PDA

View Full Version : Identity Cards for everyone?



Andy McGregor
7th-July-2005, 05:39 PM
Should we all have identity cards?

Andy McGregor
7th-July-2005, 05:46 PM
Should we all have identity cards?
My own opinion is that we should have identity card with our photos on. There's already loads of data about us on file. All the card would do would be make it possible to link that data already on file to the person showing the card to the police/customs/Inland Revenue/etc.

IMHO, only someone with something to hide would need to fear Identity Cards.

El Salsero Gringo
7th-July-2005, 05:52 PM
My own opinion is that we should have identity card with our photos on. There's already loads of data about us on file. All the card would do would be make it possible to link that data already on file to the person showing the card to the police/customs/Inland Revenue/etc.

IMHO, only someone with something to hide would need to fear Identity Cards.No, no, a thousand times no. I don't want my data 'linked' - I don't want to be identified, or identifiable.

As for whether I have anything to hide - what I might be proud of today (trade union membership, political affiliation, racial background) I might want to hide tomorrow. So don't give me trite lines about "only people with something to hide". You want to put your neck in the noose - so be it. But not me.

Lounge Lizard
7th-July-2005, 05:52 PM
My own opinion is that we should have identity card with our photos on. There's already loads of data about us on file. All the card would do would be make it possible to link that data already on file to the person showing the card to the police/customs/Inland Revenue/etc.

IMHO, only someone with something to hide would need to fear Identity Cards.
:yeah:

Jive Brummie
7th-July-2005, 05:55 PM
Should we all have identity cards?


Yes.

We're already watched by 'big brother' anyway each and every time we use a cash point or walk down the street, pay for petrol with a card...all that sort of stuff.

I have to agree with Andy (again :really: ), only the criminal (in my rather broad speaking opinion), have anything to fear with i.d. cards.

Bring 'em on.

J x x

azande
7th-July-2005, 06:00 PM
My own opinion is that we should have identity card with our photos on. There's already loads of data about us on file. All the card would do would be make it possible to link that data already on file to the person showing the card to the police/customs/Inland Revenue/etc.

IMHO, only someone with something to hide would need to fear Identity Cards.

:yeah:

......and hell froze over! :what: :rofl: :rofl:

Trousers
7th-July-2005, 06:10 PM
Should we all have identity cards?
I'm for it

Maybe with some limits on the information held.

But hellfire I don't have anything to hide and if (needs to be proven I suppose) it makes **** like today happening and illegal immigration and people trafficing more difficult then YES!

Personally as someone who has never looked his age it would have been good for me trying to get p1ssed on occaision too!

David Bailey
7th-July-2005, 06:12 PM
No, no, a thousand times no. I don't want my data 'linked' - I don't want to be identified, or identifiable.
:yeah:
They were wrong last week, they're still wrong now. Ill-conceived, with no clear purpose, no justification, and no proper costing. It's the Poll Tax for the Blair government.

ID cards won't stop a suicide bomber, they didn't help in Madrid, New York doesn't want them - and neither do I.


So don't give me trite lines about "only people with something to hide".
:yeah: again - it's the classic line of a fascist state, and I want nothing to do with it.

cerocmetro
7th-July-2005, 06:36 PM
:yeah:
They were wrong last week, they're still wrong now. Ill-conceived, with no clear purpose, no justification, and no proper costing. It's the Poll Tax for the Blair government.

ID cards won't stop a suicide bomber, they didn't help in Madrid, New York doesn't want them - and neither do I.


:yeah: again - it's the classic line of a fascist state, and I want nothing to do with it.


I thought we have ID cards, driving licences passorts etc. I do think you should have ID on you I do think it should be one of these or if you don't have one then yes an ID card.

Personally I don't have a problem with ID cards. We are a country with open borders effectively and a lot of enemies. To me anything that reduces the risks of another today is good.

My concern though is for my children. If having ID cards will help protect their lives them I'm for it. If living under a dictorship police state protects my children, I'm for it. Look at Singapore, that's a dictatorship and thats one country I feel safe in.

now don't get me wrong I still think democracy is the way to go but I do think having ID cards does not mean a loss of freedom. As I said most of us carry a form of ID already.

We probably have just as much info held on Ceroc members as an ID card would hold except a nice picci of course.

Not sure your email address would be on your ID card.

There is an alternative, all non UK residents have to have ID cards fingerprinted, DNA, retina scans etc. All UK residents just have a "proof of residency card" or driving licence which has to be carried at all times with little detail on it. It's people choice then if they want to come to the UK or not

David Franklin
7th-July-2005, 06:37 PM
They were wrong last week, they're still wrong now. Ill-conceived, with no clear purpose, no justification, and no proper costing. Agreed. The previous poll was 3:1 against ID cards, this one is almost 3:1 in favour. What was that about not letting terrorists change our way of life?

Lory
7th-July-2005, 07:35 PM
Personally, I haven't got a problem with having to have a photo ID card. :o

I'm a law abiding citizen and I haven't got a criminal record, I pay my taxes :innocent: and I was born here, as were my parents and generations before them!

Therefore, what have I got to be afraid of :confused:

If one has a bank account, a national insurance no. and a driving licence, it almost amounts to the same thing anyway. :rolleyes:

'Big Brother' already knows how much me and my family earn, my shopping habits and without too much investigation, could probably work out what i've been up to over the past year... where I bought my petrol, hotels i've stayed in, where and what i've purchased and what airlines i've used! etc. :cool:

They also know who i've been talking too, via my mobile or land-line! :really:

So, why is one more thing going to bother me???

On the other hand, I'm not so sure that any measures will prevent the serious terrorist! :angry:

Heres an interesting article! (http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,561089,00.html)

El Salsero Gringo
7th-July-2005, 08:15 PM
Anyone who gives you a long list of "problems" and assures you that £30billion spent on ID cards is money well spent to fix those problems is lying through their teeth. And anyone who believes those assurances is a bloody fool.

Barry Shnikov
7th-July-2005, 08:22 PM
A story.

Michael Barrett, some of you will remember, was a presenter of Nationwide on the Beeb. After leaving, he set up a company that made promotional and training films, etc. and got some business from government departments. The nature of this work meant that his staff had to be vetted - I can't remember after all this time whether they had to be positively or negatively vetted. We must be talking about the early/mid 80s, I should think.

One year, the information came back that a senior woman producer employed by him had failed the vetting. He was told that while she was employed by him, he could not be awarded any government contracts. In the interview I saw he was visibly distressed when recalling how he had to inform this utterly mystified young woman that she was being summarily dismissed, and why.

Everything might have ended there had it not been for a quirk of fate. Her father was a retired Chief Constable, though I don't recall of which force. His contacts, nevertheless, were enough for him to call in a few favours and find out what had happened, piecing together bits of evidence.

Some time before, she had been on holiday in Germany with friends, driving about in a beat-up old car which either belonged to her or had been hired in her name. Apparently, at one autobahn service station, one of the cashiers had decided that her boyfriend looked like one of the Baader Meinhof gang, and reported that suspicion and the licence number of the car.

This information got back to the UK police who had her down in a central database somewhere as being links to terrorism.

Needless to say, her boyfriend was not in the Baader Meinhof gang, he wasn't even German. And of course the most cursory checks would have revealed the truth. But ya see information of such poor quality is probably swamping the system, and who has the time to check it all?

More to come.

David Bailey
7th-July-2005, 08:31 PM
I thought we have ID cards, driving licences passorts etc.
None of which are compulsory, or have to be produced on the demand of some jumped-up beaurocrat.


Personally I don't have a problem with ID cards. We are a country with open borders effectively and a lot of enemies.
As is Spain and Turkey - ID cards there didn't stop Istanbul bombing, nor did they stop hundreds dying in Madrid.

ID cards would also have a minimal impact on illegal working - as it's already illegal to work without a national insurance number.

And it'll cost. A lot. That hotbed of incompetence and anrachism, the LSE, has calculated £10-19 billion. You can pay for a hell of a lot of police officers for that money...

The saying "If you've got nothing hide, there's nothing to worry about" is perhaps one of the greatest of all political slogans never dreamed up by a spin doctor.


To me anything that reduces the risks of another today is good.
Anyone determined enough to spend months or years planning this sort of atrocity isn't going to have a problem getting an ID card, fake or real.


If living under a dictorship police state protects my children, I'm for it.
:eek: I suspect the best protection for our children is, well, not living in a dictatorship...


We probably have just as much info held on Ceroc members as an ID card would hold except a nice picci of course.
In my case, that's probably a bonus. But I suspect that Ceroc hasn't quite got biometric data on us yet, although I'm sure the assimilation is just a matter or time.


There is an alternative, all non UK residents have to have ID cards fingerprinted, DNA, retina scans etc.
Yeah, especially expat Kiwis, they're the really evil ones you know... :whistle:

Barry Shnikov
7th-July-2005, 08:32 PM
More information.

When the Police and Criminal Evidence Act was introduced ('PACE') it vigorously controlled how police can conduct investigations. (This was as a result of investigations that resulted in false imprisonment of the Guildford 4 and Birmingham 6, and also other investigations in which, e.g., suspects were pinioned in their chairs and plastic bags put over their head until they passed out - the process being repeated until the interviewers were told what they wanted to hear.)

DNA information became very useful to the police. However, PACE (or amendments to it) controlled the use of DNA evidence collected in large scale investigations. All DNA data collected in respect of persons ruled out of that particular investigation had to be disposed of once a conviction was obtained or the investigation was abandoned.

However, in the 90s a suspect was charged with a crime on the basis of DNA evidence from a different investigation and which had not been disposed of pace PACE (sorry about that!) His defence team applied for the evidence to be disallowed on the basis that its retention by the police had been unlawful. This went to the House of Lords who said: "well, tut tut, can't have the police acting unlawfully! have a medium sized telling off, you naughty fellows. However, contrary to the interests of justice to have compelling evidence disallowed and so therefore it will be admitted."

So much for the protection offered by PACE. Police have no incentive to abide by that particular statute.

More.

Barry Shnikov
7th-July-2005, 08:42 PM
Last post (of this batch).

In a decision made only last week, a man found out that his bank had kept wrong information about him for 7 years which appears to have affected his credit rating.

He went into the bank (not his own branch) and handed over two cheques to pay household bills. He then asked for his account balance; they told him he'd need some ID. He had a colour photocopy of his driving licence, so he gave that across. This aroused some suspicion (it's not clear whether he openly told them it was a photocopy at the time). He was told that some information was being sought from his own branch, and asked to wait. 30 minutes later two policemen turned up and questioned him.

The police accepted that the photocopy was just that, and not a 'forgery', and allowed him to go about his business. When he complained to the bank, he then - and only then - discovered that there was an entry on his file to say that he had been dismissed from his position for fraud in or around 1997, and that his honesty was therefore suspect.

Now, this was a preliminary hearing, and not a final judgment, so we have no findings of fact as to why he was dismissed, but he states that he was not dismissed for any such reason. In any event the bank appears to have no information as to why the information was entered on his record nor who put it there. Furthermore, to remove that information apparently requires, according to evidence before the judge, two programmers to write a bespoke patch to enable his record to be altered.

Set aside the speculation about whether or not the information is correct (and the natural tendency to wonder why he has a colour photocopy in his wallet instead of a real driving licence) and this asks a lot of questions about what happens to data when it's in the hands of large institutions.

If anybody reads all three of these posts (and why would you?) and isn't uncomfortable about having your personal, financial, medical, social and travel information all on one card which, for example, an estate agent might insist upon scanning before agreeing to sell your house as a fraud prevention measure, then you are much more trusting than me.

David Bailey
7th-July-2005, 08:44 PM
Another comprehensive demolition of the whole "ID cards help fight terrorism" argument can be found in this Privacy International report (http://www.privacyinternational.org/issues/idcard/uk/id-terrorism.pdf) (PDF document).

Barry Shnikov
7th-July-2005, 08:48 PM
If living under a dictorship police state protects my children, I'm for it.



:eek: I suspect the best protection for our children is, well, not living in a dictatorship...


Abso-effing-lutely!

A few dictatorships come to mind: Mao's China, Stalin's Russia, Enver Hoxhia's Albania, Cambodia under Pol Pot, Pinochet's Chile, modern day Zimbabwe, and until recently Iraq. That's preferable to England today, ie without ID cards?

I DON'T THINK SO!!

frodo
7th-July-2005, 10:19 PM
Should we all have identity cards?
While I don't like identity cards and don't want to carry one, I think they're probably inevitable and perhaps, in the circumstances, desirable.

A few individuals can now do so much damage that society as a whole probably cannot afford not to have the ability to exert additional control over such individuals and groups.


While not a panacea to every problem they might be sold as, I don't think it is a reasonable argument that they won't be very helpful to the police.

The arguments against of cost / won't work technologically / will be forged may have merit in the short term ( especially if the government messes up as usual ), but I cannot believe these will hold in the long term.


The main issue as far as I'm concerned is the level of democratic oversight / protection of minorities and individuals against abuse of the increased control ID cards would give the police and those in power.

Sadly, I don't think we're hearing a whole lot about safeguards from the government. :sad:

ChrisA
7th-July-2005, 10:25 PM
The 9/11 hijackers all had ID cards - and not even forgeries.

LMC
7th-July-2005, 10:40 PM
It's all very well saying that those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear.

But then the law changes....

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the communists
and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me -
and by then there was no one left to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller


http://www.no2id.net/

wicked blue
7th-July-2005, 11:19 PM
ID cards are a definate and big fat no, no. All this terrorism is the very thing the government wants to produce fear amongst people, that way they can spoon feed us with some crazy idea that seems like a solution! Its a slippery slope away from democracy to a dictatorship...its only a matter of time before they'll be embedding micro chips into the human body .. :mad:

Lynn
7th-July-2005, 11:41 PM
All I can say is....

LL, JB and Azande all agreeing with Andy...?! :really: :really:

Dreadful Scathe
7th-July-2005, 11:43 PM
My own opinion is that we should have identity card with our photos on. There's already loads of data about us on file. All the card would do would be make it possible to link that data already on file to the person showing the card to the police/customs/Inland Revenue/etc.

IMHO, only someone with something to hide would need to fear Identity Cards.
Rubbish.

1. Being identified as, for example, a liberal wouldnt have been a good thing in Nazi germany and it wouldnt be good thing in the current right wing climate here either. Introducing ID cards is anther step toward one single card which stores information which is none of the governments business. If banks want to introduce biometrics on their cards thats a different matter entirely but the current ID card idea is a government spun waste of money.

2. We are already indentifiable, if we are arrested and we are not identifiable the police can hold us until they CAN identify us. Spending billions on cards is going to be useful how? (especially when the biometric technology is rubbish) The cost will run into the hundreds of pounds per person for no quantifiable difference.

It may help identify the suicide bombers more quickly, assuming they are carrying one and its accurate and still in one piece...er..that'd be useful :confused:

Dreadful Scathe
7th-July-2005, 11:43 PM
All I can say is....

LL, JB and Azande all agreeing with Andy...?! :really: :really:
I dont think Azande was agreeing ;)

Dreadful Scathe
7th-July-2005, 11:46 PM
And my answer is still NO despite the "I am a smurf" option ;)

Lynn
7th-July-2005, 11:50 PM
I dont think Azande was agreeing ;) Oops! I thought that was what the 'hell freezes over' comment was about, that they were agreeing :rofl:

Not sure what I think on this, as I don't have enough knowledge on the purpose of the cards and who would have access to the information etc.

ducasi
7th-July-2005, 11:56 PM
IMHO, only someone with something to hide would need to fear Identity Cards. One way, which may be possible using current technology, to help catch criminals and terrorists would be if *every* phone call made, and text message and email sent was recorded and analysed by computers and/or humans looking for suspicious activity.

Would you fear this? If you've got nothing to hide?

With your shiny new identity card the government will be able to track its use, and thus will know where you are and what you are doing – they will then analyse this data for suspicious activity.

Don't you fear this? Even though you've got nothing to hide?

Lynn
8th-July-2005, 12:00 AM
Should we all have identity cards? Well if you didn't have your passport with you they would be photo id for getting onto a flight.

You can get electoral identity cards here, I'm sure there too, and I know people who do use them as their travel photo id in the UK, rather than take their passport.

spindr
8th-July-2005, 01:45 AM
One way, which may be possible using current technology, to help catch criminals and terrorists would be if *every* phone call made, and text message and email sent was recorded and analysed by computers and/or humans looking for suspicious activity.

What makes you think that this doesn't happen already? C.f. echelon http://fly.hiwaay.net/~pspoole/echelon.html and carnivore http://computer.howstuffworks.com/carnivore.htm.

