> den Otter wrote:
> > Yes, *of course* it makes perfect sense to index every citizen's
> > DNA and fingerprints (and fortunately this is likely to happen
> > sooner or later). The potential risks are truly insignificant compared
> > to the enormous benefits. Of course, the same goes for national
> > surveillance systems (with databanks) etc. Plain old common
> > sense...I've never really understood the paranoia that seems to
> > grip many people when this subject comes up; it takes *a lot
> > more* to get "1984".
>
> Hardly. With a database of every citizens DNA, the authorities can convict
> anyone they want of any crime they want now. Sequence up some of your DNA
> and sprinkle it around a crime scene. With computer technologies they can
> fabricate whatever photographic or video evidence they wish.
Yes, that's all true. But...they can do this anyway. Nowadays, if the government really wants you dead/in jail, they don't even have to take the trouble to drop your DNA on the scene or mess with videotape; they just "discover" some dope on your property and than it's your word against that of the cops. Or they just arrange an "accident". No high tech needed there either.
Now, enter the surveillance system. All data is stored at separate places (multiple redundancy) and for cross-referencing. When trying to fake evidence, one would have to break into *all* the encrypted databases (in underground vaults) and change *all* the relevant data (the nasty thing is that seemingly unrelated data can nonetheless serve to check the validity of primary data). This is a very tough job to do right, and in my scenario various civil rights (non-government) organizations and government agancies would have joint control over the databases, breathing down eachothers neck all the time, checking for every possible irregularity. Imagine cops with cams integrated into their uniforms, their cars, their guns etc., monitored by the people and government alike. I bet the level of authority abuse would drop drastically.