HOW much of my privacy am I willing to give to the government?

This is the question Malaysians must ask before they allow a law to be passed giving the government the right to collect DNA samples from virtually anybody, says senior London-based barrister Maurice Aston.

"DNA is the genetic blueprint of how our bodies will grow and how it will function. It gives information on the colour of our eyes and the colour of our hair, and information on our characteristics and temperament that's not fully understood yet.

"DNA may identify a person who is at risk of ill health, or a person who's related to a person at risk of ill health."

The fact that's little appreciated, says Aston, is that a DNA database tells those who have control over it a lot more about a person than simply who that person is.

"Your DNA says so much about you. If your DNA were represented as a questionnaire, it could go on and on for page after page after page, and fill the length of an average novel.

"Who would fill in that data -- the length of a novel -- tick all the boxes, and freely give it away? I would hazard a guess that none of you would."

Aston was in Kuala Lumpur recently to give a talk on "DNA -- a twist in the double helix: balancing crime detection and human rights", hosted by the British Council.

Although he noted that it was too late for Britain, there was still time for Malaysia to carefully consider what it wanted to put into the law, and whom this law would affect.

"Please get your law right the first time. I hope the Malaysian legislative draugh-tsmen don't simply cut-and-paste our (British) errors into your law. It would be a travesty if they did."

The things that have to be considered are:

- Whose DNA sample can be collected. (At present, the Malaysian DNA Bill allows the authorities to collect DNA samples from anyone reasonably suspected of having committed an offence).

- How long may the authorities store that information (under the bill, no time period is mentioned).

- Whether a person has a right to ask for his DNA information to be removed from the DNA database and destroyed if he is acquitted or not charged (under the bill, there is a provision for removing the data within six months of notification by the police, but no condition of what happens to this information, whether it is destroyed or when it is removed from the database).

- Whether the DNA information will be shared with other authorities (under the bill, a person's DNA profile may be communicated to a foreign law enforcement agency).

In Britain any person suspected of having committed a recordable crime (even littering) can be made to give his DNA sample. As a result, Britain's database is the largest in the world, covering 5.2 per cent of the population. The United States' DNA database only covers 0.5 per cent of its population.

Under the British law, the DNA profiles of anyone arrested for a recordable offence are kept in the database, regardless of whether they are charged or convicted.

(Interestingly, when Britain tried to set up a separate database for police officers for elimination purposes, the police protested, saying that it was an infringement of their rights.)

Aston did not deny that DNA was a vital tool for those involved in the modern criminal justice system, and an important ally in the search for truth. There was a good side to the DNA database.

For the complete year of 2005-2006, the British Home Office reported 45,000 crimes matched against the DNA database records, of these, 422 were homicides and 645 were rapes.

"A lot of good has been achieved. But at what cost?"

There was still the risk of transference. Because DNA profiling has become so sensitive it is possible for someone, who has touched another person, to transfer that person's DNA onto something else.

"DNA science is not magic. The chance of false evidence or false match of DNA is increased if the sample comes from a blood-relative.

"One-in-a-billion is soon run down to one-in-10, one-in-20, or one-in-a-100. In the case of identical twins, it's impossible to distinguish.

"There is also an increased chance of a false identification if the DNA sample at the crime scene is degraded or mixed with multiple sources of DNA. That makes it very hard to interpret."

Every night, the British DNA database does a search trying to match DNA profiles in its entire system to samples collected at crime-scenes. It has also begun to do familial searches, that is, a search to find anyone on its database that might be related to someone whose DNA sample was found at the scene of a crime, thereby narrowing down the aspect of their investigation.

"They are making a circle around a number of suspects. Not the man who did it, but somebody in his family. So, you could find yourself the target of a police inquiry because you happen to be related to somebody."

Aston said there must be positive and transparent laws governing the use and storage of DNA, particularly within the criminal justice system.

Instead of looking to Britain for our laws, Aston instead suggested looking to other countries that protected citizens' rights, like Switzerland.

The important thing about the Swiss system was that the Afis (automated fingerprint identification system), Codis (a storage system for forensic DNA profiles of offenders, suspects and crime scene traces) and personal and case data are all handled separately, physically and administratively.

And, once a person is acquitted or not charged, the details are taken out of the system.

"Making this DNA law is something that does not need to be rushed into. A full public debate on the aims and the limits of the database is very important."

Earlier this month, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in favour of two British men who had battled for six years to have their DNA profiles erased from the British database.

Their information had been retained although they were not convicted of crimes for which they were arrested.

News reports said up to 1.7 million DNA and fingerprint profiles may have to be taken off the database as a result of the ruling.

"It's important that Malaysians get their laws right because, unlike in Britain, Malaysians do not have access to the European Court of Human Rights, which provides a safeguard that British legislators failed to provide," Aston said.