I happened upon a very interesting documentary on this subject yesterday and was struck by how similar the DNA digital fingerprint is to a modern barcode.
The vast amounts of data collected through barcodes are often centralised in corporate or governmental databases. This centralisation creates opportunities for misuse, whether through hacking, unauthorised sharing of personal data, or exploitation for profit.
Alec Jeffreys was born in 1950 in Oxford, England. His interest in genetics was sparked early in life, and after studying biochemistry at Merton College, Oxford, he pursued a PhD in genetics at the University of Oxford. His early research focused on understanding gene structure and function, but it was during his work at the University of Leicester that Jeffreys made his most significant contribution to science.
On September 10, 1984, while studying genetic markers in human DNA, Jeffreys noticed that certain sections of the DNA varied greatly between individuals, even among close relatives. These sections, known as "minisatellites," consisted of repetitive sequences that were highly variable in length and sequence from person to person. He realised that these genetic markers could serve as a kind of molecular "fingerprint," capable of distinguishing one individual from another with extraordinary accuracy.
Jeffreys’ DNA fingerprinting technique could be applied not only to solve complex genetic problems but also to forensic investigations, paternity cases, and immigration disputes.
Before Jeffreys’ breakthrough, forensic science primarily relied on techniques like fingerprint analysis, blood type comparison, and eyewitness testimony, all of which had limitations. The accuracy of these methods could be compromised by human error, contamination, or ambiguity. DNA fingerprinting introduced a new level of objectivity and reliability.
The first major forensic application of DNA fingerprinting came in 1986 in a double murder case in the UK. Two teenage girls, Lynda Mann and Dawn Ashworth, had been brutally murdered in Leicestershire. A local man, Richard Buckland, confessed to one of the murders but not the other. The police were left with conflicting evidence. Jeffreys’ DNA fingerprinting technology was applied to the case, and it not only exonerated Buckland but also identified the true perpetrator, Colin Pitchfork. This marked the first time in history that DNA evidence was used to convict a murderer, setting a precedent for its use in criminal investigations worldwide.
The success of DNA fingerprinting in the Pitchfork case launched a new era in forensic science. Law enforcement agencies across the globe quickly adopted the technology, using it to solve cold cases, overturn wrongful convictions, and ensure that justice was served.
Jeffreys’ invention also led to the development of national DNA databases, such as the UK’s National DNA Database (NDNAD), which stores DNA profiles of convicted criminals and crime scene evidence. These databases have become invaluable tools in solving cases that span decades, linking suspects to unsolved crimes, and preventing repeat offenders from evading justice.
In addition to its forensic applications, DNA fingerprinting has also been used in cases of disputed parentage, immigration, and historical investigations, including identifying the remains of long-dead historical figures or victims of atrocities.
While DNA fingerprinting has transformed forensic science, it has also raised important ethical and privacy concerns. The ability to store and access DNA profiles has led to debates about how this sensitive information should be regulated and used. Jeffreys himself has been an advocate for careful oversight, stressing that DNA databases must be used ethically and with full respect for individual rights.
Just as barcodes allow corporations to track consumer activity without their knowledge, DNA profiling could lead to extensive personal tracking or monitoring, potentially without informed consent.
The centralisation of personal data, whether in product tracking or DNA profiling, creates vulnerabilities where private information can be hacked, sold, or otherwise exploited. Each time we go to a supermarket, buy a product and pay via a credit or debit card, we are leaving a digital footprint.
Of course, I cannot help but reflect on the vaccines that so many people took during the Covid years. DNA is ( or was ) our unassailable shout out to our uniqueness. Our INDIVIDUALITY that no one could steal. Yet, how many took the gamble back in 2021? This short video explains.
Are we at risk of losing our uniqueness? Our God given stamp of approval? That thing that makes us unlike anyone else? I genuinely do not know.
Just as barcode data is sometimes used without consumer knowledge, DNA profiles could be used in ways that violate personal privacy, such as for marketing, predictive behavior analysis, or even discrimination based on genetic traits. And, after the Covid vaccines, one must wonder how the mRNA really did change our " barcodes. " ............ but surely not.........
Video from 2021
Modern barcodes show how technology that begins with practical applications can evolve into systems of widespread surveillance and data collection, often without individuals’ knowledge or consent. DNA profiling, while an extraordinary tool for justice and medicine, carries similar risks. The parallels between barcodes and DNA profiling serve as a warning that careful regulation, transparency, and ethical guidelines are needed to prevent the misuse of personal data, whether it's tied to a product or a person's genetic code.
The lesson from barcodes is clear: without oversight, tools designed for efficiency can easily become mechanisms for intrusion, and the implications are far more serious when applied to DNA.
We are all eager to jump on the DNA testing bandwagon to prove or disprove racial heritage and the right to declare oneself Aboriginal in order to gain financial, social or political advantages.
Yet, in order to be fair, some political groups could suggest that we should all have our DNA tested, not just those seeking to prove their Aboriginality. After all, that would be fair, wouldn't it?
Talk about Digital ID on steroids!
We would, in effect, have lined up to have our own unique Barcodes stored and recorded to allow us to be tracked and treated as inventory management....... oh wait. Hasn't that already happened?
All we would be doing is making it easier and more efficient for our controllers to track us.
Of course, I could be completely wrong...................
The Code of a Killer is available on Britbox through prime and also on Watch Code Of A Killer Online: Free Streaming & Catch Up TV in Australia | 7plus
