Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 97399	2009-02-14 03:58:00	The debate Sweep vs Deane F.	Sweep (90)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
747863	2009-02-21 07:58:00	Sorry sweep must have missed that part............ went searching and found it tho..... lol beetle :D	beetle (243)
747864	2009-02-21 08:37:00	Please excuse me Sweep and Deane F. I would just like to add my two cents to this interesting topic.:2cents::thanks 1. I can guarantee that Medical Insurance Company's would love to get or Demand a DNA sample of you before insuring you because of "Known DNA Heath Risks" and so would either deny you for certain things because of your DNA or put up the price alot for medical insurance. 2. Also the Cops because they could say your DNA predisposes you to be a criminal because of your DNA.So naturaly you are one,you just have not been cought YET!!! 3. Work/applying for a job need a DNA sample to see what your like...intelligence,drug user,health risk etc. 4. Sport teams - to get the best people for teams. 5. Schools selecting on DNA for intelligence,sporting abilities to give the school a high profile of being the best school...like get fame ie. Harvard etc. 6. Babies - Mum and Dad want perfect kid go and get their DNA spliced to have a perfect baby free from genetic disease from the parents DNA.....oh and while were at it make it real brainy,strong,tall,blond,blue eyed and this and that etc. as well and their Test Tube baby is now ......THE MASTER RACE!!!! -(Nazi's) (Mom's and Dads love it of course)!!! Hmmm. Puts me in mind of the movie Gattaca, with Ethan Hawke and Uma Thurman...	johcar (6283)
747865	2009-02-21 10:04:00	As far as I am aware there is no clamour for a DNA database for parentage. So if there is no clamour to have a DNA database for that reason - then there is no reason to have a DNA database for that purpose. Not a clamour as such a database is not available to the general public much like when I donated blood as a donor. I believe that some people received a benefit as a result but personally I had no access to the name of the person whom received the blood. Nor did I need to know for that matter. Presumably part of my DNA is is still circulating or maybe not. I can't determine how this paragraph is germane to the matter in question. By "just cause" do you mean Justice? Just cause in my opinion means any valid reason why a person needs to know. By "just cause" I mean that if there is a legal mechanism to empower a State agency to override fundamental rights - then that power is only used when there is a just cause. That is to say, that the power cannot be invoked arbitrarily - there must be a valid and legal justification. The State passes laws and the people elect the State by voting. The State can pass any laws it likes while in power While this statement is true; it is also very simplistic. Law depends on civil obedience. So while the State may pass any law it likes in theory; in practice these laws are useless if they are universally disregarded. Only a totalitarian regime, however, would pass any law it liked. The governments of Western democracies are founded on a mandate that depends as much upon the concept of honour as it does upon the will of the people. Governments in democracies draw their right to govern from this balancing responsibility - that they hold power only because it is balanced by the moral restrictions that such a responsibility imputes. This is similar to the notion of fiduciary responsibility. You may infer anything you like but I have not yet agreed totally and certainly not for convenience. So you disagree with the inference i drew? I will say that if such a National DNA database is established as I propose, then it would hopefully follow that the Database would be only accessable to parties that use it according to the law. Due process includes what? The weakness in the above statement is the use of the word "hopefully". The database would consist of private information about citizens - and yet those citizens would not be able to participate in decision about the use of their private information.	Deane F (8204)
747866	2009-02-21 10:13:00	Hmm Dean, you did put forth some very real arguements there. If you had to rewrite what Sweep had posted, how would you have put it? (Just interested in the actual differences of tight sealing a statement such as that). Cheers	rob_on_guitar (4196)
747867	2009-02-21 10:25:00	Hmm Dean, you did put forth some very real arguements there. If you had to rewrite what Sweep had posted, how would you have put it? (Just interested in the actual differences of tight sealing a statement such as that). Cheers Hmmm - I could only rewrite what Sweep has posted if I knew what it was he thinks. Hopefully, the more he writes the clearer this will become...	Deane F (8204)
747868	2009-02-21 11:15:00	Yup was kinda vague.	rob_on_guitar (4196)
747869	2009-02-21 23:46:00	So if there is no clamour to have a DNA database for that reason - then there is no reason to have a DNA database for that purpose. I can't determine how this paragraph is germane to the matter in question. By "just cause" I mean that if there is a legal mechanism to empower a State agency to override fundamental rights - then that power is only used when there is a just cause. That is to say, that the power cannot be invoked arbitrarily - there must be a valid and legal justification. While this statement is true; it is also very simplistic. Law depends on civil obedience. So while the State may pass any law it likes in theory; in practice these laws are useless if they are universally disregarded. Only a totalitarian regime, however, would pass any law it liked. The governments of Western democracies are founded on a mandate that depends as much upon the concept of honour as it does upon the will of the people. Governments in democracies draw their