"The Register" has some interesting technical views on the merits of ID cards, e.g. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/05/id_laundry_analysis/ and on their accuracy in confirming your identity.

Now all that's needed is a GPS to tell where your car is all the time :) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/05/gps_car_tracking/

I'd rather donate my £250 towards an extra policeman / fireman / paramedic -- than an ID card.

SpinDr.

ducasi
8th-July-2005, 07:36 AM
What makes you think that this doesn't happen already? C.f. echelon http://fly.hiwaay.net/~pspoole/echelon.html and carnivore http://computer.howstuffworks.com/carnivore.htm. I know about these systems already, I believe though that echelon is only used on international and long-distance calls. And Carnivore only on a case-by-case basis. This is the "current technology" I was referring to. To actually make it possible would involve a huge increase in scale.

I'd rather donate my £250 towards an extra policeman / fireman / paramedic -- than an ID card. Or more explosives sniffer dogs...

azande
8th-July-2005, 08:36 AM
Oops! I thought that was what the 'hell freezes over' comment was about, that they were agreeing :rofl:

Spot on Lynn!

I actually agree with Andy. I have an ID card, I had it since I was 16 and I don't see anything wrong in having one.

Lucy Locket
8th-July-2005, 09:10 AM
Should we all have identity cards?


NO NO NO NO NO and NO

Dreadful Scathe
8th-July-2005, 09:43 AM
Spot on Lynn!

I actually agree with Andy. I have an ID card, I had it since I was 16 and I don't see anything wrong in having one.
oops it was me that misread that one then :)

but my problem is not with identity cards as such, we are already identifiable - i would disagree with the statement 'innocent people have nothing to hide' but thats a seperate issue. What i do disagree with is wasting money on something that is not really needed for reasons that are absolute nonsense. At a time when we are worried about world poverty and growing terrorism do we really need to spend £300 per person for something we dont need ?

Nick M
8th-July-2005, 09:54 AM
I would find an ID card very useful for those mornings where I wake up and can't remember who I am

Swinging bee
8th-July-2005, 10:00 AM
My own opinion is that we should have identity card with our photos on. There's already loads of data about us on file. All the card would do would be make it possible to link that data already on file to the person showing the card to the police/customs/Inland Revenue/etc.

IMHO, only someone with something to hide would need to fear Identity Cards.


I agree entirely with Andy, bring 'em on.! I spent years fighting crime at the sharp end. If id cards prevent just one person from being obliterated or suffer in any way at the hands of some evil do'er it must be worth it. To hell with the 'George Orwellists' who pontificate from the security of their armchairs about the 'police state'.... they can't have much to worry about .

Try the real world...it can be a nasty place. Most crime ,incidentally, is not commited by sophisticated arch criminals with the ability to clone id cards, but by ordinary people, many from the 'lower' end of the social and educational spectrum, I know, I nicked hundreds of them.

If someone knows something about me ...SO WHAT!...I have nothing to hide. ( except maybe my favourite sexual position, but that's another post.)

Dreadful Scathe
8th-July-2005, 10:01 AM
I would find an ID card very useful for those mornings where I wake up and can't remember who I am
Yeah fine if you can't find your bank cards, credit cards, library card, any letters, any bills, drivng licence or passport ;)

tsh
8th-July-2005, 10:01 AM
My own opinion is that we should have identity card with our photos on. There's already loads of data about us on file. All the card would do would be make it possible to link that data already on file to the person showing the card to the police/customs/Inland Revenue/etc.


And how would that help anything? It's not hard to forge anything, if it's worthwhile. Failing that, just find someone who looks similar to you, and take their card.

ID cards seem to be a massive job creation scheme. Marginal value and massive cost. Don't forget that whatever the cost of the card, we all pay the total cost indirectly.

Is making it easier to trust people really going to improve security?

Sean

LMC
8th-July-2005, 10:16 AM
but my problem is not with identity cards as such, we are already identifiable - i would disagree with the statement 'innocent people have nothing to hide' but thats a seperate issue. What i do disagree with is wasting money on something that is not really needed for reasons that are absolute nonsense. At a time when we are worried about world poverty and growing terrorism do we really need to spend £300 per person for something we dont need ?
:yeah:

Given that any system will be run by people... garbage in, garbage out? This is too important - even ONE f*** up (and one person's life ruined) would be one too many. Although given the Government's superb efficiency record with introduction of enormous computer systems I don't really know why I am so worried < /sarcastic mode >.

We already *all* have ID in the form of our National Insurance numbers, quite apart from driving licences, passports, credit cards, etc. But the information attached to all these things is pretty much limited to lifestyle *choices* rather than your fundamental ID. I think collection of biometric data is setting a dangerous precedent.

http://www.no2id.net/

ducasi
8th-July-2005, 10:19 AM
If id cards prevent just one person from being obliterated or suffer in any way at the hands of some evil do'er it must be worth it. And if there were cheaper alternatives that could save more lives?

David Bailey
8th-July-2005, 10:23 AM
I would find an ID card very useful for those mornings where I wake up and can't remember who I am
:rofl:

Another obvious benefit: it'll save having to introduce yourself (by speaking to them :eek: ) to people at Ceroc - you can just show them your ID card. Fantastic - well worth £300, money well-spent IMO.

Anyone else think of a similarly-useful situation where they'll come in handy?

Andy McGregor
8th-July-2005, 10:44 AM
Distasteful timing. Not the moment for politics.I saw that there was a chance this debate might start on the 'explosions' thread so I started this one as a consequence. IMHO times like this are exactly the times to debate how we might combat terrorism. I don't know how much difference identity cards would make to terrorist threats - but I think we should put up as many barriers as we can to make terrorists live's as difficult as possible. At the moment we're making it easy for terrorists to enter our country from Europe and not that difficult from the rest of the world either :tears:

Back to the matter in hand. Most of the arguments against Identity cards are to do with mistakes that might be made with the data - incorrect identification! IMHO identity cards would be about correct identification of individuals. The other arguments against identity cards are fear mongering along the lines of "they might be all right now but things could change". Of course things could change. But we live in a democracy, that means that we, the people, can get them changed back - look at Poll Tax! The people didn't like it and we had a massive change in voting patterns (not one that I personally agreed with :tears: ).

Some political decisions are unpopular but need to be made. IMHO, it's easy to give the public everything they want when in government as it makes you popular with the people. It's far more difficult to give them something unpopular that you know they need. Especially if all you will have to show for it are less bombings :tears: You would still have terrorist attacks, just less of them. And there will be people who point to the, less frequent, attacks and say your new and expensive anti-terrorist measures failed :tears:

p.s. Regular readers will know that I don't usually bleat on about negative rep I receive (I've received plenty in the past). But this one contributed to the debate - and, I must admit, annoyed me too :angry:

Dreadful Scathe
8th-July-2005, 11:11 AM
If id cards prevent just one person from being obliterated or suffer in any way at the hands of some evil do'er it must be worth it.


I doubt ID cards will do that anymore than any other form of identification.

David Bailey
8th-July-2005, 11:13 AM
Some political decisions are unpopular but need to be made.
Well, ID cards is scarily popular - or populist, depending how you look at it.

As is:
- castrating paedophiles
- removing trial jury / legal aid in fraud cases
- deporting asylum-seekers, especially the non-Caucasian ones
- removing benefits for "undeserving" cases
- reducing legal representation for nutty extremist Islamic clerics

Defending these unpopular causes is what makes us great as a democracy in my opinion; simply because it's so easy to give in to the popular pressures to do the opposite.


It's far more difficult to give them something unpopular that you know they need.
Again, you assume ID cards are unpopular. I wish.
The only popular pressure against them is cost - the whole "civil liberties" debate is much less interesting to most people.


Especially if all you will have to show for it are less bombings :tears: You would still have terrorist attacks, just less of them. And there will be people who point to the, less frequent, attacks and say your new and expensive anti-terrorist measures failed :tears:
Measuring success in anti-terrorism is admittedly extremely tough. But I'd say it's better to spend £19 billion on police / MI5 / MI6 than on an ID scheme.

And even the government (up until now) hasn't pushed ID cards that hard as an anti-terrorist measure, mainly because they know the argument have enough holes in it to drive a stolen nuclear warhead through. Recently (last week), the latest Really Big Justification for ID cards was that it'd fight fraud by preventing identity theft.

Oh, and the estimate of how much we'd save from this is about £35 million a year. Possibly not the most cost-effective project on the planet, then...

Dreadful Scathe
8th-July-2005, 11:25 AM
I. I don't know how much difference identity cards would make to terrorist threats

try "none whatsoever". I may be a terrorist, I may have an ID card - in what way is my ID card holding me back ? I may be a terrorist and I may NOT have an ID card - Ill be subject to the same risks as I am now if other people have ID cards and am just as likely to be discovered. If suspicious , police well ask me for some form of ID as they have always done.


but I think we should put up as many barriers as we can to make terrorists live's as difficult as possible.

Herd arab looking people into camps? Seems like the next logical knee jerk reaction.


You would still have terrorist attacks, just less of them.

So you "do" know how much difference ID cards would make? They'd amount to less bombings then? how would you judge this?

ducasi
8th-July-2005, 11:30 AM
Negative Rep Comment from ... So what's the forum etiquette on posting private rep comments on the forum? :mad:

David Franklin
8th-July-2005, 11:33 AM
]I think we should put up as many barriers as we can to make terrorists live's as difficult as possible. At the moment we're making it easy for terrorists to enter our country from Europe and not that difficult from the rest of the world eitherSo, should we just close our borders? Not let anyone in or out? That would make life difficult for the terrorists. It would, however, have one or two other noticable drawbacks...


Back to the matter in hand. Most of the arguments against Identity cards are to do with mistakes that might be made with the data - incorrect identification! IMHO identity cards would be about correct identification of individuals.Yes, but you're begging the question here. If identity cards could automagically provide accurate information: "Joe Bloggs - changed his name from Terrorist Tim in 97, entered UK on false passport as Murdering Mike in 88", that would be impressive. But how is an ID card saying "Joe Bloggs" going to make any difference? As previously noted, the Madrid bombers had ID cards, the 9/11 terrorists had passports. I also note London Underground can't manage to ensure people even have tickets for travel, so checking the veracity of ID cards might be a bit beyond them.

In the issuing of 50 million ID cards, do you really think it's going to be that hard to get one using false information? And what about the millions of tourists? How are we going to deal with them? I can see ways of having tight security if everyone has an ID card, but once you have to deal with millions without ID cards, it gets a lot harder.

The devil is in the details. Of which I have seen perilously little from the government. Otherwise we end up with stupidities like RFID enabled passports than have to be enclosed in foil wallets to prevent criminals being able to lift information from them undetected.


The other arguments against identity cards are fear mongering along the lines of "they might be all right now but things could change". Of course things could change. But we live in a democracy, that means that we, the people, can get them changed back - look at Poll Tax!Actually, I'm reasonably unworried about what our government might do (directly) with any information (call me naive). But they seem far too willing to give that information to third parties for my liking. Writ large, it's like that saying "Three can keep a secret, if one of them is dead" - the UK government may be reasonably careful with the info, but if they give it to a "trusted" ally, I bet that ally will be a lot happier to spread it out.

Andy McGregor
8th-July-2005, 11:48 AM
try "none whatsoever". I may be a terrorist, I may have an ID card - in what way is my ID card holding me back ? I believe that ID cards will help the police in the work of identifying criminals. And that is what terrorists are. They are not political activists, they are criminals pure and simple. Criminals are murderers, thieves, bombers, etc, etc. What makes them terrorists? That they fight for a cause? There are many people with a cause that do not commit crime. Whatever their "cause", if people commit crimes and should be identified and they should be punished.

And, in the fight against crime I'm guided by the people who's job it is. If the Police think identity cards would help in their job then I back them. What is the view of the police?



Herd arab looking people into camps? Seems like the next logical knee jerk reaction.Who says it's Arabs? And if it is, it's not all Arabs - I'm sure there's Arabs in the police. Although you could send the pretty ones around to my house :devil:


So you "do" know how much difference ID cards would make? They'd amount to less bombings then? how would you judge this? That's the point I was making. The politicians are on a hiding to nothing on this one. It's very difficult to prove that nothing is happening because of something you're doing. It's very easy to tell when what you're doing has failed :tears:

Andy McGregor
8th-July-2005, 11:51 AM
So what's the forum etiquette on posting private rep comments on the forum? :mad:Nothing says they're private. As with all correspondence, once they've been sent to me they're mine to use as I choose - unless instructed otherwise.

Andy McGregor
8th-July-2005, 11:54 AM
automagicallyGreat word. Needs to go in the next edition of the OED. :worthy:

David Franklin
8th-July-2005, 12:02 PM
Nothing says they're private. As with all correspondence, once they've been sent to me they're mine to use as I choose - unless instructed otherwise.Legally correct, AFAIK, but common etiquette says private email and messages should not be posted to a public forum without permission. In the case of rep comments, I think it inappropriate to include the sender's name under other but extreme circumstances, and would rather you had not done so in this case.

As for "automagically" - not my invention, but I was surprised to find the Jargon File definition (http://www.retrologic.com/jargon/A/automagically.html) does actually imply a system for implementing the "magic" exists. Whereas I was meaning that "unfortunately, non-existent magic is required to implement this" - I know I'm not the only computer jockey using this definition.

El Salsero Gringo
8th-July-2005, 12:02 PM
but I think we should put up as many barriers as we can to make terrorists live's as difficult as possible.Palpable nonsense. Every day is a compromise between making life impossible for 'criminals' - (nine o'clock curfews and summary hanging of petty thieves, anyone?) and making life liveable for everyone else. You can decide where you draw the line. But don't pretend there are absolutes.


Back to the matter in hand. Most of the arguments against Identity cards are to do with mistakes that might be made with the data - incorrect identification! Also palpable nonsense. Most of the arguments against identity card are to do with the fact that they will cost an awful lot of money, won't be any use, will set dangerous precedents in the areas of civil liberties.
Some political decisions are unpopular but need to be made. IMHO, it's easy to give the public everything they want when in government as it makes you popular with the people. It's far more difficult to give them something unpopular that you know they need.How patrician, arrogant, condescending and stuck up that sounds!

El Salsero Gringo
8th-July-2005, 12:06 PM
I believe that ID cards will help the police in the work of identifying criminals.And so would tatooing people's ID numbers on their left forearms.

Form a line to my left ... your belongings will be sent on later.

Dreadful Scathe
8th-July-2005, 12:06 PM
I believe that ID cards will help the police in the work of identifying criminals. And that is what terrorists are.

No they're not, not necessarily. You're not a criminal until you have commited a crime. If you're first crime is blowing up a train, especially if you were wearing the explosives at the time, who you were is not that important and the fact you had/did not have an ID card doesnt really come into it.

The kind of nutters who would blow people up in the name of God are possibly less likely to have a criminal record - great if they DID, we would be more likely to catch them....with or without biometric ID cards. It could have been non-fundamentalists responsible but it seems less likely so far.

Andy McGregor
8th-July-2005, 12:21 PM
No they're not, not necessarily. You're not a criminal until you have commited a crime. Equally, you are not a terrorist until you commit an act of terror.


How patrician, arrogant, condescending and stuck up that sounds!It does doesn't it. But the way it sounds doesn't make it wrong. I'm not the one making the difficult decisions. Having spent two terms in local government I know, on a very small scale, how difficult some decisions are to make. For the majority of decisions there are plenty of right answers and it's down to differences of opinion between politicians about which option to choose. And then there are the painful decisions where all the answers seem wrong and will be unpopular with a significant proportion of the population - but doing nothing or further delays will be unpopular with almost everyone. IMHO it's making those decisions that separate the great politicians from the adequate.

Andy McGregor
8th-July-2005, 12:24 PM
And so would tatooing people's ID numbers on their left forearms. I'm glad ESG agrees with me - although tatooing is going a bit far - how about a nice card with your photo on it?

David Bailey
8th-July-2005, 12:40 PM
My turn at bat, I believe? :whistle:


Equally, you are not a terrorist until you commit an act of terror.
Actually, no - planning an act of terrorism is also a crime I believe. Or will be Real Soon Now. And terrorism is definitely an area where prevention is better than detection and punishment...


Having spent two terms in local government I know, on a very small scale, how difficult some decisions are to make. For the majority of decisions there are plenty of right answers and it's down to differences of opinion between politicians about which option to choose.

In this case, one example of a truly brave and unpopular approach would be, as with the IRA, as with the PLO, as with ETA, to try and engage some or all of these people in a political process. But no politician would dare suggest this - it'd be seen as "caving in to the terrorist's demands".

