are not even allowed to target those who might be of a
particular racial origin in their search for terrorists boarding planes?
Even white old
women in wheelchairs are searched!
Well, that's democracy at work. No way is the US government nowadays going to
be allowed to pick on particular groups.
Times have changed.
And so has the technology.
In my view, the most fundamental of safeguards against any governmental
abuses of power reside in defending these three rights - freedom of speech,
freedom of access to information, and access to communications technology.
Provided that people have these three rights, it is very difficult nowadays
for democratic governments to abuse their powers for very long. And it is on
these three rights that civil liberties activists should really focus.
But, returning to the specific issue of a DNA database, there are
nine areas
that I would like to address.
Yes. Only nine!
1. A DNA database would have truly enormous benefits in terms of crime
reduction and medicine. Surely it goes without saying that reducing or
eliminating much of the damage that is done to everyone both by
crime and by disease is an aim worthy of pursuit. And the further spin-offs from doing
this would be just
huge.
And the fact that, in practice, some officials might be able to
abuse their powers in some way and so cause harm to some
individuals is utterly insignificant compared to the enormous
benefits that could be
brought to everyone by establishing - with proper
safeguards - a national DNA database.
2. One way or another, the vast majority of people will end up actually
demanding that information from their own DNA is analysed and stored in order to
protect themselves in some way.
For example, regular screening for various diseases such as cancer costs a
great deal of money and time. In the not-too-distant future, as the medical
technology keeps developing, and as the propensity to succumb to various
diseases and deficiencies can be assessed with reference to DNA, people will get
fed up with submitting their own DNA to various private laboratories in order to test for
this, that, and the other, and they will simply say, "Please, just hold on to my
DNA information and send me an email if there is something new that I ought to know
about!"
At first, independent companies will do this sort of thing. But,
before long, poorer folk will start saying, "Hey, what about me? Doesn't my DNA
get analysed? Why doesn't government take my DNA and save YOU, the taxpayer, a lot of
money by checking out my genetic health propensities. Play fair guys."
And then, perhaps, the government will be
forced to step in to provide such
people with a similar service - even if only to save themselves a large amount
of dollars.
Similarly, when the technology develops to the point where, say, a DNA
identification can be made simply by sticking a finger on a screen - or
something like that - people will start demanding that this sort of system is
used to benefit them in some way.
You don't want to queue at the airport? Then stick your finger on this so
that we can identify you quickly.
You don't want us to search your house and take you in for questioning in
connection with that rape down the road, then stick your finger on this so that
we can quickly eliminate you from our enquiries.
People get hassled by officials mostly because they cannot be identified
properly, not because they can!
And, given that the vast majority of people want
to be protected from the negative consequences - stemming from both official sources and otherwise - of the nefarious activities of the
few, they will eventually begin to see the advantages to themselves of
having themselves easily and accurately identifiable in some way. And so they
will demand such a thing.
As another example, imagine two kinds of credit card machines. The first one
is of the type that we have today. The second one requires you to stick your
finger on the screen, and it can identify you perfectly. Which type of card
would you want to possess in order to protect your money from card theft?
Take the case of mobile phones. They can be used by the police to track
individuals. But have the people refused to buy them because of this? No. They
are sold by the million. The huge demand for mobile phones exists because they are so
damn useful - even though the people who own them know that they can be tracked by using them.
It is in this kind of manner that the people themselves will start to bring
about the creation of DNA databases. They will find them useful - to protect themselves from crime, from
disease and from hassle.
And, eventually, they will demand such a system.
3. Bearing in mind the enormous damage that is done to so many people through
crime and disease, it seems somewhat trivial, if not decidedly selfish, to try
to thwart the development of a system that could prevent so much of this.
Perhaps working on a cancer ward for a week or two would help to open the eyes
of those who would oppose a DNA database to the very real suffering and despair of those who are ill and who
are losing all hope - and there are millions of them. Perhaps working inside a prison for a week or two, or living in
a crime-infested community, would help to open the eyes of those who would
oppose a DNA database to how
different things could have been if only the criminals could have been prevented
earlier from embarking upon their criminal careers.