right to govern from this balancing responsibility - that they hold power only because it is balanced by the moral restrictions that such a responsibility imputes. This is similar to the notion of fiduciary responsibility. So you disagree with the inference i drew? The weakness in the above statement is the use of the word "hopefully". The database would consist of private information about citizens - and yet those citizens would not be able to participate in decision about the use of their private information. I mentioned "hopefully" because any person who has legal, valid and lawful access could use the Database for their own purpose which may not be covered by legislation to cover all circumstances for all people. If, as you state, " Law depends on civil obedience. So while the State may pass any law it likes in theory; in practice these laws are useless if they are universally disregarded. " Some laws are disregarded anyway by some people. Hence the number of people being in a Court and being convicted or not as the case may be. Then you also say, " By "just cause" I mean that if there is a legal mechanism to empower a State agency to override fundamental rights - then that power is only used when there is a just cause. That is to say, that the power cannot be invoked arbitrarily - there must be a valid and legal justification. " There is a legal mechanism for the State to over ride a fundamental right. Been done before which no doubt created a precedent at the time. At one time a Police or MOT officer had to have "just cause to suspect" before adminstering a breath test for example. Not so now in my belief. So you get pulled over which may interfere with your fundamental right to go where you like and when you like. The law in that sort of case is full of technical wisdom and precedents for those that take it to Court. The State took away my right to go about my lawful business. Was there a clamour? Back to having a National DNA database. If I alter my appearance by use of a disguise or by plastic surgery or by wearing a hoodie or by any other means none of this will change my genome which I assume is left every place I go. Then we come down to identification of all persons in New Zealand. Some people have may have false identities because a Goverment Dept allowed the people a birth certificate Other uses on Moral grounds include some people being found not guilty after DNA evidence has been presented in Court on appeal. Take for instance the Mona Blades case. Body has not been found. She went missing on the Taupo - Napier road in 1975. In the event her body was found then it can be proven that it was her body found in the event we had a National database and it may give the parents some relief.	Sweep (90)
747870	2009-02-22 00:03:00	Old story if you havent done anything wrong you got nothing to worry about your info in a dumb DNA data base.	prefect (6291)
747871	2009-02-22 01:24:00	I mentioned "hopefully" because any person who has legal, valid and lawful access could use the Database for their own purpose which may not be covered by legislation to cover all circumstances for all people . Are you proposing that this database be accessible by anybody? If, as you state, "Law depends on civil obedience . So while the State may pass any law it likes in theory; in practice these laws are useless if they are universally disregarded . " Some laws are disregarded anyway by some people . Hence the number of people being in a Court and being convicted or not as the case may be . I used a qualifier in my statement - that was the word "universally" . If some laws are disregarded by all people then taking all the people to court would be unworkable - therefore the law would be a useless law . At one time a Police or MOT officer had to have "just cause to suspect" before adminstering a breath test for example . Not so now in my belief . So you get pulled over which may interfere with your fundamental right to go where you like and when you like . The law in that sort of case is full of technical wisdom and precedents for those that take it to Court . The State took away my right to go about my lawful business . Was there a clamour? Yes, there was a clamour about random breath testing . The NZ Council for Civil Liberties kicked up a stink, as did several legal academics . I remember the public debate quite well . Back to having a National DNA database . If I alter my appearance by use of a disguise or by plastic surgery or by wearing a hoodie or by any other means none of this will change my genome which I assume is left every place I go . Yes . So? Then we come down to identification of all persons in New Zealand . Some people have may have false identities because a Goverment Dept allowed the people a birth certificate Identity fraud happens in NZ . There are also people prosecuted for identity fraud . But I do not think that this is a large enough problem to forcibly harvest DNA samples from every person in the jurisdiction . Other uses on Moral grounds include some people being found not guilty after DNA evidence has been presented in Court on appeal . Take for instance the Mona Blades case . Body has not been found . She went missing on the Taupo - Napier road in 1975 . In the event her body was found then it can be proven that it was her body found in the event we had a National database and it may give the parents some relief . What makes you think there will be a usable DNA sample on 39 year old corpse?	Deane F (8204)
747872	2009-02-22 01:53:00	What makes you think there will be a usable DNA sample on 39 year old corpse? Depends on how well preserved the corpse is. Damaged DNA can still be read even if it has broken fragments. The undisturbed strands can still show patterns unique to the owner. Though of course accuracy can be affected.	qazwsxokmijn (102)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10