(And look how much flak "Red Ken" got for talking to the IRA in the 80's - ten years later, the world and his wife were talking to them)

IMPORTANT POINT: I'm not suggesting this approach - it's possible/likely that these guys can never be politicised, they're too extreme, and should be hunted down to extermination (like the Baader Menhof gang or the Red Brigade).

IMPORTANT POINT 2: I'm not suggesting we shouldn't spend extreme amounts of effort bring the criminals who did this to extreme levels of justice.

But, I don't believe implementing ID cards is a particularly brave, innovative or visionary solution; in fact, I believe it's a solution looking for a problem. Police and politicians want the level of perceived control ID cards will bring, so I'm disinclined to believe they have an objective view on the matter.

El Salsero Gringo
8th-July-2005, 12:42 PM
Having spent two terms in local government I know, on a very small scale, how difficult some decisions are to make.

{snip}

IMHO it's making those decisions that separate the great politicians from the adequate.Now things start to become clear. It's when politicians start to worry about what makes a "great politician" that things go badly wrong. Leave the glory-festing to the historians please Andy. Also appreciate that sometimes doing nothing - or making the decision *not* to do something - is by far the greatest choice. This is one of those occasions.

JoC
8th-July-2005, 12:44 PM
Wonder if there would be any attempt made to present an honest ( :rofl: I know) cost-benefit analysis of such a scheme?...would it be possible?...or are the risks and benefits so utterly unmeasurable that it could only ever be a political argument?

Tessalicious
8th-July-2005, 12:48 PM
Just to say this is a great debate, but I'm glad Andy McG doesn't rule the country. I haven't so far felt really convinced by any arguments in favour of ID cards but have heard many good ones against. IMHO the only people who would really benefit from an ID card would be 16 year olds wishing to buy cigarettes and young-looking 18 years olds who don't drive and want to buy alcohol (if they were too cautious to take a passport or student ID) - neither of which would, I think, constitute worthy causes for spending £300 per person setting up the system. However much we try to be optimistic in thinking that cards would prevent atrocities like yesterday, 9-11 or the Madrid bombings, we have to realise that they will make very little if no difference. I personally agree that the money could be spent so much more effectively paying nurses, police and fire officers wages that properly take into account the hard work that these people put into their jobs and the risks they take in saving lives, as they did yesterday.

David Bailey
8th-July-2005, 12:54 PM
Just to say this is a great debate, but I'm glad Andy McG doesn't rule the country.
He DOESN'T?

Are you sure...? :confused:

Andy McGregor
8th-July-2005, 01:13 PM
Now things start to become clear. It's when politicians start to worry about what makes a "great politician" that things go badly wrong. Leave the glory-festing to the historians please Andy. Also appreciate that sometimes doing nothing - or making the decision *not* to do something - is by far the greatest choice. This is one of those occasions.I'm talking about great politicians, not famous politicians. Sometimes true greatness might even require the avoidance of fame.

Our local MP gave up a very lucrative career to become an MP. His, long-suffering, wife once told me that he's chosen this path because of the chance to really change history. All we need to do now is find an electable leader :tears:

Me? I'll take the fame every time :wink:


Wonder if there would be any attempt made to present an honest ( I know) cost-benefit analysis of such a scheme?...would it be possible?...or are the risks and benefits so utterly unmeasurable that it could only ever be a political argument?The difficulty with this calculation is putting a value on human life. I remember investigating this in the 1980s in terms of likely prognosis from healthcare vs the cost of that healthcare, taking into account the quality and duration of life after treatment. It only worked if you are prioritising where you use your limited resources. And who wants to be the one to tell a 90 year old that there is a treatment that will cure them but the money was spent on two people who'd live longer :tears:

There must be similar calculations that could be done for crime. But what if the calculations show that the billions of pounds we spend fighting and preventing terrorism would save thousands more lives if it was spent on breast screening or health education?

El Salsero Gringo
8th-July-2005, 01:24 PM
Our local MP gave up a very lucrative career to become an MP. His, long-suffering, wife once told me that he's chosen this path because of the chance to really change history.Heaven preserve us from these people. History doesn't need to be changed. Society doesn't benefit from people who enter politics looking "to make their mark". And when people like Tony Blair and David Blunkett are put in positions of authority and are able to indulge their foolish desires to be seen in hindsight as a great leaders then they become suceptible to 'visionitis', and everyone suffers. For myself, I'm with Lao Tsu who said "...As for the best leaders, the people do not notice their existence."

Andy McGregor
8th-July-2005, 01:27 PM
For myself, I'm with Lao Tsu who said "...As for the best leaders, the people do not notice their existence."

Sometimes true greatness might even require the avoidance of fame.Even ESG and I agree on something. Although I used my own words rather than steal somebody else's to make me sound more cleverer :wink:

Dreadful Scathe
8th-July-2005, 01:48 PM
Even ESG and I agree on something. Although I used my own words rather than steal somebody else's to make me sound more cleverer :wink:
so it could be said you plagiarised without due credit ;)

Pammy
8th-July-2005, 01:56 PM
He DOESN'T?

Are you sure...? :confused:

I'm afraid not the whole country, just from south of the Watford Gap. :waycool:

plankton
8th-July-2005, 02:27 PM
I am not convinced that the ID card whatever its merits or demerits would have any tangible benefit in contributing to a reduction in terror activities.

It does not seem that one is dealing with the "simple crook" but with highly sophisticated well educated, well funded, and extremely well hidden organisations ( note the organisation not necessarily the individual) . It is only the "operation unit " (the suicide bomber) that is potentially exposed if his/her id can be linked swiftly enough to intelligence that suggests a terror link.

There is absolutely no doubt that if the cards are introduced they will be cloned remember its just the cost. There are plenty of places where subverting whatever protection is present can be achieved. I suspect that the "secret " services of the world will want to be able to " fake" their operatives' ids so the technology to produce the fake will be out and about.

If the authorities have the individual in custody and are therefore able to verify the authenticity of the ID then it is redundant anyway. If the authorities do not even realise that the individual is a potential threat then it is redundant anyway.

So to be of much use the card would have to be able to inform the nearest appropriate official that xxxxx individual is at yyyyy place carrying zzzzz explosive/gas/bio hazard and appears to be planning/ about to/ has executed a terrorist offence. Ideally it should be able to do this far enough ahead of the actual occurrence to allow intervention. Given the apparent quality of "intelligence" cf "weapons of mass destruction" this is somewhat unlikely.

Wonder why the politicos are so keen on them ?

El Salsero Gringo
8th-July-2005, 03:00 PM
People who talk about cloning cards and so on are missing the point. The real problem is the National Identity Register with biometric information. You won't have to carry a card: if you are arrested then you will have your iris scanned and your ID will (so the theory goes) be determined by the computer.

The reason law-enforcement agencies like the ID card so much is that everywhere you use it you are tracked and recorded. And since the card can be revoked instantly and at will by making the appropriate entry on the database you can suddenly be denied access to your bank account, travel tickets, credit cards, entry to public buildings and so on. In other words you can instantly be made a non-person.

The more I think about it, the more I see why people like Andy can't wait for it come about.

plankton
8th-July-2005, 03:16 PM
People who talk about cloning cards and so on are missing the point. The real problem is the National Identity Register with biometric information. You won't have to carry a card: if you are arrested then you will have your iris scanned and your ID will (so the theory goes) be determined by the computer.

thats the infrastructure to support the card then, still leaves the problem that the authorities have to identify the need to arrest you. A quick card check ie is it valid or not would allow you to pass so the clone card would have a use .



The reason law-enforcement agencies like the ID card so much is that everywhere you use it you are tracked and recorded. And since the card can be revoked instantly and at will by making the appropriate entry on the database you can suddenly be denied access to your bank account, travel tickets, credit cards, entry to public buildings and so on. In other words you can instantly be made a non-person.

The more I think about it, the more I see why people like Andy can't wait for it come about.

this seems to smack of bolting the stable door , unless again you have the advanced information. Still isn't really going to stop the suicide bomber , although being able to shut people down miight be usefull to shut down all known associates. Bit scary if you ask me

Andy McGregor
8th-July-2005, 04:03 PM
The more I think about it, the more I see why people like Andy can't wait for it come about.People like me? Who are these people and do they know they're like me? And what are they/we like?

Dreadful Scathe
8th-July-2005, 04:13 PM
People like me? Who are these people and do they know they're like me? And what are they/we like?
do they like you or are they like you ? or both ? Imagine hundreds of Andy McGregor clones running around! At least you'd get more done round the house by spreading yourself about a bit :) Would you then be happy with just the one wife? that was a different thread though :)

El Salsero Gringo
8th-July-2005, 04:20 PM
People like me? Who are these people and do they know they're like me? And what are they/we like?They're mostly harmless, as long as they have something like the Forum to play in. Franck receives a government subsidy to keep you amused and prevent you from causing havoc in the real world, Andy.

Bit scary if you ask me.OK - here's another scenario.

A known terrorist/subversive/activist/trade-unionist/civil-rights campaigner has just been arrested. He refuses to name his co-conspirators, so via the National Identity Register, a check is made against the location of every shop, bank, railway station, or public service he has accessed or visited in the last two years. Then another check is done with some sophisticated data-matching techniques which reveal that out of 59 million entries in the register, there are seven individuals whose movements consistently show strong correlations with the man currently lying bleeding in the police holding cells.

Police cars are immediately despatched to their recorded addresses to pick them up for questioning. If they're not at home, then an entry is made against all these individuals on the NIR so that the next time their ID cards are used, the nearest police units are alerted.

Unfortunately, and quite innocently, one of them is you.

Beware the dangerous powers of data-mining.

Andy McGregor
8th-July-2005, 04:21 PM
do they like you or are they like you ? or both ?I thing he means people who are like me - how could he mean the other thing, seems unthinkable :what:

Nobody likes any of the people who are like me: least of the all the people who are like me :confused:

Andy McGregor
8th-July-2005, 04:31 PM
They're mostly harmless, as long as they have something like the Forum to play in. Franck receives a government subsidy to keep you amused and prevent you from causing havoc in the real world, Andy.
I think ESG has just named his greatest fear :devil:

Dreadful Scathe
8th-July-2005, 04:34 PM
cry havoc and let loose the Andy Mcgregor :)

Andy McGregor
8th-July-2005, 05:10 PM
cry havoc and let loose the Andy Mcgregor :)Don't worry, I'll have chewed through these bars* in the next couple of hours and then I'll be let loose in Hove :devil:


*Chocolate bars do not a prison make.

jockey
9th-July-2005, 12:47 AM
LOng overdue. The world has changed. Enlargement of the European community has meant that international criminals and terrorists can come and go more freely in order to rob and kill in order to get what they want. We are all potential victims of this and it is only a matter of time before it impacts YOUR life. Identity cards may help to restore the balance and restrict their activities. If you were intent on blowing up the local tube station and bringing the capital to a standstill or robbing credit cards at your local Barclays how would you vote - for or against identity cards?
Identity cards will help to preserve our liberal values (right to privacy, freedom from harm and abuse, freedom of speech, preserving the property we have worked for etc) rather than as some would argue inhibiting them (big brother etc). Yes, I know its more complicated than that but its after midnight and this is the Forum not The Listener (is that still published?). :yeah:

El Salsero Gringo
9th-July-2005, 02:01 AM
Look everybody: it's another piece of nonsense from the pro-cards camp, and in this one each sentence is sillier than the one that comes before.
LOng overdue. The world has changed. Enlargement of the European community has meant that international criminals and terrorists can come and go more freely in order to rob and kill in order to get what they want. We are all potential victims of this and it is only a matter of time before it impacts YOUR life.The main impact of terrorism on our lives is likely to be with crackpot schemes like the National Identity Register and ID cards, and only because terrorism was used as an excuse to confuse well-intentioned but befuddled people like you to support them.
Identity cards may help to restore the balance and restrict their activities. If you were intent on blowing up the local tube station and bringing the capital to a standstill or robbing credit cards at your local Barclays how would you vote - for or against identity cards?If I were intent on destroying an open society then I'd be celebrating this scheme as the first dagger in its back, and my glee would be all the greater for the fact that the wound was willingly self-inflicted.
Identity cards will help to preserve our liberal values (right to privacy, freedom from harm and abuse, freedom of speech, preserving the property we have worked for etc) rather than as some would argue inhibiting them (big brother etc).How, in heaven's name will forcing me to register my iris pattern with the government uphold my right to free speech? How does giving the government the system to track and control my movements contribute to my privacy? What does giving the government intimate control over my life contribute to liberal values that you claim to uphold? Tell me - I really want to hear.
Yes, I know its more complicated than that but its after midnight and this is the Forum not The Listener (is that still published?). :yeah:Whether it's before or after midnight, you certainly owe it to yourself to come up with some convincing arguments in favour of ID before deciding you want them, rather than rolling out a few trite platitudes about what wonderful weapons they're going to be against terrorism.

David Bailey
9th-July-2005, 10:22 AM
OK, even Charles Clarke has now said that ID cards wouldn't have stopped this attack. For this instance, I'm prepared to believe him...

Jive Brummie
9th-July-2005, 10:41 AM
Sorry guys, I just can't see the problem with having a national ID card.

I've had one since the day I joined the RAF (about 10 years ago) along with all my pals...everyone has one and everyone needs one. Before you go on camp you show your id card. On it there is a variety of information and in theory yes, they could be forged. However anyone with an ounce of sense can spot a forgery of a military ID card.

I think because we've had to use them from day one, people look at them as just being a regular part of life and so don't have any problem with them. If anything it has assisted me in times past when I've needed some form of ID and this was all I had. I've used it in banking environments, when purchaising (sp?) on-the-knock :wink: and to show to local constabulary when going about my daily buisness...if for example I've been stopped for going a tadge too fast on a motorway :whistle: .

I know all sorts of people can get hold of an id card of some form but I honestly think that psychologically or sub conciously (I'm not switched on enough to know the difference!) if you have one of these cards and are quite willing to produce it when required, are you not giving off the persona that you've nothing to hide nor fear.

I've had one that long that it feels odd to not carry it around all the time.....you know, like when you go to work and forget to put your watch on :sick:

J x x

Andy McGregor
9th-July-2005, 11:42 AM
So far on this thread the only credible argument against Identity cards has been the price. The rest is insubstantial spectulation.

There has been speculation that the data held on file might be incorrect.
There has been speculation that they might be of little use.
There has been speculation that our own government might abuse the data.
There has been speculation that our government might give the data to others.

These are all fear mongering guesswork and play into the hands of people who would find being easily identified restricts their activities. Ask yourself who these people are? I've got an idea that it would be much more difficult to commit many types of fraud if we had identity cards. I've even received a PM from a policeman who says Identity Cards would have solved a situation he had recently. They questioned someone who was difficult to identify and had to release them because there was not enough time to make a proper identification. It subsequently turned out that person was wanted for breaking bail terms!

And, if we're going to make up situations, here's one I think the universal carrying of Identification Cards would help with. An elderly citizen, let's call him John Jones, faints on a street in London, after a few hundred people have stepped over him :tears: somebody calls an ambulance and he's taken to hospital. The people in the ambulance get out wallet and find his identity card. This provides the medical team with information about the patients allergies, conditions, current medication, next of kin, etc. Mr Jones can have much more rapid diagnosis and treatment as a result and his family can be contacted immediately. Well worth £300 of any families money!

I'm not sure how the carrying of Identity Cards would prevent terrorist attacks. But I'm sure it would make it harder for them to go about their daily activities undetected. They would leave a trail of use of their identity, real or expertly forged. Once one of the terrorists has been caught this must make it easier to track his/her movements to concentrate investigations in areas, etc.

Remind me, apart from the price, what is the, actual rather than guessed at, downside?

El Salsero Gringo
9th-July-2005, 12:08 PM
So far on this thread the only credible argument against Identity cards has been the price. The rest is insubstantial spectulation.On the contrary: all the arguments in favour are insubstantial speculation.

There has been speculation that the data held on file might be incorrect.
There has been speculation that they might be of little use.
There has been speculation that our own government might abuse the data.
There has been speculation that our government might give the data to others.There has never existed a database that was free from errors.
There has never been a Government in history that did not abuse the information it holds on its citizens.
There has never been a Government that did not play fast and loose with its own rules.