Do we want to see millions of people every year in the west dying slowly from lung, bowel or
breast cancer, and a host of other horrible diseases? Do we want to see more people having to live surrounded by more
crime?
(Powerful stuff, eh?)
Somewhere in the future there will be created at least something like a
national DNA database, because, bit by bit, the people will demand it. Perhaps
being registered on this database will be optional for people, but, in the long
run, they will probably be clambering to get themselves on to it. Why? Because by
doing this they will be better able to protect themselves from crime, from
disease and from hassle. Indeed, mothers will probably start demanding that
their babies are registered with such a database as soon as they are born so that
they can ensure the best protection for their offspring.
But, yes. Some officials will attempt to abuse their powers in
connection with such a database. And it is up to activists to keep their eyes
open to make sure that they don't!
4. Our societies should be powering ahead with the development of medical
science, communications technology and the spread of information. And though
there are indeed dangers and difficulties that will need to be faced by doing
this - and so caution is definitely extremely important - the alternative seems
far worse.
As just one example, consider the dangers of allowing terrorists with
future-created biological WMD's to wander freely throughout the country.
And
don't just think about the 'disease' itself. Think also about the chain
reactions. The panic. The fear. The breakdowns. The political repercussions. The
possible retaliations. The turmoil. The implications for the future.
These things are truly horrible.
And then, before long, people will begin to
beg for a DNA database so that terrorists are more likely to be identified and
caught, and so that the scientists can come up with better ways to protect them.
In order to avoid such a catastrophe, surely, we need to keep ahead in the race to
understand the biology and to identify the 'enemies'?
And a DNA database is just the sort of thing that would help
us to win the race
in both of these areas.
Indeed, there is far too much to gain by having an effective national DNA
database for one not eventually to be created.
Perhaps it is still too early to entrust any western government with such a
database. After all, such governments still have far too much power. But their
powers relative to the ordinary people are waning all the time. And this will
continue to occur provided that people have freedom of speech,
freedom of access to information, and access to communications technology.
As such, it would seem to be far more fruitful for civil liberties activists
to spend their time considering the ways in which the information from such a
database could be used inappropriately by officials, and about how this could be counteracted,
instead of trying to block the development of such an extremely powerful and
beneficial resource - particularly one that is, anyway, clearly creeping upon
us, bit by bit.
5. USA Police
here are so intent on catching a suspect in the slayings of four women that they
have resorted to pulling over white General Motors pickup trucks and asking the
drivers to submit to DNA tests. Such investigative methods have provoked
protests from civil libertarians.
Well, how's about civil liberties activists
considering the civil liberties of the dead women, eh? - as well as the civil
liberties of their loved ones.
And what about the civil liberties of everyone who is,
say, too frightened to go
out at night because of such things?
A national DNA database would almost certainly have helped to prevent the
deaths of three of these women - if not all four of them, given that criminals such
as these usually have a string of previous offences entailing violence.
A national DNA database would also mean that all these
truck drivers would not now
find themselves being hassled into giving over their DNA.
And so when civil liberties activists blindly oppose the creation of such a
database one really has to ask them whose liberties, exactly, are they actually
protecting? They are certainly not protecting the liberties of those who are the
victims of serious crimes - or of future terrorist attacks - nor the liberties
of those who will necessarily be harassed by officials who are eager to discover
and capture the perpetrators of such crimes.
6. Power is always potentially dangerous. It can be used for good or for bad.
And this is why it is so important that those people and those organisations
that have power are continually monitored and scrutinised very closely indeed.
If we can achieve this and ensure that people
have freedom of speech,
freedom of access to information, and access to communications technology then there
should be nothing to fear from a DNA database - or, indeed, from many other
things that civil liberties activists are prone to complain about e.g. CCTV,
face recognition, etc.
If civil liberties activists stopped trying to block the accumulation of
valid information and instead turned their attention to countering any possible
abuse or unfairness that could take place as a consequence of it being obtained,
they would get far more support from the public, and they would help pave the
way for a vastly improved future.
7. Judging by the emails, the greatest fear
surrounding a national DNA database is that, sometime in the future, a government
might use it to label people in some way - and then do heinous things to them.
