As Benjamin Franklin said:

"..They that can give up essential liberties, to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety.."

But surely what is worse about Geroge Orwell's 1984, is not the cameras necessarily (albeit bad) but the fact that it was a privilege to be able to switch them off. Now who will be bale to do that?

Austin Tassletine, Bristol, UK

To all those who have nothing to hide, could they please send me a copy of their bank statements and details of all the children that live with them. And could they also let me know where they were last Thursday evening because the tracking system lost them then.

Also, I'll collect the DNA of all my friends (do you know just how easy this is?) and then I'll pretend that I am them. That should do it...

Stuart, Chichester, England

The concept that if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear, is not born out by human nature. Law-abiding people who are observed and know it, behave in a more subdued manner. The assumed 'right' of completely innocent people to fully express themnselves and go about their normal lives can be (and is) controlled simply by creating those structures (technical and/or organisational) whose task it it is to observe people in there normal lives. If a person knows that these structures are in place, they are more fearful about exercising their lawful rights to socialise and express themselves creatively or politically. Fear and oppression are the consequence of a surveillence-obsessed state, regardless of what the formal intent is.

Bruce Haig, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

To those that say'If you have nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear', think about all those that have been convicted on the strength of a hair or two found at a crime scene,or a tissue containing DNA. Now imagine someone collecting items like that from you and using them to frame you for a crime-DNA profiling being 99.99% accurate, you would have a tough time convincing a jury of your innocence. And how long before banks and health insurers claim a right to examine your genes for potentially life-threatening conditions so they can withold health insurance or a mortgage? The law is only as infallible as the people that upold it and with such a thuggishly intrusive Govement as this, do you really think the database will remain secure? The foundation on which British law is based is that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. It hasn't taken Labour long to chip away at that. This is a really sinister proposal-and what's next? Compulsory identification microchips for all UK citizens?

Catherine Saumarez, London,

Less than 1 percent of crimes have DNA samples taken so if you have everyone on the database you will only ever reduce crime buy 1 percent. Also 50,000 crimes were solved by checking samples against the database, this means that 50,000 criminals knowing they were on the DNA database still went on to commit a crime. Of course you can today request to have youre DNA added to the database so those who agree to this proposal should go to their local police station and volunteer their datails. But before you go just think that once youre on this database you will be a suspect in every crime where DNA samples are obtained until a seach of the database eliminates you. Nothing to hide nothing to fear. Why if you have nothing to hide should you be treated as if you have.

Andrew Evans, Llanelli, UK

I have nothing to hide so what does anyone else have to fear?

Tim, Stirling, UK

I agree, this idea is fantastic and should be incorporated with the ID cards!!
I have had my DNA taken by the police when i was questioned on suspicion of criminal damage which i did not commit and was released without charge, i still think they should keep it on file for future reference!!

As for the Human Rights Activitvists, my solution is simple IF YOU ARE DOING NOTHING WRONG THEREFORE YOU HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE!!!

Lee Whyman, Preston, England

Can any readers out there recommend to me a stable, mature, liberal democracy that generally respects individual freedoms (preferably with those rights being enshrined in a constitution or similar)?
I'm a 30 something professional with 3 degrees and would love to contribute to the growth and longevity of a society that treats my civil rights with respect.
The country of my birth is losing its way and I would like to leave before it is too late.

Dave, Edinburgh, UK

For those in support of it - let them suppy their sample. For those opposed - let them keep their property.

I don't think its a good idea and if it ever came to the crunch and it became mandatory I would leave, if exits were barred I'd probably jump in front of a bus because then you know that society has fallen and integrity is a concept written about in History books.

And I have nothing to hide. Its just that I am protective about my DNA and it belongs to nobody else but me.

Lucy, Welwyn, Hertfordshire

Whats everybody so worried about?

Lets register our DNA with the State to help them catch criminals, only those who have something to hide should be worried, right?

Then they can put TV cameras in our homes to see what we're all doing - after all, its only people who are doing something wrong that should be worried, right?

After that, in about 30 to 50 years, we can all have chips put into our heads so the police know what we're thinking about. It's only those who are thinking about something wrong that should be worried. Right?

James, Newcastle,

Just putting aside the huge civil and privacy issues for a moment to look at the practicality of such a system. There are about 51 million UK residents and around 30 million UK visitors each year so thats 81 million records to manage which is one massive database.