These are all fear mongering guesswork and play into the hands of people who would find being easily identified restricts their activities. Ask yourself who these people are?Once again, the bona-fides of the people you're arguing with are attacked as an alternative to any rational argument. If I don't like the idea of a National Identity Register it must be because I have something to hide? Rubbish. I don't like the idea of a National Identity Register because I don't like the idea of a National Identity Register.
I've got an idea that it would be much more difficult to commit many types of fraud if we had identity cards.And I have an idea that many types of fraud will become much easier. Once you have a remotely authentic-looking forged ID card the information on it is less likely to be questioned, especially because the Government can only sell this scheme to us with the widespread (but false) assurance that it's unbreakable.
I've even received a PM from a policeman who says Identity Cards would have solved a situation he had recently. They questioned someone who was difficult to identify and had to release them because there was not enough time to make a proper identification. It subsequently turned out that person was wanted for breaking bail terms!Halleluyah! One PM from a policeman and the case is made. Let's all go home, everybody. There are bloody good reasons why the police don't have unlimited powers in this country - because inevitably such powers get abused. Asking a policeman if they'd like more control over the population is like asking a turkey if it would like to skip Christmas. It's in the nature of authority to grasp more power to itself - unavoidably. It's up to those of us still sane to resist that pressure.
And, if we're going to make up situations, here's one I think the universal carrying of Identification Cards would help with. An elderly citizen, let's call him John Jones, faints on a street in London, after a few hundred people have stepped over him :tears: somebody calls an ambulance and he's taken to hospital. The people in the ambulance get out wallet and find his identity card. This provides the medical team with information about the patients allergies, conditions, current medication, next of kin, etc. Mr Jones can have much more rapid diagnosis and treatment as a result and his family can be contacted immediately. Well worth £300 of any families money!You're reaching, Andy. How about he just writes his name and address down on a piece of paper in his wallet - and saves £300? And by the way, no one is (yet) suggesting that medical records be included on the NIR. But they will, with people who share your attitude in the vanguard of this lemmings' march to the edge of the cliff.

I'm not sure how the carrying of Identity Cards would prevent terrorist attacks. But I'm sure it would make it harder for them to go about their daily activities undetected. They would leave a trail of use of their identity, real or expertly forged. Once one of the terrorists has been caught this must make it easier to track his/her movements to concentrate investigations in areas, etc.So let's be clear: you are actually in favour of the Government instituting permanent surveillance on all citizens, in order to gather information about a few people? Who, let's face it, might just as well be tourists and so not have ID cards?
Remind me, apart from the price, what is the, actual rather than guessed at, downside?Re-read the thread, Andy. It's all here. The problem is that you don't seem to see them as downsides. Yet.

spindr
9th-July-2005, 12:15 PM
Perhaps a more practical idea in the short term: http://www.eastanglianambulance.com/content/news/newsdetail.asp?newsID=646104183

------------------------------- Forwarded email as requested -----------------------------------------------
Hola, Forward this on to everyone you know: This was forwarded to me: I think it's a really good idea, especially given Thursdays events. East Anglian Ambulance Service have launched a national "In case ofEmergency (ICE)" campaign with the support of Falklands war hero Simon Weston and in association with Vodafone's annual life savers award.The idea is that you store the word "ICE" in your mobile phone addressbook, and against it enter the number of the person you would want to becontacted "In Case of Emergency". In an emergency situation ambulance and hospital staff will then be able to quickly find out who your next of kin are and be able to contact them. It's so simple - everyone can do it. Please do. Please will you also forward this to everybody in your address book, it won't take too many forwards' before everybody will know about this.
Colin
justdance salsa ... step this way...

"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, champagne in one hand - strawberries in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO - What a Ride!"

----------------------------------------------------------------

SpinDr.

P.S. There are other alternatives, e.g. for runners Steve Cram is promoting cramtags http://www.coco.org.uk/index.php?p=cramtag -- much easier to take with you when you're running.

Dreadful Scathe
9th-July-2005, 12:36 PM
Sorry guys, I just can't see the problem with having a national ID card.


Partly cost - would you object if you had to pay for you RAF one? Also, i think theres no comparison between a military ID card and a national one. Speaking as someone who works with personal data - whether its data on children at risk, council tax payers, electoral roll information - its all held by government departments and they really do not have a clue whats going on. Council IT departments are unstructured and very badly managed in the vast majority of cases. So not only do we personally pay a lot of money for the cards we dont need, we will be paying for the initial setup, the ongoing maintainance and the continued feeble attempts to integrate the data with current systems. The £300 per card figure is talking about the cards themselves and the initial setup - ongoing costs arent even calculated in.

With Military ID cards, or school ID cards you are using ID to gain access to places - there is more of a need for them. Why do we need extra ID for going about our daiy lives exactly? I can think of plenty reasons not to but is there a reason for rather than just 'it'd be ok by me'?




I know all sorts of people can get hold of an id card of some form but I honestly think that psychologically or sub conciously (I'm not switched on enough to know the difference!) if you have one of these cards and are quite willing to produce it when required, are you not giving off the persona that you've nothing to hide nor fear.


I'd agree, but equally it means the person looking at your card is more likely to trust you for the same reason. Is it right to trust someone based on an ID card? It may or may not be real - but it doesnt mean they are not a mass murderer, terrorist or ceroc teacher either way! :) Introducing a 'trusted' source such as in ID card makes it easier for the con-man or terrorist.,

Theres more information on the no2id website here (http://www.no2id.net/IDSchemes/whyNot.php). There is also a pledge that nearly has its 10,000 required signatures.

The pledge reads : "I <your name> refuse to register for an ID card and will donate £10 to a legal defence fund but only if 10,000 other people will also make this same pledge."

Theres a link to it at the top right of that web page.

Andy McGregor
9th-July-2005, 01:50 PM
On the contrary: all the arguments in favour are insubstantial speculation.Of course they are speculation - but they do have substance. Otherwise we wouldn't even be having this debate.


There has never been a Government in history that did not abuse the information it holds on its citizens.
There has never been a Government that did not play fast and loose with its own rules. ESG, you need to learn to trust more :wink:

Governents are there for the people. They have no sinister objectives except to improve the society they govern. What other objective could they have for the data they hold on citizens?



Once again, the bona-fides of the people you're arguing with are attacked as an alternative to any rational argument. If I don't like the idea of a National Identity Register it must be because I have something to hide? Rubbish. I don't think I've said that. I think that only people with something to hide have anything to fear from identity cards. Those people that have nothing to hide but still have fear have misplaced fear, IMHO. There are far more things for a law-abiding citizen to fear than being correctly identified :confused: But the bleeding heart liberals have been fear mongering and many people have fallen for their speculation and fabrication.


I don't like the idea of a National Identity Register because I don't like the idea of a National Identity Register. Is this a 'because I say so' argument? I suppose it depends on what your 'idea of a national identity register' is. If we are to believe some of the speculation on here, I don't like the 'idea' either. But maybe a national identity card isn't going to be what that 'idea' is. What alternative ideas do we have for identity cards that aren't so scary as the 'ideas' put forward by those hysterical people who think their 'idea' is the only one?


And I have an idea that many types of fraud will become much easier. Once you have a remotely authentic-looking forged ID card the information on it is less likely to be questioned, especially because the Government can only sell this scheme to us with the widespread (but false) assurance that it's unbreakable.Halleluyah! .This is, again, speculation :yawn:


One PM from a policeman and the case is made. Let's all go home, everybody. There are bloody good reasons why the police don't have unlimited powers in this country - because inevitably such powers get abused. Asking a policeman if they'd like more control over the population is like asking a turkey if it would like to skip Christmas. It's in the nature of authority to grasp more power to itself - unavoidably. It's up to those of us still sane to resist that pressure.You're reaching, Andy.The police have responsibility for law and order. Any policeman found abusing his power is suspended and likely to be dismissed. In my experience with the police they take their jobs very seriously (except traffic police who I have found to be traffic wardens for moving vehicles) and do not abuse their power. I think any mechanism which quickly proves a citizen is NOT the person the police are looking for should be welcomed. The police are not in the business of upsetting or even bothering innocent citizens so I can't see how this argument stands up.


How about he just writes his name and address down on a piece of paper in his wallet - and saves £300? And by the way, no one is (yet) suggesting that medical records be included on the NIR.There are moves to make medical records available on a national database. To fail to make this available would be to miss a golden opportunity to improve healthcare and I can't imagine any government missing this one.


So let's be clear: you are actually in favour of the Government instituting permanent surveillance on all citizens, in order to gather information about a few people? Who, let's face it, might just as well be tourists and so not have ID cards?Re-read the thread, Andy. It's all here. The problem is that you don't seem to see them as downsides. Yet.I am not suggesting we have permanent surveillance - that would never be accepted (did I say never? Sorry, been out of politics too long, I meant probably never). The police already have the power to look at bank statements, credit card records, 'phone bills, etc for suspected terrorists. What I'm suggesting is that this back-tracking might be easier if you were required to have a national identity card to obtain services like credit, phones, power, etc. Besides, who wants to know my movements, or those of any other law-abiding citizen? But suspected criminals of a type that threatens national security are another matter altogether :angry:

So far all the arguments against Identity Cards have been about what people speculate they could be used for. We already have passports that identify us. What if it were suggested that we carry our passport at all times in a handy card format? And that handy card was used to identify yourself? I really can't see the problem unless I listen to ESG and believe that I live in a country where they're out to get me. For what I don't know :confused:

David Bailey
9th-July-2005, 02:20 PM
ESG, you need to learn to trust more :wink:
Hmmm, I'm really not too keen on putting all my trust in the Blair or Brown governments at the moment, the phrases "45 minutes" and "a good day to bury bad news" spring to mind for some unaccountable reason...


Governents are there for the people. They have no sinister objectives except to improve the society they govern. What other objective could they have for the data they hold on citizens?
Well, why put any restrictions on government at all then? They're all lovely trustworthy people who'd never abuse our privacy, so why not put spycams in every room in our house? I mean, the technology's there. And surely you couldn't object to that; I mean, if you have nothing to hide... :whistle:

There are several million people employed by government. I wouldn't trust several million people with unfettered access to and control of my personal data.

This goverrnment especially seems to specialise in making a complete pigs-ear of any and all hi-tech projects. Child Support Agency? Tax credits system? NHS database? Open any issue of Computer Weekly, pretty much over the past 10-15 years, and you'll find evidence of massive waste and ****-up.


What alternative ideas do we have for identity cards that aren't so scary as the 'ideas' put forward by those hysterical people who think their 'idea' is the only one?
Why have any alternative ideas? It's a solution looking for a problem.


The police have responsibility for law and order. Any policeman found abusing his power is suspended and likely to be dismissed. In my experience with the police they take their jobs very seriously (except traffic police who I have found to be traffic wardens for moving vehicles) and do not abuse their power.
In my experience with the police, they're at least as likely as the rest of us to be prone to error, irrational prejudice and laziness. Of course they want their job to be made easier - don't we all? So I don't think the police will ever give an uniased objective answer on that one.


But suspected criminals of a type that threatens national security are another matter altogether :angry:
Anyone intelligent enough to plan these types of operation will love ID cards - if you can get a good fake one, the police will just ignore you.

El Salsero Gringo
9th-July-2005, 02:20 PM
Just a few comments:

Is this a 'because I say so' argument? I suppose it depends on what your 'idea of a national identity register' is. If we are to believe some of the speculation on here, I don't like the 'idea' either. But maybe a national identity card isn't going to be what that 'idea' is. What alternative ideas do we have for identity cards that aren't so scary as the 'ideas' put forward by those hysterical people who think their 'idea' is the only one?My ideas about the National Identity Register come from the Government's Bill on the subject, which I've read. I can't speak for where yours ideas on the subject come from, but they clearly don't come from a universe I recognise.
The police have responsibility for law and order. Any policeman found abusing his power is suspended and likely to be dismissed. In my experience with the police they take their jobs very seriously (except traffic police who I have found to be traffic wardens for moving vehicles) and do not abuse their power. I think any mechanism which quickly proves a citizen is NOT the person the police are looking for should be welcomed. The police are not in the business of upsetting or even bothering innocent citizens so I can't see how this argument stands up.Nonsense, nonsense, nonsense. How many miscarriages of justice do I need to point out to you for you to see that not every policeman is honest and upright? Even our very own Swinging Bee boasts (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showpost.php?p=121986&postcount=16) that
on more than one occasion I have suspended a "srcote" by his throat. up against a wall to get the desired effect Ahh the good old days - and I'm not questioning his integrity. Although quite what he means by "the good old days" I can't be sure, perhaps it was before the Police and Criminal Evidence Act came into force which reduced the ability of some policemen to gather 'voluntary' confessions at the end of a truncheon, or perhaps it was those halcyon days when a policemen could more easily institute a kicking to those that they didn't like the look of - just because. My point is that if you put authority in the hands of any group of people - some of those people will abuse it. And so it does come down to a matter of balancing the good that the power can do in the right hands against the harm that it will inevitably cause in the wrong hands.

I am not suggesting we have permanent surveillance - that would never be accepted (did I say never? Sorry, been out of politics too long, I meant probably never).I'm sorry Andy, but by advocating the NIR, that's exactly what you *are* suggesting. The bill going through parliament requires that a record is kept on the NIR of the time and place of every time an ID card is checked. And as soon as ID cards become the prevalent form of ID for using a credit card, or accessing a bank account - you have de-facto surveillance. Don't argue with me - it's in the law the Government is proposing.
The police already have the power to look at bank statements, credit card records, 'phone bills, etc for suspected terrorists. They have this power only in retrospect. And the difficulty in obtaining and collating the information acts as a significant brake on the misuse of the information as a general surveillance tool. Put the data directly in the hands of the government and that brake is removed.


I really can't see the problem unless I listen to ESG and believe that I live in a country where they're out to get me. For what I don't know :confused:Let's hope you wake up to the problem while you're still able to do something about it.

Andy McGregor
9th-July-2005, 03:26 PM
Let's hope you wake up to the problem while you're still able to do something about it.At last! Here is what ESG is really getting at, "the problem". And that problem is?

Of course things can go wrong with a sytem. But the objective of that system is for things to go right and be identified and fixed if and when they go wrong.

If we did nothing because things might go wrong we'd never even take our cars out of our drives. All I can see here among the objectors is a group of people who've read Big Brother and thought it was reality.

El Salsero Gringo
9th-July-2005, 03:34 PM
At last! Here is what ESG is really getting at, "the problem". And that problem is?At the risk of boring even myself, I'm going to repeat the same simple message one more time so that Andy finally gets it:

The problem is that we're about to spend £30bn on a system that will do nothing to solve the problems for which it's touted as a solution (let the onus be on those proposing the solution to prove that it will work, NOT the other way around, by the way); that is a prime tool for repression and surveilance of citizens; that can easily and undetectably be misused; and will never be dismantled or reversed.

Andy McGregor
9th-July-2005, 04:05 PM
At the risk of boring even myself, I'm going to repeat the same simple message one more time so that Andy finally gets it:

The problem is that we're about to spend £30bn on a system that will do nothing to solve the problems for which it's touted as a solution (let the onus be on those proposing the solution to prove that it will work, NOT the other way around, by the way); that is a prime tool for repression and surveilance of citizens; that can easily and undetectably be misused; and will never be dismantled or reversed.
I've had it all along. At least ESG's version of it. I think I even said so. It's down to price. And trust. And fear.

ESG does not trust our government*. And due to that lack of trust he has fears. As I said earlier, ESG needs to learn to trust more.

*Due to my own political persuasion I do not trust the current government to make the right decisions. But I do trust the system that put out current government in power. That government has made mistakes and has taken steps to identify it's mistakes to reduce the chances that they will be repeated - what more can you expect? My own personal wish is that this current government makes more mistakes/unpopular decisions and that my own party can offer an electable altenative (please :flower: ) - because I'm much more confident we would make a better job of Identity Cards :wink:

El Salsero Gringo
9th-July-2005, 04:11 PM
ESG does not trust our government*. And due to that lack of trust he has fears. As I said earlier, ESG needs to learn to trust more.I don't believe any right-thinking individual should trust government - not this one, not the next one, and not the one that comes in fifty years time. Only with a healthy and well-developed mistrust of authority are we able to ensure that authority exists to benefit society and not vice versa.

Andy McGregor
9th-July-2005, 05:03 PM
I don't believe any right-thinking individual should trust government - not this one, not the next one, and not the one that comes in fifty years time. Only with a healthy and well-developed mistrust of authority are we able to ensure that authority exists to benefit society and not vice versa.But I do not think you should automatically mistrust your government either. I think trust and mistrust are the wrong words (even though I was probably the one who introduced them :blush: ). We live in a democracy, our part in the democratic process is to evaluate what our government does and vote for change if we don't like it. That's not really anything to do with trust or lack of it: it's to do with keeping up with events, being aware what's going on and taking responsibility for our voting decisions.

David Bailey
9th-July-2005, 05:47 PM
My own personal wish is that this current government makes more mistakes/unpopular decisions and that my own party can offer an electable altenative (please :flower: ) - because I'm much more confident we would make a better job of Identity Cards :wink:[/I]
Errr - assuming your party is the Tories, they're against ID cards, for pretty much the same reasons ESG has outlined.