But, in many ways, it is already too
late to worry about this. The DNA technology that could help governments to do
such a thing is already here!
DNA technology is
spreading like wildfire all over the place, so what is to stop governments from
abusing their access to DNA information right now!?
Hmm. Let's consider some form of ethnic cleansing based on DNA.
Well, at the moment, governments would certainly not be so accurate in their selection of
ethnic targets in the first
rounding up stage. For example, in Phase One of the operation, they could round up whomsoever they first thought
were, say, 'gipsies' - or whatever group that they wanted to round up - and
then, simply test
their DNA. And then, in Phase Two of the operation, they could just take to the gas chambers the ones who had the targeted
DNA.
In other words, protesting against the
construction of a national DNA database on the grounds that the government
might use it to harm certain groups of people identifiable by their DNA is a
bit like arguing that we need to shut the stable door even though the horse
has already bolted.
8. Unless we eliminate across the world all DNA
research and development, governments (and even terrorist groups) are already in
- or very close to being in - a position to do big bad things with it vis-a-vis
'labeling' and ethnic cleansing etc
And a national DNA database would help us to keep ahead in the race to protect
ourselves - in very many ways.
Putting this another way: Civil liberties
activists need to ask themselves this question. Do we want the Americans and the
free-speaking world to develop the greatest
understanding of this very powerful technology, or would we prefer
some other group to get ahead in the race for it - perhaps the Chinese or the
Russians?
Several
months before 11 September, Australian scientists published a paper describing
how they had unintentionally created a "supervirus" that, instead of
sterilising mice as intended, killed every last one. Could this information help
someone to create a human supervirus in the same way?
Further, given the possibilities on the
horizon when it comes to biological warfare, it is imperative
that we get ahead in this particular game.
9. It is no use civil liberties activists
burying their heads in the sand and trying to thwart the development of such a
huge resource for good. DNA databases are eventually going to be developed right
across the world. The people will demand them because so much good can come from
them. And by opposing such databases, civil libertarians will simply drive
people away from supporting their other very noble and worthwhile aims. Further,
they will retard the relative progress only of their own countries by stirring
up negativity toward such databases.
Instead of running scared of this type of
technology they should welcome it with open arms, take the bull by the horns,
and make damn sure that it is only used for the good. But if they successfully
demonise it in the eyes of the public, it will simply go underground and carry on
being developed anyway - with other nations getting ahead.
It is only 25 years ago that there were great
fears concerning the growth of computer technologies in the workplace. People
will be put out of work, they argued. There will be no jobs for anyone. We will
all be disempowered.
But just look at what tremendous good
computers are doing for us.
Over and over again throughout recent history,
science and technology have completely revolutionised the way that we
live for the good - from the printing of books, to the industrial revolution, to
the development of computers and medicine. We live far better lives now than did
all the generations that went before. We live longer, healthier lives, and we do
not have to toil in such terrible conditions just in order to survive. Science and
technology, on balance, have done us a tremendous amount of good.
And they seem recently to have done this rather quickly.
Civil liberties activists are mostly concerned
to ensure that people are never mistreated by those who have power over them and they are also concerned to allow people to live their lives with as much freedom
as possible - provided that their freedom does not encroach unjustifiably on the
freedom of others. But disease and crime do very much restrict people's
liberties and freedoms in very many ways. And a national DNA database could
therefore easily help to achieve much of what civil liberties activists are
actually clamouring for.
Finally, it is worth pointing out that the
expertise required to create, maintain and operate such a database will be found
in medical scientists, computer experts, software programmers and biologists.
Rarely are such people driven by politics or the need for power. And so, in some
fairly significant way, such a database would represent a shift in power away
from those whose work priorities usually involve violence or coercion.
And, of course, a very trivial example of this
would be the fact that we wouldn't need so many police officers harassing the
drivers of pickup trucks in their search for a serial killer - as per the
article above - because they would have caught him ages ago.
In other words, a DNA database would shift
power away from the very groups of people - in this case, police officers - that
civil liberties activists often fear the most.
|
