Future Guilt

The news the European Court of Human Rights has ruled the UK Government's practice of storing DNA is illegal has split opinion between a number of my friends. Some say if you've been charged for violent or sexual offence, then storing DNA is good and helps convict those who commit such acts. Conviction rates for rape are still astonishingly low and there are plenty of examples of people being brought to justice years after a crime because of wayward DNA left at the scene.

'It's no different that having your fingerprints taken', say supporters. I don't believe so for a number of reasons:

• Last time I looked, we are innocent until proven guilty in this country. The storing of DNA assumes if we're arrested for any reason, regardless of innocence, we're bound to be guilty of something someday soon. In short, the Government doesn't trust us.
  
  
• The chances of data being compromised increase with the size and complexity of the database. To give you an example, on the 9am BBC Radio 4 news on Thursday 7 May, item one was about the storing of DNA. Item two was the recent finding that a great deal of computers sold second hand often contain sensitive data, such as medical records, which can easily be accessed or forensically recovered using software.
  
  
• For the same reasons I'm opposed to ID cards, I believe we all have the right to anonymity. There is nothing sinister about minding your own business and respecting other's privacy. It is perhaps the greatest freedom a civilisation can bestow upon its populace; the assumption people are inherently good and not plotting to smash up the state either today or tomorrow. True many of us already choose to give away our information in exchange for a cheaper weekly shop, but that's our business.

What do people get arrested for? Those suspected of rape or violent crimes are sometimes arrested and acquitted and because I know a little about how the system works, I think DNA records for these offences should be retained. But people are detained in custody for all sorts of things. Like protesting. I bet if the Police retained the DNA profiles of protesters, people might think twice about attending a march.

DNA is such a contentious issue. It's more than a fingerprint. It's our blueprints. It can tell us everything about ourselves. Well, we think it does, nobody's really sure. Our DNA could reveal when we're going to die and of what diseases. DNA could tell the police who in society is more likely to commit crime. Or it might not, and the current consensus might change the more we learn about DNA. Should such sensitive data be used as tool to support statistical theory? I don't think so.

David Foster Wallace Dead

Still a bit odd to hear about DFW's death. And because it's a suicide, there's a whole load of extra intrigue as well. I suppose the one question (and one that will never be answered) is why?

He is a difficult read. But a rewarding one. At first glance, the long sentences and the footnotes make you think 'why is this man making it so hard?'. But you need to give it time. You need to be somewhere quiet. And you will need to reread bits.

For me, I loved his macro level of description - be it the operation of a cruise liner, the interactions of a focus group or what David Lynch is really like. For David Foster Wallace, difficult was worth doing.

I was reading on the Tube this morning the introduction to Riddley Walker by Will Self - another difficult book to read. He made a very interesting point: 'The idea that what I say to you will be immediately and lucidly comprehended is one of the most prosaic delusions of the neurotic age. Everyone wants to be understood as if the world were in a position to provide unconditional love. This is balls.'

Read something difficult today, it'll be worth your while. 'A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again', is a good start, or 'McCain's Promise: Aboard the Straight Talk Express with John McCain and a Whole Bunch of Actual Reporters, Thinking About Hope'. But if you're feeling brave you can dive into 'Infinite Jest'.