If they're LibDems, they're really against ID cards...

Andy McGregor
9th-July-2005, 07:04 PM
Errr - assuming your party is the Tories, they're against ID cards, for pretty much the same reasons ESG has outlined.

If they're LibDems, they're really against ID cards...The Tories are the opposition. Of course they oppose. They're hardly going to agree with pretty much anything the Labour party say - especially if it's a really good idea ...

David Bailey
9th-July-2005, 07:13 PM
The Tories are the opposition. Of course they oppose. They're hardly going to agree with pretty much anything the Labour party say - especially if it's a really good idea ...
Weeelll, they occasionally do agree - and the point is, they'd look pretty dumb changing their minds if they get back in power. Of course, it could happen - has with devolution. Depends how popular the measure is, basically.

I'm still going with the Poll Tax analogy - as first mentioned in the Sunday Times by, ahem, Michael Portillo... :whistle:

Dreadful Scathe
9th-July-2005, 08:54 PM
Bah, politics. New Labour is the new conservative party. I remember when labour were still considered a left wing party all those years ago :) As far as the economic and social scale is concerned - labour and conservative are much of the same thing now. As Andy says , the Conservatives object because they are the opposition if they were in power Labour would be objecting at the Conservatives trying to fob ID cards off on us :)

MartinHarper
11th-July-2005, 01:37 PM
This goverrnment especially seems to specialise in making a complete pigs-ear of any and all hi-tech projects. Child Support Agency? Tax credits system? NHS database?

Not just this government. A classic example is the London Ambulance Service computerisation - a Tory initiative. That killed around 20 people.

http://128.240.150.127/Risks/13.88.html#subj1

Magic Hans
11th-July-2005, 02:16 PM
Apologies in advance, 'cos I've not read all of the thread, however, do we not have identity cards already?

Ok, call them driver licences or passports, but it strikes me that this is what they are. Could they not be combined? Would that not be a little cheaper? Then, a little further down the line, add a little chip in there (and call it "Chip and .... errrrr ..... no pin). Then, little by little, more and more info can be held and recorded as and when stuff goes through parliament.

Compulsory? I'd rather not. But like all things it is as open to abuse as it is to good use.

I somewhat imagine that what we currently have in terms of identity will become more and more comprehensive.

!an

David Bailey
11th-July-2005, 02:23 PM
Apologies in advance, 'cos I've not read all of the thread, however, do we not have identity cards already?
We have passports to travel in/out of the country. They're not compulsory.
We have bank cards to use bank accounts. They're not compulsory.
We have polling cards to vote. That certainly isn't compulsory.
We have National Security numbers to claim benefit. And that's not... OK you guessed it. :grin:

What we don't have, is a card just to be a citizen of the UK. You are, already, and you don't need to pay £300+ to a government agency for the priviledge.

Plus, there's a serious argument about the dangers of a central national database - but I believe that point's been made already.

ChrisA
11th-July-2005, 03:25 PM
Plus, there's a serious argument about the dangers of a central national database - but I believe that point's been made already.
.......:yeah:

The plans for the ID card and national register constitute a colossal and, in practice, irreversible change to the way this country operates.

No one should be under any illusion that democracy would be a powerful enough tool to get rid of it once introduced. We simply wouldn't be able to vote out the lot that brought it in, and expect the other lot to abolish it - even if they opposed it while in opposition, since quite apart from the huge effort required to do so, they would be bound by the terms of the enormous contracts that will by that time have been signed.

So it's not like some minor stealth tax that the new government can change - once it's here, it's here for a very long time.

I think the point also bears repeating that the only way the National Register can be of any use whatsoever, is if large scale surveillance of the card carriers is undertaken (having a card means nothing, since the terrorists will have them too - either genuine ones, or expertly forged), and the huge amounts of data thus generated expertly mined.

The onus is on those in favour of the proposals to show that this enormous culture change is justified - with specific and quantifiable benefits - not on those against it to prove that it isn't.

One more thing: the huge amount of money that will end up being spent on the ID card could be spent on other things. Those other things should also be evaluated for their respective contribution to our security before we run, lemming-like, down this road.

David Franklin
11th-July-2005, 04:46 PM
I think the point also bears repeating that the only way the National Register can be of any use whatsoever, is if large scale surveillance of the card carriers is undertaken (having a card means nothing, since the terrorists will have them too - either genuine ones, or expertly forged), and the huge amounts of data thus generated expertly mined.Not only that, but in all likelyhood, terrorists won't be subject to the same surveillance. Barring a truely big-brother like level of surveillance which I don't think is techically feasible, evasion is always going to be possible. To take Andy's example of finding the associates of an arrested terrorist - how are you going to do that with ID cards? If several conspirators want to meet up, they won't all travel to the same place at the same time - they will travel to different locations at different times, and then walk to their rendezvous.

I can certainly see us ending up with the situation where law abiding citizens are easily tracked, while criminals and terrorists have reasonable impunity to bypass or just ignore the ID card situation. I can't avoid looking at the situation with London Underground, where it's clear the ticket officers are much happier apprehending basically lawful communters who forgot their card was out of date than those people who blatantly jump over the barriers. It seems choosing who gets punished is based more on who is easily caught than who is committing the worst crime.

One thing I'm not clear on: How is it ID cards will be forgeable? It seems the technology for unforgable cards is readily available (using public key cryptography of some kind) - am I missing a bet?


Assuming no unforseen breakthroughs in this area, and also that it is feasible to keep the machines used for creating ID cards secured.

El Salsero Gringo
11th-July-2005, 05:16 PM
One thing I'm not clear on: How is it ID cards will be forgeable? It seems the technology for unforgable cards is readily available (using public key cryptography of some kind) - am I missing a bet?Never forget the human factor - bribery of people involved in creating the cards - or simply registering under false details. If the reward is great enough, there's always a way.

David Franklin
11th-July-2005, 05:24 PM
Never forget the human factor - bribery of people involved in creating the cards - or simply registering under false details. If the reward is hgih enough, there's always a way.Sorry, wasn't counting those as forgeries but as part of the GIGO problem. As you say, you can't exclude the human factor. But a plan where the physical cards are forgeable seems a little broken to me.

DangerousCurves
11th-July-2005, 06:57 PM
One thing I'm not clear on: How is it ID cards will be forgeable? It seems the technology for unforgable cards is readily available (using public key cryptography of some kind) - am I missing a bet?


Assuming no unforseen breakthroughs in this area, and also that it is feasible to keep the machines used for creating ID cards secured.

I used to work for VISA - who have spent decades and vast amounts of money trying to create unforgeable cards. VISA is not a stand alone company - it is a membership association which numbers just about every major bank WORLDWIDE as its members - so you can imagine the resources that have been put into solving this problem.

Sadly no card remains unforgeable for long.... and despite amazing efforts to safeguard the parts and technologies behind the card making machines, they too can be compromised. Encryption also comes with problems.... About ten years ago I remember there was a big buzz about a form of encryption that might be unbreakable (in the end, it wasn't) - which lead to the US govt. taking legal steps to have it banned - because they could not tolerate the idea of a code being used which could not potentially be broken down by their security forces!

On a personal note, I travelled to America this year and was duly photographed and fingerprinted on my way through immigration. I asked what would be done with the fingerprints and was told that I could not even have that information revealed to me. I certainly had nothing to conceal, but must admit that I am very unhappy and uneasy to think that my fingerprints are preserved for some unknown purpose somewhere in America. I do not feel "trustful" - I felt personally insulted, and continue to feel potentially vulnerable.

Lory
11th-July-2005, 07:21 PM
I On a personal note, I travelled to America this year and was duly photographed and fingerprinted on my way through immigration. I asked what would be done with the fingerprints and was told that I could not even have that information revealed to me. I certainly had nothing to conceal, but must admit that I am very unhappy and uneasy to think that my fingerprints are preserved for some unknown purpose somewhere in America. I do not feel "trustful" - I felt personally insulted, and continue to feel potentially vulnerable.
I had the same thing done to me last year when I visited the USA and it provoked the opposite reaction from me... I felt reassured by this and peeved that Great Briton doesn't insist on the same measures for 'it's' foreign visitors!

I accept and appreciate their government is taking these measures to try and prevent atrocities, like the recent London bombing, happening over there!

As I said earlier in this thread, I have nothing to hide, therefore it was merely a slight inconvenience for me!

DangerousCurves
11th-July-2005, 08:39 PM
I accept and appreciate their government is taking these measures to try and prevent atrocities, like the recent London bombing, happening over there!

Given that the American government made arrangements to have all Bin Laden family members flown swiftly out of America, so that those influential (and Pro-Bush) folk would be "spared any embarrasment" in the investigations which followed, I am rather inclined to think that a lot of the measures which they introduced after 9/11 had a lot more to do with frightening the American population into accepting the draconian terms of the "Patriot Act" than actual terrorism prevention!

I do not trust Bush's corrupt administration. I do not trust the corrupt American security services. Even in the absence of malice, I do not trust American efficiency (think "friendly fire"). I am unhappy that my fingerprints are in the possession of such people.

Andy McGregor
11th-July-2005, 10:23 PM
I had the same thing done to me last year when I visited the USA and it provoked the opposite reaction from me... I felt reassured by this and peeved that Great Briton doesn't insist on the same measures for 'it's' foreign visitors!

I accept and appreciate their government is taking these measures to try and prevent atrocities, like the recent London bombing, happening over there!

As I said earlier in this thread, I have nothing to hide, therefore it was merely a slight inconvenience for me!
:yeah:

Did they search Lory's hair for hidden weapons?

Lory
11th-July-2005, 10:35 PM
:yeah:

Did they search Lory's hair for hidden weapons?
Andy, don't you know....my hair IS the weapon! :D

under par
12th-July-2005, 04:17 AM
Andy, don't you know....my hair IS the weapon! :D


:rofl: :rofl:

Lethal locks eh! :flower:

LMC
13th-July-2005, 08:49 AM
Complete destruction of the ridiculous argument that ID cards will prevent terrorism (http://newsbox.msn.co.uk/article.aspx?as=adimarticle&f=uk_-_olgbtopnews&t=4023&id=1039125&d=20050713&do=http://newsbox.msn.co.uk&i=http://newsbox.msn.co.uk/mediaexportlive&ks=0&mc=5&ml=ma&lc=en&ae=windows-1252)

Stuart M
13th-February-2006, 02:05 PM
ID Cards/National Identitty Register Bill back in the Commons today - some hilarious nonsense coming out of various sources, wannabee Prime Ministers (http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=223162006) among them.

Dreadful Scathe
13th-February-2006, 02:14 PM
Identity Cards will save (insert made up number) of pounds by combatting Identity Fraud and be another step closer to world peace as all criminals will cease to exist.

no really!

ToeTrampler
14th-February-2006, 11:19 AM
You know I am so bored with this that I'd happily pay the 300 quid (or whatever) just to get it over and done with - maybe that's how they will succeed, just wear people down until they will tick any box or sign any form just to get it over with. Now where did I put that Double Glazing/Readers Digest/Interest free loan/Pension Plan/Credit Card transfer/AOL/Equity Release mega form that I've been meaning to sign. :(

... and the postie appears to have nicked all my Valentines Cards, the b@5t@rd :tears:

WittyBird
14th-February-2006, 11:27 AM
I also think that there should be a website that you log all your movements in one day.

for example

9.00am - went for coffee in starbucks stayed approx 60mins
10.00am - went shopping :whistle:

stewart38
14th-February-2006, 11:35 AM
9.00am - went for coffee in starbucks stayed approx 60mins
10.00am - went shopping :whistle:

yes and whats your plans for the rest of the day :rofl:

Dreadful Scathe
14th-February-2006, 12:15 PM
You know I am so bored with this that I'd happily pay the 300 quid (or whatever) just to get it over and done with - maybe that's how they will succeed, just wear people down until they will tick any box or sign any form just to get it over with. Now where did I put that Double Glazing/Readers Digest/Interest free loan/Pension Plan/Credit Card transfer/AOL/Equity Release mega form that I've been meaning to sign. :(

... and the postie appears to have nicked all my Valentines Cards, the b@5t@rd :tears:
can you pay my £300 too then ? :)

Although, I dont think the £300 was ever touted as a payment from each individual, thats likely to be less than £100 but the research, equipment, development and administration of the whole thing is likely to be much more than £300 per person - for very little gain. Of course terrorists may need to pay their £90 or so as well, which will make us feel much better when they stilll blow us up :)

TheTramp
14th-February-2006, 12:20 PM
So how come it's going to cost so much? That's about twice the cost of a passport (£51), and three times as much as a driving licence (£38) at £100. At £300, it's six and nine times as expensive...

I still don't really understand the need for an identity card for people who have a photo driving licence. What extra is it going to add to the driving licence, which has my photo, date and place of birth, address and signature on?

LMC
14th-February-2006, 12:45 PM
The government are playing on public paranoia to institute unnecessary "control"

As I said up-thread - it's all very well saying those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear - but once we have elected a government, they can pretty much do as they damn well please.

Of course, everyone is on a computer somewhere - but there is a bit of a difference between choosing to let Tescos know my purchasing habits (of course, I could always pay cash for everyhing) and being forced to hand over control to the government.

The government can be lobbied to legislate for privacy if a commercial or non-governmental organisation is overstepping the mark. Who can protect us from the government?

http://www.no2id.co.uk/

David Bailey
14th-February-2006, 01:09 PM
can you pay my £300 too then ? :)

Although, I dont think the £300 was ever touted as a payment from each individual, thats likely to be less than £100 but the research, equipment, development and administration of the whole thing is likely to be much more than £300 per person - for very little gain.
But didn't Our Next Prime Minister ( :eek: ) specifically say that it can't cost the UK treasury anything - it must be self-financing?

And I had to smile at the chutzpah of some government ministers who say that, technically, ID cards (ID registration, more accurately) associated with passports will be "voluntary", since passports are voluntary. Uh-huh. That's in the same way that eating is voluntary; you can always choose not to do it.

Unfortunately, based on last night's vote, it looks like it's going through now. :sad:


I still don't really understand the need for an identity card for people who have a photo driving licence. What extra is it going to add to the driving licence, which has my photo, date and place of birth, address and signature on?
There's no need. No point, no benefit, no security. It's just one of those stubborn bloofy-minded government schemes which politicians like to push through because, basically, they've invested so much effort into promoting them. These things usually die a death pretty quickly (e.g. Blair's "Fine the yobs via ATM on the spot" idea), but I think the Poll Tax was the last time I can remember such a dumbass concept being introduced into law. Hell, even the Religious Hatred Bill looks sensible compared to this.

Honestly, there are so many different valid arguments against this, it's difficult to know where to start. But "It won't work, and it'll cost £18 billion" is at least easy to state. Boy, can you imagine how many extra police officers we could employ with £18 billion?

Donna
14th-February-2006, 01:13 PM
So how come it's going to cost so much? That's about twice the cost of a passport (£51), and three times as much as a driving licence (£38) at £100. At £300, it's six and nine times as expensive...

I still don't really understand the need for an identity card for people who have a photo driving licence. What extra is it going to add to the driving licence, which has my photo, date and place of birth, address and signature on?

I don't understand it either. :sick: I'm totally against it and am not willing to pay so much for one either. I'm saving for a holiday!

David Bailey
14th-February-2006, 01:17 PM
OK, this one made me laugh:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4664142.stm
- apparently you'll get 2 cards if you're a pre-op transsexual. :whistle:

WittyBird
14th-February-2006, 01:19 PM
OK, this one made me laugh:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4664142.stm
- apparently you'll get 2 cards if you're a pre-op transsexual. :whistle:
***:what:

Donna
14th-February-2006, 01:21 PM
OK, this one made me laugh:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4664142.stm
- apparently you'll get 2 cards if you're a pre-op transsexual. :whistle:


That is bloody hilarious! :rofl:

TA Guy
14th-February-2006, 03:14 PM
I'm against.
For three reasons, one cultural, one practical, and one conspirical :)

When I was a wee sprogget, I remember some propaganda film that was shown to my class upping captalism and Great Britain in general. Basically it showed the worse side of communist countrys, long queues (now here!), Russian authorities wanting you to rat on your neighbours (DSS, now here!)... and ID cards, which were spotlighted in Albania. Now, Albania at the time was a horrible place, but even so, I just can't help remembering how Britain was a 'free country' and so much better because the government didn't try and number everyone etc etc. It's a shame it's come to this. That's the cultural one.

The practical one is just about every independant expert I have read or heard has said it won't help the fight against terrorism.