Even if we take the error within the database at 1%, you are looking at about 800,000 records that have errors or the wrong DNA sample associated with a person. Compare that figure with the total number of people in jail which is around 75,000 in England and Wales, the system just does not make sense.

What I particularly like to hear from Lord Justice Sedley is exactly how he proposes to approach these criminals to get their DNA?

Tim Jones, London,

Just putting aside the huge civil and privacy issues for a moment to look at the practicality of such a system. There are about 51 million UK residents and around 30 million UK visitors each year so thats 81 million records to manage which is one massive database.

Even if we take the error within the database at 1%, you are looking at about 800,000 records that have errors or the wrong DNA sample associated with a person. Compare that figure with the total number of people in jail which is around 75,000 in England and Wales, the system just does not make sense.

What I particularly like to hear from Lord Justice Sedley is exactly how he proposes to approach these criminal to get their DNA?

Tim Jones, London,

You might get samples from law abiding citizens. At least the ones not concerned with their civil rights.

But criminals whose samples are actually needed would avoid giving samples just as they don't have licenses or insurance.

David Troffer, Los Angeles, CA

I agree - excellent idea - if you've got nothing to hide then you've got nothing to worry about! All systems are open to abuse so nothing is perfect - however having this data available would help fight crime no end. Considering the number of murders that occur practically on a daily basis at the moment I think anything that can potentially help would be a great asset. Benefits far outway the costs on this one.

Darren, Bracknell, Berkshire

Since when has an innocent person's DNA profile been the property of the state?

Dave, Southampton, UK

if you think this is a good idea, then surely a better one would be to lock everyone up - i'm sure the crime rate would be pretty close to zero if that happened, so why not ?
its just a couple of steps further down the road of destroying the individual.

i don't want to live in the same world as some people. i value being considered innocent until being proved guilty and don't see what right the police or the government have to do this.
they are there to SERVE the people of the country and this would fundamentally affect the balance between the two.
it turns the state into one which knows everything about everybody in the country and quite frankly, thats none of their business - at least until they commit a crime.

i don't want to have my kids profiled a birth and have to wear a start on their arm if they are deemed likely to commit a crime.

Jon, London,

A database is not a police state - if the state or the police cannot be trusted, then we must change THEM. Meanwhile the chance of reducing crime, which has risen over 12-fold since the 1950's, must be taken. Almost everyone has been a victim of crime, most of us more than once. And let's not forget the potential for DNA to prevent miscarriages of justice.

As to criminal genetics, if it should become possible to identify a crime-linked gene then neutering would present a terrific opportunity to build a more honest and less violent society over time. After all, we neuter our dogs, and we like them a lot more than we like criminals!

Nigel Robertson, Melton Mowbray,

What is more scary than the prospect of every citizen on a DNA database? The thought that the majority of comments here that are so supportive, may be truly representative, which will embolden the politicians to go ahead with it.

What gullible and naive fools so many are, to believe that there will be:

No errors
No miscarriages of justice
No identity mix-ups
No access beyond the police and the legal profession
No selling of the information to commercial organisations
No scientific research for a wide range of purposes
Transparency, openness and accountability on access to our DNA profile and the reasons why

Those that say the only thing George Orwell got wrong was the timing, with his vision of 1984, are surely right. What he didn't predict was that people would be so willing to embrace it.

I despair. What would Sir Winston Churchill have made of it all?

Trevor, London,

My DNA belongs to me. As I am not the property of the State, the State cannot demand what does not belong to it.

Jim Meldrum, Prestwich Manchester,

We need more police to watch over the UK and to protect us not to waste tax money on registering the DNA of millions of innocent people who have never committed a crime in their life.

Kai, Trowbridge, England

I find the proposal shocking, but not surprising. But it is cheeky in the extreme to say -- The police oppress minorities unfairly, so let's oppress everyone to make it fair. The government's record on civil liberties shows it is not to be trusted. Within weeks of the last round of terrorism laws coming in, old men were being arrested under its provision for heckling the prime minister, and protesters were being arrested for demonstrating against the Iraq war. Combine what would be the world's biggest DNA database with identity cards, the blanket tapping of mobile phones and the densest concentration of CCTV on the planet and you have a state which has awarded itself greater powers over its citizens than any in history. And all the population has is the vague promise it won't misuse them. Honest. It will. The line that if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear is the argument of the authoritarian throughout history. It is also demonstrably wrong. iai

iain pears, oxford,

The Judge is correct in saying that the present situation is "indefensible", even the inventor of DNA profiling, Sir Alec Jeffreys, agrees the database is skewed and predjudiced. We should either follow the judges recomendations or remove non-offenders from the database. N.B. A DNA profile only examines 11 genes of the over 20000 in the body, so the chance for predictive profiling is not present.

