DNA is a unique identifier of human beings, capable of indicating ethnicity and physical features. Mandating the profiling of DNA of all citizens is clearly an interventionist policy requiring extensive monetary and technological resources. Whether it is in the best interest of both the state and the people can be realised on analysing the costs and benefits of the same. I believe and shall argue that public registration of DNA should not be mandatory, and further that there should not be a register of public DNA beyond those suspected or accused of certain crimes. My reasons for thinking so are; making mandatory the public registration of DNA is an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, granting the state or an associated agency access to this sensitive information risks misuse and mishandling and that creating a national DNA database invites significant yet safety risk.
First, the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) protects the right to private life. Being forced to submit DNA will amount to an unjustified exception of this right. In Rotaru v. Romania, the court ruled that systematically collected public information stored indefinitely by a state or its agents falls under the scope of private life, as defined in the ECHR. Though some widely used biometrics, such as photos and (at times) fingerprints are justified exceptions to this, DNA would not be. This is because of two reasons distinguishing DNA from other biometrics. One, DNA can indicate a person’s present or past hereditary or generic illness against their wishes. Two, DNA can indicate ethnicity and other physical features, leading to a potential propagation of bias. Not that the state must never collect a citizen’s DNA, but for the state to do so, they must establish a significant suspicion of the individual in a violent criminal matter. We also seen this argument in Marper v United Kingdom and Aycaguer v. France. We must also note that these judgements indicate the present status quo in most countries. By extending national databases to include DNA of all citizens, the probability of a false match only increases.
Second, granting the state or an associated agency access to this sensitive information risks misuse and mishandling. The government (and sub-contracted agencies) or individuals in them could misuse this information to frame certain groups of people or individuals, as per their best interests. This database grants the government an excess of power and threatens all citizens constantly. Further, the risk that those involved in creating this database and then operating it may unintentionally mishandle it persists. A false DNA match could prove immorally detrimental to one accused of a crime. Though we accept this risk for other forms of biometrics, the risk becomes increasingly significant as the amount of information associated with an identifier increase. DNA, being the most information-rich identifier, faces the greatest risk, one we should not accept.
Third, creating a national DNA database invites significant safety risk. Information about all citizen’s illnesses and other hereditary traits can be of humongous monetary value of certain firms, such as those in the healthcare and insurance sectors, within the country and abroad. These firms will attempt to access this information, as it is in their best interest to do so. Actors with criminal intentions are significantly likely to attempt the same for its monetary value. Not only does protecting this information incur a significant cost on society, it creates an avoidable risk endangering all citizens.
While a national DNA database could help reduce the number of false convictions, increase the ease in analysing suspects and aid the identification of unknown or otherwise unrecognisable people, DNA evidence alone does not connote a fair trial with a just verdict. Though creating a DNA database may reduce the costs and time spent currently associated with analysing suspects, it incurs greater costs of its own.
In conclusion, I submit that DNA registration should not be mandatory and a national DNA database must not exist. Among the things that define us as humans, our unique physical traits are a significant bit. The centralised control of this information would be potentially antithetical to our freedoms and rights. Both the monetary costs and social repercussions of such a database outweigh the potential benefits. Such a database would be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy and potentially points towards a surveillance state and “Big Brother” (1984. Orwell) governments.
Kommentare