The conspiracy theory is that the first people (apart from the DSS) who are going to get there hands on this information, is apparently the banks, financial institutions and debt collectors. I don't actually have an opinion on this, but I don't see why the population should pay £80-£120 each to improve the banks debt collecting services.



If you add this to the part removal of 'jury by your peers', this new crazy anti-terrorism law that allows policitians to remove pensioners just for heckling Jack Straw and arrest people for walking on a cycle lane just because it was beside a commercial dock, I think a pattern is emerging. It's not nice.



Rant over. :)

Dreadful Scathe
14th-February-2006, 04:21 PM
but according to Gordon Brown


Mr Brown told Sunday AM "the world has changed" and the issue of ID cards and biometrics, with built in safeguards for civil liberties and accountability to parliament, would be acceptable to most people as the way forward.


you see, MOST people are happy with ID cards, MOST people equate ID cards with a safer Britain.

Is MOST a code word for something. I always wonder why MOST people never seems to include me :)

LMC
14th-February-2006, 04:23 PM
MOST = code for Daily Mail reader (who takes the contents seriously) :rolleyes:

Dreadful Scathe
14th-February-2006, 04:24 PM
MOST = code for Daily Mail reader (who takes the contents seriously) :rolleyes:
like Stewart38? :)

Stuart M
14th-February-2006, 05:30 PM
And I had to smile at the chutzpah of some government ministers who say that, technically, ID cards (ID registration, more accurately) associated with passports will be "voluntary", since passports are voluntary. Uh-huh. That's in the same way that eating is voluntary; you can always choose not to do it.

The voluntary aspect comes in when you consider whether you're required to carry it or not. I believe as things stand, when you receive one along with your passport, there are no consequences in simply cutting it up (or, say, mailing it to Downing Street as a protest).

David Bailey
14th-February-2006, 05:37 PM
The voluntary aspect comes in when you consider whether you're required to carry it or not. I believe as things stand, when you receive one along with your passport, there are no consequences in simply cutting it up (or, say, mailing it to Downing Street as a protest).
Nope - that's a separate issue, the "voluntary" thing in this case is whether you as a citizen can opt out of being registered on the national ID database.

And in future, if you want a passport, you'll be registered, you can't choose not to be. So the government will have all that nice juicy data of yours - no doubt using a system as robust and flexible as currently enjoyed in the CSA - to play with. Ooh, lovely.

Whether you physically have or carry an ID card is irrelevant - and I don't think even this control-freaky government has (yet) suggested that carrying them at all times is mandatory, there are too many really obvious totalitarian images associated with that at the moment. I'm sure it'll occur to them soon though.

LMC
14th-February-2006, 05:41 PM
Whether you physically have or carry an ID card is irrelevant - and I don't think even this control-freaky government has (yet) suggested that carrying them at all times is mandatory, there are too many really obvious totalitarian images associated with that at the moment. I'm sure it'll occur to them soon though.
Even if it doesn't occur to the government, I guess organisations will start demanding them, with the oh-so-reasonable reason that "you've got an ID card anyway, why not carry it?"

Repeal the Parliament Act :mad: - the Lords, for once, are seeing sense.

Stuart M
14th-February-2006, 05:59 PM
Nope - that's a separate issue, the "voluntary" thing in this case is whether you as a citizen can opt out of being registered on the national ID database.

And in future, if you want a passport, you'll be registered, you can't choose not to be. So the government will have all that nice juicy data of yours - no doubt using a system as robust and flexible as currently enjoyed in the CSA - to play with. Ooh, lovely.

Whether you physically have or carry an ID card is irrelevant - and I don't think even this control-freaky government has (yet) suggested that carrying them at all times is mandatory, there are too many really obvious totalitarian images associated with that at the moment. I'm sure it'll occur to them soon though.
Fair points - just wanted to highlight the utter incompetence of the entire thing. To some extent I also wanted to point out the dangers in giving this thing any sort of credibility at all. It's all mission creep, isn't it? "Look, we've got this database, and we've been very good with it, not arrested any conference hecklers or that sort of thing. Look, let's use the card for getting on and off the bus, stop any dodgy terrorists, etc. etc." And - bing! - we have an internal passport system Stalin would be proud of.

Question: assuming the application for the ID card is on a separate form from the passport, and the database is separate from the passport database, what's to stop people
a) putting garbage on the ID card form.
b) immediately filling in a "change of ID card details" form (which will probably be a B27/6 :devil: ) with completely different data.

Not that I'm concocting wrecking strategies or anthing :innocent:

LMC
14th-February-2006, 06:07 PM
Oh dear, I've filled the form out in magenta ink instead of black. And filled all the boxes in upside down.
Oh dear, I forgot to put a stamp on the envelope.
Oh dear, I forgot to enclose the cheque.
Oh dear, I forgot to sign the cheque.
But I turned up in person and waited for three days :injured expression:
Oh dear, the form's out of date now, we have to start again...

etc...

No, I haven't been thinking about wrecking strategies either.

Dreadful Scathe
14th-February-2006, 06:13 PM
Me neither :)

title: Mrs
first name: Les
surname: Bian
children: 436
religion: jedi
dob:19/02/1862

etc...

David Bailey
14th-February-2006, 07:09 PM
Fair points - just wanted to highlight the utter incompetence of the entire thing. To some extent I also wanted to point out the dangers in giving this thing any sort of credibility at all. It's all mission creep, isn't it? "Look, we've got this database, and we've been very good with it, not arrested any conference hecklers or that sort of thing. Look, let's use the card for getting on and off the bus, stop any dodgy terrorists, etc. etc." And - bing! - we have an internal passport system Stalin would be proud of.
The ironic thing is, we surrender vast amounts of personal information voluntarily, through things like Tesco club card schemes - if the government had adopted the smart "Look how useful this would be for you" approach, rather than the "look how useful this would be for society" approach, they'd have walked it.

In this instance, we should probably be greatful that the people who run Tescos are smarter than the people who run the UK government.


Not that I'm concocting wrecking strategies or anthing :innocent:
I'm not sure if it's really worth the effort, the system will never work anyway. I wonder if EDS will get the contract for it? :whistle:

Barry Shnikov
15th-February-2006, 02:33 PM
The conspiracy theory is that the first people (apart from the DSS) who are going to get there hands on this information, is apparently the banks, financial institutions and debt collectors. I don't actually have an opinion on this, but I don't see why the population should pay £80-£120 each to improve the banks debt collecting services.

I'm not sure that's right. It might be that banks will be required to see ID cards of those wanting to open accounts; but that's not much different from now. You have to provide authorised photo ID (e.g. passport driving licence) plus address ID (council tax bill, etc.). Once they have those two pieces of information they can get all they need about your credit history from Experian, etc. An ID card isn't going to make that much difference.

I'd be fairly surprised if even this half-assed administration was planning to make personal data - health, social security etc, details - available to commercial institutions.

What I find more worrying is the possibility that there will be one over-arching official database, containing all your government-related details, and which will be available to anyone within government who has a right to demand the card - the possibility of a policeman being able to access your hospital/GP file is an ugly possibility.

Barry Shnikov
15th-February-2006, 02:39 PM
In this instance, we should probably be greatful that the people who run Tescos are smarter than the people who run the UK government.


You're making a common mistake. Running Tesco, complex as it may be, is a piffling exercise compared to the running of a country. If running Tesco were the equivalent of arithmetic with fractions, running a country is the equivalent of doing quantum mechanical calculations.

The other point to bear in mind is that when Tesco makes a mistake, a) it'll be swept under the carpet, if at all possible (though someone may eventually retire early) and b) even if it becomes publically known, unless it's likely grossly to affect the profitability or turnover or seriously damage the share price, nobody will care, and finally c) the financial pages of all newspapers are way, way at the back.

Also, Tesco can have 20, 30 year plans in place without having to cope with a new administration attempting to sweep clean every 5 to 10 years.

El Salsero Gringo
15th-February-2006, 03:34 PM
the system will never work anyway.That is most likely true; but, given the hyperbole (and the cost) no one in any kind of authority will ever admit that the system doesn't work. So, like phantom withdrawals from cash machines, innocent people will pay the price because the system can't afford to admit it might be wrong.

David Bailey
15th-February-2006, 04:23 PM
You're making a common mistake. Running Tesco, complex as it may be, is a piffling exercise compared to the running of a country. If running Tesco were the equivalent of arithmetic with fractions, running a country is the equivalent of doing quantum mechanical calculations.
Mmm, I'd say running Tesco's is roughly the equivalent of running an average government department - similar size, money, workers etc.

And most initiatives come from departments, so I think there's an analogy there. And if you think the workings of a public company like Tesco's is obscure, I'd say that's nothing compared to the workings of an average government department.

So let me rephrase my point as "if the average government minister was as intelligent as the boss of Tescos"... :)

Stuart M
15th-February-2006, 06:34 PM
That is most likely true; but, given the hyperbole (and the cost) no one in any kind of authority will ever admit that the system doesn't work. So, like phantom withdrawals from cash machines, innocent people will pay the price because the system can't afford to admit it might be wrong.
Unlike phantom withdrawals from cash machines, however, the price paid will be more varied and frequently difficult to ignore (cue Generation Game conveyor belt music):

- getting the wrong medication
- being barred from flying (something that happens already in the USA rather a lot)
- ending up in jail
- cuddly toy
- ending up on the sex offenders' register
- receiving all your tax information in Welsh
- being declared dead
- losing your vote

Of course, the only way to avoid these sorts of errors, will be if society relies on cross-checking the National ID database data - which renders the thing pointless in the first place.

Terry Gilliam's masterpiece 'Brazil' should be required viewing for anyone foolish enough to think a centralised ID database is a good idea. But go to see it soon - the film does actually glorify terrorism (well, anarchist plumbing but - y'know...) and will soon be banned.

TA Guy
15th-February-2006, 09:11 PM
I'm not sure that's right. It might be that banks will be required to see ID cards of those wanting to open accounts; but that's not much different from now. You have to provide authorised photo ID (e.g. passport driving licence) plus address ID (council tax bill, etc.). Once they have those two pieces of information they can get all they need about your credit history from Experian, etc. An ID card isn't going to make that much difference.



It to do with the way debters are tracked and fraud. Currently there is no single piece of information that can link a debt to a person. It's a mix of address, name, DOB etc. All from info gathered by the banks and credit card companies and maintained by the credit card reference agencies. And people do slip thru the cracks if they get desperate enough, it happens more than you think. An ID card will allow a single intrinsic link between debt and a person. It also, of course, will help bank and credit card fraud.

RogerR
15th-February-2006, 09:43 PM
Unfortunately the better the card the more valuable it will become to rogues of all sorts. Who can say they don't know anyone who has lost their credit and debit cards. --- Lose your ID card and someone else IS you.

Barry Shnikov
16th-February-2006, 12:44 AM
It to do with the way debters are tracked and fraud. Currently there is no single piece of information that can link a debt to a person. It's a mix of address, name, DOB etc. All from info gathered by the banks and credit card companies and maintained by the credit card reference agencies. And people do slip thru the cracks if they get desperate enough, it happens more than you think. An ID card will allow a single intrinsic link between debt and a person. It also, of course, will help bank and credit card fraud.

So what you're saying is that ID cards are not going to be particularly more intrusive, just provide more accurate information.

That's not much of a doomsday scenario, is it? Catch a few more debtors and maybe interest rates can go down. Having tried to squeeze money out of judgment debtors on behalf of clients I can pretty much promise you that ID cards are not going to make that much difference.

El Salsero Gringo
16th-February-2006, 12:56 AM
So what you're saying is that ID cards are not going to be particularly more intrusive, just provide more accurate information.

That's not much of a doomsday scenario, is it? Catch a few more debtors and maybe interest rates can go down. Having tried to squeeze money out of judgment debtors on behalf of clients I can pretty much promise you that ID cards are not going to make that much difference.Look at it piece by piece:

1. Cards will be used to verify ID when, for instance, you use your credit card (how else will they reduce fraud?)

2. The government is required by statute to maintain records of when and where the ID register is accessed

3. The government can invalidate cards at will by editing the ID register

So we have automatic surveillance of the time and place anyone buys anything with a credit card, or accesses their bank account, or travels, or presents ID for any reason anywhere - as well as the power to prevent any of these actions by invalidating someone's card.

"Bring in that Schnikov guy - ah yes, our database says he was using his card in the vicininty of the bombing last month, and he fits the profile. Where is he today - ah, he's just used his credit card in Tesco in Southampton. Put a flag on his NIR record so that next time he uses his ID card the nearest Police station is informed and can send a squad car to pick him up."

Or - how about this for power: once you can track everyone's whereabouts for the past however many years you can do some cunning data-mining. Suspect A is implicated in a terrorist action, as is suspect B. Search the database for every individual whose pattern of movements correlate closely to times and places when A and B were together. And voila - the third conspirator, suspect C - is revealed. Trouble is, that third suspect could well be you...

TA Guy
16th-February-2006, 02:01 PM
So what you're saying is that ID cards are not going to be particularly more intrusive, just provide more accurate information.

That's not much of a doomsday scenario, is it? Catch a few more debtors and maybe interest rates can go down. Having tried to squeeze money out of judgment debtors on behalf of clients I can pretty much promise you that ID cards are not going to make that much difference.

The 'banks and debt' scenario is just one. The major point is that this information will be farmed out or sold to any commercial organisation who can afford it. The potential for abuse is huge. Personally, I don't particularly trust the government at the best of times, the thought of them being able to hold there ***** in their pants when their major donator whispers in their ear 'I'll donate 10 Mil, give us the ID card database key will ya' doesn't quite add up somehow :)

Dreadful Scathe
16th-February-2006, 05:25 PM
and I can add as someone who has worked in government IT departments, they generally cant find their own arse with both hands ;)

Dreadful Scathe
20th-April-2006, 03:32 PM
Visit Renew for freedom (http://www.renewforfreedom.org/) and follow their advice to renew your passport in May. This will hopefully help you avoid a more expensive passport and the interview to check who you are where they will no doubt require iris scans, fingerprints and other bodily fluids :)

Barry Shnikov
20th-April-2006, 11:13 PM
The 'banks and debt' scenario is just one. The major point is that this information will be farmed out or sold to any commercial organisation who can afford it. The potential for abuse is huge. Personally, I don't particularly trust the government at the best of times, the thought of them being able to hold there ***** in their pants when their major donator whispers in their ear 'I'll donate 10 Mil, give us the ID card database key will ya' doesn't quite add up somehow :)

It won't be. It doesn't matter what the government does, this will be incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and any attempt to make personal and private information which is compelled by the government available for commercial purposes will therefore be unlawful. In fact, come to think of it that would contravene this country's own Data Protection Act.

Likewise, any suggestion that it might become necessary to permit inspection of a document which the government controls, and could withdraw, in order to carry out ordinary commercial transactions would also contravene the ECHRFF.

Even if the government were to repeal the Human Rights Act, it is still axiomatic in English law (as it has been since we joined the EC) that there is a right of appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. It would probably be necessary to leave the EU to introduce a card such as that which John Pilger writes about.

The plans for ID cards are bad enough but let's stick to protesting about the really important stuff otherwise the doomsday scenario is going to make us all go "whew! is that all" when the real thing comes along. Wouldn't be the first time a government leaked all sorts of dread-laden hints about something so that when the real proposals were released, they didn't seem so bad by comparison...

jiveknight
20th-April-2006, 11:43 PM
Wouldn't be the first time a government leaked all sorts of dread-laden hints about something so that when the real proposals were released, they didn't seem so bad by comparison...

Interesting...anything in particular they have planned, as an example?

El Salsero Gringo
21st-April-2006, 12:32 AM
Likewise, any suggestion that it might become necessary to permit inspection of a document which the government controls, and could withdraw, in order to carry out ordinary commercial transactions would also contravene the ECHRFF. Why would that scenario be more unlawful, for example, than for banks to insist (as they may well do at present) on your producing a passport, photo-driving-licence or other government-issued document before allowing you to open a new account?

Dreadful Scathe
18th-December-2006, 01:57 PM
More on the rise of new British Dicatorship... we've got your DNA (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/02/nuffield_dna_consultation/) - makes interesting reading.

Basically, if you get stopped by the police, assuming they dont hold you indefinitely if they play the terrorism card, they can take your DNA and keep it forever. If your DNA ever then comes up in an investigation, expect, at the very least, to be called into to explain yourself. Why ? because if they know you are a shop worker in Smith Street and were in Bond Street at 14:50 they'll want to know why you werent doing your "usual". Not intrusive at all is it ? :)

LMC
19th-December-2006, 03:17 PM
And then there's the NHS supercomputer...

How to opt out (http://www.nhsconfidentiality.org/) (er, write to your GP basically).