Dave Jackson, Carnforth, UK

The judge can not be serious. Notwithstanding liberty issues, DNA testing of a million or two per year is imprcticable.

john o'shea, brighton, uk

I think a DNA database is an excellent idea. It is only people who having something to hide or are paranoid about "big brother" that object. I don't see how people can complain when we already have a driving licence, passport and other such identity documents.

A DNA database register would not be open to abuse as with other forms of identity and would greatly help in solving crimes.

eddie, Staffordshire, England

There would,of course,be exceptions to the rule.Politicians and their families would be exempt,along with religious groups opposing the drawing of dna samples.Judges too would probably be above suspicion,along with anyone making above a certain salary per year.Check out your child registry exemptions.

ron, toronto,

In principle I have no problems with whole population profiling. The crime gene? what a nonsense. It is just like a photograph of people on passports. I think it will be very valuable in solving crimes, and also prevent crimes if one knows you are going to leave indisputable forensic evidence. Even more so, this will nail identities in a much more effective way than any ID cards. So get rid of those.The only problem I have is with children that find out that the person that calls himself their father is not, but the milkman is... Same problem possibly for that father as well. So the system has to be strictly confidential. It is also a tremendous scientific opportunity to find out about disease linkages. Although again this information should not go to insurance companies. So with the proper protective measures in place I am ok handing my DNA profile to the authorities.

theo berkhout, hertford, uk

The judge has not thought through this. Anyone with common sense can see how dangerous and futile this proposal is. DNA can be gathered from almost any source where someone has been. What are the police going to do at the scene of a major investigation? collect thousands of DNA samples at a huge cost to process them and then spend years tracking people down - talk about cold case investigations!! The police cannot even control the crime we currently have on the streets. The answer to this was said a long time ago, less paperwork and more proper police officers on the beat, not in cars but on foot and working in the communities.

S.Turner, Manchester, UK

It's difficult to disagree with the FORS when they take the moral high ground quoting protection of the innocent and a higher success fighting crime...all good stuff. But, I would bet these people have never lived in a "Police State", although the UK is fast approaching this.
As someone, who in the course of employment, has lived in 2 "Police States" for a considerable number of years I can only recommend they go back and rethink what the consequences would be when their civil liberties have been erroded and there is a draconian government in power. Don't say it could never happen in the UK, it could happen anywhere...e.g. Germany in the 30's.
No, Judges should remain removed from political comments, they are there to administer the law, not create it.

Tom, Alicante, Spain

The trouble with this Government, is that this type of Orwellian proposal will probably get through on the back of people who are too thick to understand the implications of the proposal.

What if scientists decide that there is a gene which is linked to criminal behaviour, are we then to monitor people on the basis that they 'might' commit a crime.

Also, bear in mind that it will not be universal, politicians and the famous will exclude themselves just as they excluded their children from the national childrens database.

Martin, Reading, UK

Excellent idea

Peter W Bodle, Stoke Ferry, Norfolk

If there were a universal DNA database then the opportunity and pressure for predictive profiling would increase. So in 10 years time when the 70million samples have been analysed it is discovered that there is a "serious crime" gene that exists in 100% of those who commit serious crime and that 90% of those who possess it have already committed serious crime. The rest of us think that it would be only right and proper to lock the remaining 10% up before they get round to doing their dastardly deeds. Anybody still thinking "Nothing to hide nothing to fear"?

Ian Barley, Farnborough,

I feel there would be a revolte should this come into force, similar if not worse than the community charge of the tories. I personaly will not give a dna sample will go to prison first and continue to do so. It is an invasion of personal liberty. I am a law abiding citizen and therefore no need for my dna to be registered, that would infringe on my civil rights.