Seems wrong that you have to opt out and not in :(

Lou
19th-December-2006, 04:28 PM
More on the rise of new British Dicatorship... we've got your DNA (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/02/nuffield_dna_consultation/) - makes interesting reading.

Indeed. As does

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6192419.stm

where they've now finally decided that the idea of one big database is a bit flawed... :rolleyes:

(I think ESG will appreciate the bit about chip & pin. :D )

Dreadful Scathe
19th-December-2006, 05:14 PM
well...
Mr Reid said ID cards would help tackle illegal immigration, identity fraud, fight organised crime and terrorism, help protect vulnerable children by allowing better background checks and improve public services.

So thats all right then. Its all good. Its heart warming to not see the same old rhetoric all the time :)

LMC
19th-December-2006, 06:17 PM
Yeah, just like gun laws have stopped anyone from being shot (guess no-one told the bad guys, huh?)

ducasi
19th-December-2006, 06:24 PM
Basically, if you get stopped by the police, assuming they dont hold you indefinitely if they play the terrorism card, they can take your DNA and keep it forever. This is not true in Scotland (http://www.genewatch.org/sub.shtml?als%5Bcid%5D=539489).

David Bailey
10th-February-2007, 08:48 PM
Amazingly, I've found a reason to vote Tory (http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/2007/02/davis_enjoys_hi.html) - David Davis has shown some sense in realising the sheer incompetence of implementation of the average government IT industry, and has promised to revoke any half-baked ID card system.

ducasi
12th-February-2007, 06:23 PM
Amazingly, I've found a reason to vote Tory (http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/2007/02/davis_enjoys_hi.html) - David Davis has shown some sense in realising the sheer incompetence of implementation of the average government IT industry, and has promised to revoke any half-baked ID card system.
What if it's two-thirds baked? Or just needing a couple of more minutes in the oven?

Stuart M
25th-March-2007, 05:43 PM
Looks like Blunkett got his nose in a new trough (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,,2042271,00.html) as quick as was legally possible, eh?

David Bailey
26th-March-2007, 10:38 AM
What's actually happening with this ID cards scheme nonsense? Has it died yet, or what?

Stuart M
26th-March-2007, 04:54 PM
What's actually happening with this ID cards scheme nonsense? Has it died yet, or what?
With apologies to Lou, but it is contextually relevant for a change...

It's not dead, it's just resting :D

Stuart M
11th-December-2007, 02:31 PM
Another example of Government agencies passing ID data to private organisations.

A bloke got fined £125 by a private car park management company, with the delightfully Orwellian name "Civil Enforcement". this was because he took an hour to eat his McDonalds and coke at the drive-through (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2225434,00.html). They were able to charge him because the DVLA release their licence plate database to the company.

Barry Shnikov
11th-December-2007, 06:17 PM
Another example of Government agencies passing ID data to private organisations.

A bloke got fined £125 by a private car park management company, with the delightfully Orwellian name "Civil Enforcement". this was because he took an hour to eat his McDonalds and coke at the drive-through (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2225434,00.html). They were able to charge him because the DVLA release their licence plate database to the company.

It really is about time the government got serious with these parking scammers.

However, as the guy admits that he did outstay the limit, his beef (see what I did there?!) is really with McDonalds, since they have contracted with Civil Enforcement to punish people for staying over 45 minutes.

Another way of dealing with this is not to buy anything at a McDonalds - that's my recommended solution!

Incidentally, this relates to the other thread about customer service. Can't get much more af a 'f... you' from the retailer than being told you'll have to pay 10 times the cost of your meal if you want to relax and eat it in the car park.

The question, surely, is whether the car taking up the car park is being used by a customer or not. Problem for McDonalds is their crap is so cheap it's probably cheaper to buy a Happy Meal and leave the car in the car park for three hours while you go shopping, than to park in the local mult-storey...

Stuart M
28th-February-2008, 11:25 AM
Remarkable statement (http://www.anorak.co.uk/twitterings/181227.html) from Meg Hillier, the ID cards Minister, in asking people to think of the ID Card as a "passport in-country".

Even a cursory knowledge of totalitarianism will know that one of the standard mechanisms of control has been the internal passport (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_passport), as used in such utopias as Tsarist Russia, modern China, North Korea, and apartheid-era South Africa.

Is she really so thick as to make such an allusion, when supposedly she's trying to promote these things?

David Bailey
28th-February-2008, 11:36 AM
Remarkable statement (http://www.anorak.co.uk/twitterings/181227.html) from Meg Hillier, the ID cards Minister, in asking people to think of the ID Card as a "passport in-country".
Makes sense to me - I can use it to go to Sarf London then :D


Is she really so thick as to make such an allusion, when supposedly she's trying to promote these things?
The government will clearly keep on trying various sales gimmicks for this, to see if one works - this is the latest wheeze, is all.

But to me, the fact that the Tories are promising to scrap them (http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=campaigns.display.page&obj_id=134894) is nearly a compelling reason to vote Conservative - and I never thought I'd see myself type those words :what:

As they say:

A Conservative Government will scrap the ID cards scheme
Seems fairly clear to me...

TA Guy
28th-February-2008, 11:50 AM
But to me, the fact that the Tories are promising to scrap them (http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=campaigns.display.page&obj_id=134894) is nearly a compelling reason to vote Conservative - and I never thought I'd see myself type those words :what:

As they say:

Seems fairly clear to me...

Being non-political myself, and fairly undecided between two ultra right wing parties, this will prolly make the difference to me as well.

ID. cards and national DNA database's are just too dangerous for governments, they don't have the self-control or safeguards in place not to abuse them or let them be abused.

Astro
2nd-March-2008, 07:31 PM
Makes sense to me - I can use it to go to Sarf London then :D

Londoners using an Oyster already have a form of ID control. TFL can track movement os journey's. They claim to only store the info for 1 month.
Now there's this new Barclaycard/oyster combo. Even more sinister. Claims to be the only card a Londoner will ever need.


Being non-political myself, and fairly undecided between two ultra right wing parties,

ID. cards and national DNA database's are just too dangerous for governments, they don't have the self-control or safeguards in place not to abuse them or let them be abused.

Yes, as happened with the Child Benefit data.
Also there's often something in the paper about an official leaving his breifcase somewhere. That's only the one's we hear about.

Astro
4th-March-2008, 04:44 PM
Now there's this new Barclaycard/oyster combo. Even more sinister. Claims to be the only card a Londoner will ever need.

I meant to add that Barclays is the government bank.

Plus this card can be used for mobile phone top up too.

Is it a backdoor Identity Card using Londoners as guinea pigs - to be rolled out across the country if it's a success?

It could be used on trains and buses outside London later, plus as a creditcard and mobile card.

Martin
5th-March-2008, 06:54 AM
I am happy to have an ID card - it is called a driving licence.
When driving I need to have it on me (Aussie rules).

It has my photo, my address - and from it you can check my vehicle details and vehicle insurance details (via the web)

It is used to get into pubs, clubs, internal flights, open a bank account, get a mortgage and stuff like that.

When my son turned 18 - even though he does not drive, he got a learners licence, for use as an ID to get into pubs and clubs (and some Ceroc venues!)

I do not see that it should cost the Gov anything to impliment - simply, when you turn 18 - you get a licence, or a non-licence ID... easy really and very useful. Yes you pay a little for it, but then you have the advantage of using it as ID.

If someone wanted to delve into the depths of my depraved life, I am sure they could... having a driving licence as ID does not change that in any way.

Astro
7th-March-2008, 04:16 PM
The latest is that ID cards have been scrapped, as I understand it.

You can a special Passport with extra ID like finger prints in it, but only if you request it when it's expired and up for renewal.

RedFox
10th-March-2008, 09:22 PM
The latest is that ID cards have been scrapped, as I understand it.

If only! :mad:


You can a special Passport with extra ID like finger prints in it, but only if you request it when it's expired and up for renewal.

The issuing of ID cards is a side show; being added to the National Identity Register is the big issue, and that will happen from 2011/12 whether or not you choose to have an identity card. Once you're on, you are on for life, and you risk a £1,000 fine if you fail to inform the government of each change of address or other place of residence. And the government can then also start selling your details to some of the '44,000 private sector organisations (http://www.ips.gov.uk/identity/downloads/procurement-strategy-market-soundings.pdf)' which are likely to be accredited to access the data.

The latest statement (http://press.homeoffice.gov.uk/Speeches/Speech-HS-Identity-Scheme1) does 2 things:
1) recognises that the initial timescale was far too ambitious, and
2) confirms this leak (http://wikileaks.cx/leak/nis-options-analysis-outcome.pdf), which illustrates that 'various forms of coercion' (their words, not mine) will be used to 'stimulate applications in a manageable way'.

One of the first groups to be 'stimulated' seem likely to be students, who may be given the choice between getting an ID card + student loan, or not getting an ID card and therefore no student loan. Now, I wonder how many of them will 'volunteer' for an ID card.... :whistle:

Martin
1st-June-2008, 08:47 AM
On the subject of a national ID number, I got this link e-mailed to me today....

Quite interesting and entertaining...


http://aclu.org/pizza/images/screen.swf

RedFox
1st-June-2008, 06:00 PM
On the subject of a national ID number, I got this link e-mailed to me today....

Quite interesting and entertaining...


http://aclu.org/pizza/images/screen.swf

Hmmm.

At least in the UK if he had driven to work they would have known roughly where he was instead of having to guess, thanks to the automatic numberplate recognition cameras....

RedFox
21st-July-2008, 01:09 PM
Latest government propaganda web site aimed at promoting ID cards to the 16-25 age group: MyLifeMyID.org (http://www.mylifemyid.org/). Interesting comments in the discussion forums.

Also BBC report on the web site launch (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7498223.stm)

Mini Mac
21st-July-2008, 01:58 PM
Yes. An incident happened to me two years ago in which i went to see When a stranger calls, a horror movie. Luckily i had just turned 15 and was pleased to see that the film was a certificate 15. I went with my friends at the time who i must admit did look older than 15 , but i thought i looked old enough to go and see it. I asked for a ticket and the attendant who couldn't have looked a lot older than me stared down and asked me to repeat my question. So i did just that. The attendant just looked at me blankly and then said in a loud voice. "No we don't allow anyone under the age of 15 to see this film." I was shocked and very embarrased. Especially as some of my friends were cracking up and filming it on their mobile phones. I tried to stay cool and said that i was 15. The attendant asked me if i had any i.d on me, unfortuantelty that day i had left it at home along with my libary card. I tried explaining to him i had turned 15 a week ago but he just would not listen.

therefore i was forced to leave the cinema or go and see another film. However my friends had already paid for when a stranger calls, although the nicest friend, katie went to see Chicken Little with me.

to avoid incidents like this it is always good to carry i.d on you.

the next time i went to see a 15 in the cinema was when i went to see hot fuzz and yes i was asked for i.d. And i smugly handed it over. Of course they let me in and i had a good time.

RedFox
21st-July-2008, 04:22 PM
Yes. An incident happened to me two years ago in which i went to see When a stranger calls, a horror movie.... The attendant asked me if i had any i.d on me, unfortuantelty that day i had left it at home along with my libary card.

So is the solution for the Government to set up a mega database costing tens of billions of pounds, containing your fingerprints, iris scans and every address you've ever lived at - then share of sell the information to 40 or 50 thousand businesses and public sector organisation, link it to your car and CCTV cameras so that they can track where you've been, link it to your bank account and tax records, have it hacked into by criminal gangs, and have some civil servant try their best to loose it in the post or leave it on a train....

... or would you prefer to take along your library card?

Agente Secreto
21st-July-2008, 09:41 PM
So is the solution for the Government to set up a mega database costing tens of billions of pounds, containing your fingerprints, iris scans and every address you've ever lived at - then share of sell the information to 40 or 50 thousand businesses and public sector organisation, link it to your car and CCTV cameras so that they can track where you've been, link it to your bank account and tax records, have it hacked into by criminal gangs, and have some civil servant try their best to loose it in the post or leave it on a train....

... or would you prefer to take along your library card?
Come on RedFox - exactly how much proof of anything is a library card?

You're painting a very alarmist view of this whole thing, do you have a special insight into the programme?

RedFox
22nd-July-2008, 02:17 AM
Come on RedFox - exactly how much proof of anything is a library card?

You're painting a very alarmist view of this whole thing, do you have a special insight into the programme?

Ah, but you're a secret agent - who for exactly? :wink:

Seriously though, the UK used to be be renowned as a country in which citizens had considerable freedom the go about their business without undue intrusion from the state, and where the state was the servant of the people. That has changed, and continues to do so.

The UK now leads the world in mass surveillance - with 1% of world's population but 20% of its CCTV cameras (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23390407-details/UK+has+1%25+of+world%27s+population+but+20%25+of+i ts+CCTV+cameras/article.do), for example, without anyone feeling safer on the streets and little difference to crime statistics.

Then there are the automatic numberplate recognition cameras that record and store details of the traffic entering and leaving an increasing number of towns and monitoring the main roads and motorways - with the data stored for 2 years. In March this year the German courts ruled (http://www.worldlingo.com/S1790.5/translation?wl_srclang=de&wl_trglang=en&wl_url=http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/rs20080311_1bvr207405.html) that storage of such data violated the right to privacy; in the UK plans are now underway to store the data for 5 years instead of 2 (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/surveillance-uk-why-this-revolution-is-only-the-start-520396.html). Of course in Germany they are acutely aware of the dangers of excessive state control, as they are in many other European countries, and they have strong data protection laws.

Spying on people under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act? When that was introduced only nine organisations were allowed to use it - now 792 organisations can use it, including your local council, and in 2006 there were over 1000 applications to use it every day (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1584808/Council-spy-cases-hit-1%2C000-a-month.html).

As for the ID card scheme, despite its title, the cards are relatively unimportant - it's the database that matters. And yes, the Government have indicated that there will be '265 government departments and as many as 44,000 private sector organisations accredited' (http://www.ips.gov.uk/identity/downloads/procurement-strategy-market-soundings.pdf) to access the database, and one of Microsoft's executives (http://news.cnet.com/Microsoft-exec-ID-cards-pose-security-risk/2100-7348_3-5900411.html) has said that the database could increase the likelihood of confidential data falling into the hands of criminals. As for 'function creep' even the Home Affairs Select Committee is concerned (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7441693.stm). The Government's own Information Commissioner (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3568468.stm) is concerned too.

An alarmist view? I'd call it realistic.

Dreadful Scathe
22nd-July-2008, 09:31 AM
An alarmist view? I'd call it realistic.

Very much so. Privacy International (http://www.privacyinternational.org) can give some more insight into just how bad it is, but the UK is on par with China for privacy violations.

Scotland is not quite as bad as England & Wales & NI ...that devolution was a good idea. I think we should rebuild Hardrians Wall :)

Lou
22nd-July-2008, 10:29 AM
Scotland is not quite as bad as England & Wales & NI ...that devolution was a good idea. I think we should rebuild Hardrians Wall :)

Can we rebuild it in a slightly different position? Just north of the North Circular would suit me just fine. I'd be on the nice side then. :D

Dreadful Scathe
22nd-July-2008, 10:47 AM
No, thats not necessary - Ill be down that way to electronically tag the people I like later this year ;)

Anyway, how did i manage to spell it "Hardrians" wall ? :rolleyes: What a mruppet.

TA Guy
22nd-July-2008, 11:08 AM
Very much so. Privacy International (http://www.privacyinternational.org) can give some more insight into just how bad it is, but the UK is on par with China for privacy violations.

Scotland is not quite as bad as England & Wales & NI ...that devolution was a good idea. I think we should rebuild Hardrians Wall :)

For once I agree with DS.

I find it amazing that is even allowed to happen. Then I think, "we'll why haven't you done anything" and of course, there is nothing you can do, we live in a dictatorship and we've had consecutive very corporate driven control freaks in power. It's a shame, but them's the facts.
Most people are either unaware of the scale of the privacy violations and human rights issues this government (and previous to a certain degree) are trampling all over, or if they do, know they are completely powerless.

Dreadful Scathe
22nd-July-2008, 11:11 AM
For once I agree with DS.

I find it amazing that is even allowed to happen.

Hey, thats harsh, but I'll take it on the chin ;)

Agente Secreto
22nd-July-2008, 03:39 PM
Ah, but you're a secret agent - who for exactly? :wink: Sorry but neither I nor Morocco Mole can divulge this unless we're tempted by a honey trap consisting of a gorgeous dancing lady


Seriously though, the UK used to be be renowned as a country in which citizens had considerable freedom the go about their business without undue intrusion from the state, and where the state was the servant of the people. That has changed, and continues to do so.

No doubt that there is a lot more oversight than there used to be. I'd just be careful about some of the stuff in the papers.

We do have loads (too many) CCTV cameras but working in the security industry the numbers I have for public facing systems are about 1/4 of what the papers say (1.25 v 4.8 million). What's more, many of them feed analogue recorders which are unique to the systems so it is difficult to share the imagery or do any analysis of it. The investigation into the 7/7 bombings in London found this challenge because the cost and complexity of assembling the systems just to view the videos and 99% of the analysis was done by people which is hugely time consuming and costly.

ANPR systems are digital and can share, and I don't like their use for traffic monitoring or congestion charging (but then I don't like the idea of congestion charging anyway). I know the police also use ANPR systems, tied to speeding measurement systems and increasingly aimed at catching people with no road tax or insurance. My information is that the police ANPR systems only store your data if you have violated something so I'm not too concerned about that. Besides I'd like to catch all of the people with no insurance that drive up the premiums for the rest of us (as long as we can prosecute the little bu**ers and/or take their cars off them - which we seem to struggle to do).


As for the ID card scheme, despite its title, the cards are relatively unimportant - it's the database that matters. And yes, the Government have indicated that there will be '265 government departments and as many as 44,000 private sector organisations accredited' (http://www.ips.gov.uk/identity/downloads/procurement-strategy-market-soundings.pdf) to access the database, and one of Microsoft's executives (http://news.cnet.com/Microsoft-exec-ID-cards-pose-security-risk/2100-7348_3-5900411.html) has said that the database could increase the likelihood of confidential data falling into the hands of criminals. As for 'function creep' even the Home Affairs Select Committee is concerned (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7441693.stm). The Government's own Information Commissioner (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3568468.stm) is concerned too.

An alarmist view? I'd call it realistic.
Again some of the views quoted are old and maybe not as well informed as they could be. I've attended a couple of public consultation sessions on the ID register, and have seen the views of the Information Commissioner who doesn't argue against the register so long as it meets the sufficiency of data test in the Data Protection Act. Select committees are often blinded by politics but again this one is looking to make sure that the system meets the data sufficiency tests.

The Microsoft guy was arguing that we use 'store on card' technologies (funnily enough supporting some of their products and services........) so that you don't have to drag information back from a central system every time you have to show or check ID. This is probably what's going to happen anyway but you still need a central database so you can process and issue passports now and the future even if we don't have ID cards etc. As far as I'm aware, all that the vast bulk of the 44000 organisations will be able do on the register will be to confirm details presented, not make active queries on the system so the chances of them getting access to your ID history are almost zero. That document was actually aimed at trying to persuade commercial bodies of the value of a central ID confirmation source so that hopefully they'd been keen to invest in development to help spread the cost to you and I as taxpayers.

Personally, I carried a military ID card everywhere for over 17 years and carry my driving license now so I have no phobia about ID, but I fully accept that my views may not be shared by others. I've asked my daughter and son about ID (18 and 15 respectively) and both say that they would get an ID card so they would have no problems getting access to pubs and clubs (well not the 15 yr old just now - I suppose he's looking ahead). My daughter says that she would have liked something more convenient than carrying a passport which some of her friends do and which she carried until she got a driving license.

No doubt this whole topic will spark many hours of debate in the months and years to come.

Dreadful Scathe
30th-July-2008, 12:36 PM
If you needed any proof that Big Brother was getting closer and closer, look no further than here (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/30/commercial_access_dna_database/). Currently more than 1 million people, not convicted of anything are having their DNA data "made available for authorised research purposes ", with no permission needed - To at least 25 organisations, 5 of which are private companies. They say its "anonymous" DNA, so its not tied to invidiuals - but some active police officers who had put their DNA in the database voluntarily then "rejected a request for their DNA samples to be used in a research project". Seems like someone "forgot" to give the same choice to the other people in the database, and why would the police refuse - its just research isn't it :rolleyes:

RedFox
30th-July-2008, 03:21 PM
No doubt that there is a lot more oversight than there used to be. I'd just be careful about some of the stuff in the papers.

Of course it's necessary to look behind the press stories, but they are not entirely misleading. I'd also suggest being careful with some of the stuff promoted by politicians.


....My information is that the police ANPR systems only store your data if you have violated something so I'm not too concerned about that.

Not so; the National Vehicle Movement Database keeps records of all ANPR camera recorded vehicle movements throughout the UK, currently for 2 years, likely to be extended to 5 years. According to this ACPO ANPR Steering Group document (http://www.acpo.police.uk/asp/policies/Data/anpr_strat_2005-08_march05_12x04x05.doc), by March 2006 the National ANPR Data Centre was due to be operational with "the capacity to hold 35 million ANPR reads per day, with the system further scaleable in the future". Amazingly the same document says that the system 'is seen by many as an enhancement of the Human Rights of law abiding citizens'. :whistle:


Select committees are often blinded by politics but again this one is looking to make sure that the system meets the data sufficiency tests.
Perhaps, but this one has a Labour majority and their concers were far wider than data sufficiency. For example the summary says:

"...Government should adopt a principle of data minimisation: it should collect only what is essential, to be stored only for as long as is necessary.
We call on the Government to give proper consideration to the risks associated with excessive surveillance. Loss of privacy through excessive surveillance erodes trust between the individual and the Government and can change the nature of the relationship between citizen and state..."

You can read their latest report here (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmhaff/263/263i.pdf).


I've attended a couple of public consultation sessions on the ID register

Congratulations; I hear that the audience is by invitation only, largely made of local businessmen, council officials and the like, with minimal local publicity in advance. In fact, for the Government to call them 'public consultations' is highly misleading. And it's interesting that the police arrested protesters (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7480360.stm) who turned up to one last month - what happened to free speech?


Personally, I carried a military ID card everywhere for over 17 years and carry my driving license now so I have no phobia about ID, but I fully accept that my views may not be shared by others.

The point is, it's not about carrying an ID card. It's about being recorded throughout your life by a national database, interlinked to many other government IT systems and with access to your details shared with tens of thousands of other organisations.

Of course it is closer to what the DVLA get up to - making £15 million (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-567064/15-million-What-DVLA-selling-private-details-car-park-spies-wheel-clampers.html) over the past 5 years by selling access to their database to carpark owners, wheel clampers and convicted criminals (http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-369838/DVLA-sells-details-criminals.html). Where was the national debate before giving them permission to do that?


I've asked my daughter and son about ID (18 and 15 respectively) and both say that they would get an ID card so they would have no problems getting access to pubs and clubs (well not the 15 yr old just now - I suppose he's looking ahead). My daughter says that she would have liked something more convenient than carrying a passport which some of her friends do and which she carried until she got a driving license.

Then I hope you can convince them that the debate is about much more than short-term convenience, and to start taking the subject seriously.


No doubt this whole topic will spark many hours of debate in the months and years to come.
Lets hope so....

Dreadful Scathe
30th-July-2008, 04:03 PM
Then I hope you can convince them that the debate is about much more than short-term convenience, and to start taking the subject seriously.



Well said . I need a "Nothing to hide, everything to fear" t-shirt" :)

Agente Secreto
31st-July-2008, 01:09 AM
Of course it's necessary to look behind the press stories, but they are not entirely misleading. I'd also suggest being careful with some of the stuff promoted by politicians.
I don't think that we can trust either the press or the politicians to tell us the truth - and it's easy for any of us to take one angle that fits how we think. No doubt I think differently on this topic than many that have already posted on this thread but then I'm a secret agent and I work in mysterious ways................


Not so; the National Vehicle Movement Database keeps records of all ANPR camera recorded vehicle movements throughout the UK, currently for 2 years, likely to be extended to 5 years. According to this ACPO ANPR Steering Group document (http://www.acpo.police.uk/asp/policies/Data/anpr_strat_2005-08_march05_12x04x05.doc), by March 2006 the National ANPR Data Centre was due to be operational with "the capacity to hold 35 million ANPR reads per day, with the system further scaleable in the future". Amazingly the same document says that the system 'is seen by many as an enhancement of the Human Rights of law abiding citizens'. :whistle:
It's an old document put in front of a steering group so who knows what made it into standard operating practice - I'll get an informed view from my brother the next time I see him because he's an inspector in the Traffic Division and frequently sits behind such devices in traffic cars.


Perhaps, but this one has a Labour majority and their concers were far wider than data sufficiency. For example the summary says:

"...Government should adopt a principle of data minimisation: it should collect only what is essential, to be stored only for as long as is necessary.
This is a feature of the ID Cards Act, and the Information Commissioner is working with the Home Office to make sure the Identity Register conforms to this basic principle of the Data Protection Act.


Congratulations; I hear that the audience is by invitation only, largely made of local businessmen, council officials and the like, with minimal local publicity in advance. In fact, for the Government to call them 'public consultations' is highly misleading. And it's interesting that the police arrested protesters (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7480360.stm) who turned up to one last month - what happened to free speech?
I was there - us secret agents get to all sorts of places although this event was a lot less impressive than the places that 007 hangs out!:cool: One individual from NO2ID disrupted the meeting and stopped anyone else talking - his disruption stopped others speaking and arguably interfered with their free speech so always 2 ways of looking at it. He was ejected from the meeting and I didn't see what happened at the hotel entrance because I was still in the session but that explains why it went quiet. :whistle:


The point is, it's not about carrying an ID card. It's about being recorded throughout your life by a national database, interlinked to many other government IT systems and with access to your details shared with tens of thousands of other organisations.
Again this is not how the system is to be architected - and the details will not be given to thousands of organisations. I've seen the proposals and the principle of protecting the information and enforcing a strict control over access to the information is a key requirement.


Of course it is closer to what the DVLA get up to - making £15 million (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-567064/15-million-What-DVLA-selling-private-details-car-park-spies-wheel-clampers.html) over the past 5 years by selling access to their database to carpark owners, wheel clampers and convicted criminals (http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-369838/DVLA-sells-details-criminals.html). Where was the national debate before giving them permission to do that?
No argument - I don't like what DVLA do but the people architecting the identity register are not trying to make a quick buck.



Then I hope you can convince them that the debate is about much more than short-term convenience, and to start taking the subject seriously.
Absolutely, seriousness without paranoia in all things is how us secret agents survive.:wink:

RedFox
15th-September-2008, 12:50 PM
The National Vehicle Movement Database keeps records of all ANPR camera recorded vehicle movements throughout the UK, currently for 2 years, likely to be extended to 5 years. According to this ACPO ANPR Steering Group document, by March 2006 the National ANPR Data Centre was due to be operational with "the capacity to hold 35 million ANPR reads per day, with the system further scaleable in the future". Amazingly the same document says that the system 'is seen by many as an enhancement of the Human Rights of law abiding citizens'.

It's an old document put in front of a steering group so who knows what made it into standard operating practice - I'll get an informed view from my brother the next time I see him because he's an inspector in the Traffic Division and frequently sits behind such devices in traffic cars.

Featured on the front page of The Guardian today, September 15th:
Fears over privacy as police expand surveillance project (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/sep/15/civilliberties.police)

"Thousands of CCTV cameras across the country have been converted to read ANPR data, capturing people's movements in cars on motorways, main roads, airports and town centres. Local authorities have since adapted their own CCTV systems to capture licence plates on behalf of police, massively expanding the network of available cameras. Mobile cameras have been installed in patrol cars and unmarked vehicles parked by the side of roads."

"Half of all police forces in England and Wales have now been connected to the network, reading between 8 and 10m licence plates a day."

"In four months' time, when a nationwide network of cameras is fully operational, the National ANPR Data Centre in Hendon, north London, will record up to 50m licence plates a day."

"responding to inquiries under the Freedom of Information Act, the Home Office has admitted the data is now being kept for five years."

"Police have been encouraged to "fully and strategically exploit" the database, which is already recording the whereabouts of 10 million drivers a day"

"The director of Privacy International, Simon Davies, said last night the database would give police 'extraordinary powers of surveillance'. 'This would never be allowed in any other democratic country,' he said."

Peter
15th-September-2008, 03:24 PM
So how come it's going to cost so much? That's about twice the cost of a passport (£51), and three times as much as a driving licence (£38) at £100. At £300, it's six and nine times as expensive...

I still don't really understand the need for an identity card for people who have a photo driving licence. What extra is it going to add to the driving licence, which has my photo, date and place of birth, address and signature on?


How much will the renewal cost - I suppose that we will have to wait for the first renewals before the government comes clean on this)

PS did you know about the photocard driving licence every 10 years renewal fee when you volunteered to switch from your lasts-til-age-70 paper licence?


Drivers face fines for expired licences

A massive 300,000 photo card licences are due to expire in the next 12 months, yet a significant proportion of drivers are unaware that the new photo-style licences require updating every 10 years.
Unlike the superseded paper licence, which was valid 'for life', the new identity card versions feature a 'valid until' date, at which time motorists must shell out an extra £17.50 for a new card. It's thought that a lot of drivers are not aware of this requirement.
This summer marked the 10th anniversary of the introduction of the new photo card licence and of the cards due for update a massive 28% are still outstanding, according to the DVLA. These drivers could face a £1,000 fine if asked to surrender the licence.
Though the expiry date is printed on the front of the photo cards, it can only be identified as such when the owner turns the card over and reads the small print.
Making matters more confusing is the presence on the back of the cards of a date until which time the motorists is registered to hold the licence - their 70th birthday.
According to the DVLA, reminders will now be sent to drivers with photo cards due to expire, while the Association of British Insurers has confirmed that insurance cover is unaffected by an expired photo card.

Dreadful Scathe
16th-September-2008, 01:10 AM
i got the letter myself - apparantly i MUST get an updated licence even though it was never mandatory to get the photocard in the first place, its the paper one that has any disqualifications on it and gets demanded when you hire cars - so go figure :confused:

Brian Doolan
21st-November-2008, 06:54 PM
You couldn't make it up:


Next week, foreigners are to be issued with ID cards.
This (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7742619.stm) from an article on the BBC's news website relating to the government's ID Card consultation document:
Homeless people wanting ID cards may be able to give their home address as a bench, bus stop or park where they are often found.
Addresses will be recorded on the register but will not appear on the face of the card.


If they change benches or jump a bus and get off at a different stop and don't tell BB, will they be whacked with a fine?

Dreadful Scathe
22nd-November-2008, 12:31 AM
If they change benches or jump a bus and get off at a different stop and don't tell BB, will they be whacked with a fine?


Its probably a more generic "any bench" so if they upgrade to a cosy bush or something, only then would they need to notify the authorities :)

Stuart M
25th-November-2008, 12:53 PM
And so it begins... (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5225907.ece)

Appropriate that a remake of The Prisoner is coming to ITV (http://www.amctv.com/originals/the-prisoner/) next year, isn't it?

Stuart M
4th-December-2008, 10:20 PM
Well, a victory in the European court, over the unpleasant habit the English/Welsh authorities have of storing the DNA of innocent people.

DNA database 'breach of rights' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7764069.stm)

Hopefully the unanimous verdict of the judges will knock sense into some people in the government, though Jacqui Smith's repsonse doesn't inspire.

Dreadful Scathe
30th-January-2009, 02:57 PM
Ah ID cards, apparantly we "cant wait for them"

Here's the serious press release (http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/war/public-can%27t-wait-to-be-truncheoned-across-the-jaw%2c-says-smith-200811071383/)...


and here is an amusing spoof of the whole thing (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/30/idcard_cobblers/)

Dreadful Scathe
1st-March-2011, 12:46 PM
so its over of course (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/01/21/id_cards_ended/) but can we demand labour mps who thought ID cards were a good idea raise the £330m it cost between themselves and return it to the public coffers? :)

Bubble
2nd-March-2011, 02:54 AM
so its over of course (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/01/21/id_cards_ended/)

Is anyone taking bets on how long before a government of whatever persuasion tries the whole thing all over again?

Lets face it, the Police probably wanted this scheme, as no matter how many powers parliament gives them they always want more. How long before some senior policeman convinces a Home Office Minister that it's the only way forward?


can we demand labour mps who thought ID cards were a good idea raise the £330m it cost between themselves and return it to the public coffers? :)

No chance! :rofl::rofl::rofl:

Lory
2nd-March-2011, 10:13 AM
I also think that there should be a website that you log all your movements in one day.

for example

9.00am - went for coffee in starbucks stayed approx 60mins
10.00am - went shopping :whistle:
Ha ha, looking back on this thread and I came across this..

and WB's request has been answered now, its called FaceBook! :cool:

Gav
2nd-March-2011, 10:36 AM
Is anyone taking bets on how long before a government of whatever persuasion tries the whole thing all over again?

I would imagine it'll all kick off again just as the technology used is all out of date and the data gathered is of no use any more.


(Cynical? Moi?)