Ronald Swift, Liverpool, England

I think the Judge who has called for the collection of everybody's DNA is a truly modern man with a real good vision for the future of society.
I don't trust civil libertarians.
Under the cloth of Anarchy they disguise their illegal and antisocial activities.
When one has nothing to hide one wants to live in a well regulated society.

Viviana Vivienne Croccolo-Huwald, Melbourne , Australia - Victoria

I don't trust civil liberties groups. They are peopled by members of society which fear scrutiny and that is dictated by the fact that one has something to hide.
I think it is an excellent idea to have the DNA of everyone.
It is a vision of the future.
Imagine society without registration of people's birth or death and so on.
Anarchy is what those who want to act illigally and in anti-social ways do advocate.

Viviana Vivienne Croccolo-Huwald, Melbourne , Australia - Victoria

Any such directive issued by any government would simply be ignored. Government has no claim nor right to such personal information.

Thomas, Atlanta, GA, USA

Well, good (if slightly diconcerting) to see that judges aren't immune to specious reasoning!

Shall we examine the flaws in the logic here?
"Minorities are over represented" (possibly and probably true)
"Lots of criminals aren't caught" (definitely true)
"Some innocent people are on there too" (similarly tue)

= All of us should be on there. (Eh??)

In no way does this follow: even if you ignore the possible (and again probable) future uses for genetic/DNA information in our society, given what our DNA is able to say about us who would trust such valuable material to anyone as incompetent as central governemt - of any political creed!

Carl, Wing, UK

Rita Chakrabati of 'Liberty' is barking up a gum tree!! I totally support the Judge, Sir Stephen Sedley. DNA is the complete answer to the authorities being able to establish our identity and those in our community who seek to do harm to us. It is far far more reliable than identity cards, particularly if it covered visitors as well. Only those who have something to hide have anything to fear from giving their DNA. Come on Rita, it is time to change tack on this one, and support the Sir Stephen and the authorities who try to look after those of us who have done no wrong. If we are to maintain our infrastructure against terrorist threat, this is another line of defence that cannot be ignored.

Sam Parkin, Farnborough, Hants

Criminal implications to one side - the shear medical benefits would be enormous. As far as civil liberties are concerned the majority of law abiding citizens do have a "I've nothing to hide therefore nothing to fear" attitude so let's do it.

Alan Munce, Lincolnshire, UK

i agree that everyone should provide a dna sample, what have innocent people got hide? it would help enormously and act as a major deterrent. There is always a chance of a miscarriage of justice but dna would at least help narrow down some candidates and it should be a simple job to ensure people not within spitting distance of the crime are not convicted. The streets would be a lot safer and we would save billions in catching and convicting criminals. Never again civil liberties groups should hang their head in shame as rapists continue to murder and get away with it and this would be a lot more difficult if proper dna samples were taken. having said all that i am sure criminals would find a way to give someone elses dna and get around the system but it would have to be seriously well organised.

simon, london,

Come on guys, flash to the hidden agenda. Most likely as a government initiative, Lord Justice Sedley's statement is a deliberate provocation. If the ratio of useful idiots that mindless mouth, "If you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear" is a sufficiently large minority, Authority will be sufficiently emboldened to move on the next stage of citizen (make that subject) surveillance.
I am not a number, I am a free man.
'course you are No.771000001/b.

Andrew Milner, Karuizawa, Nagano

Guilty until, or if, we can prove ourselves innocent.

MF Robinson, London, England

The only thing chilling about this is that individuals who claim to have some notional interest in "civil liberties" bleat their perverse opposition to it. What kind of civil liberties do they think they are defending? The liberty to rape, assault, murder? What about the liberty of those of us who do not commit crimes to be defended from criminals and perverts? Get your priorities right!

Iain Johnstone, Glasgow, UK

Well its never a bad idea would help solve murders possibly quicker but then again someone has accses to your DNA :o:o:o:o:o

Dave, stoke on trent,

Stalin and Hitler would be in full agreement with the judge. Logicaly it would simplify and make more accurate the governments systematic process of biological purification, suppression and genocide against there own people.

Wait a minute isn't a totalitarian police state what our forefathers fought and died for to prevent?

What have we become?

We get the government we deserve.

Phil, Witham, UK

Too Orwellian for me. As a foreign ex-pat for a company that has brought jobs and investment into Britain, I would not participate in the judge's human catalogueing scheme.

J. Hudson, Wellingborough,