Uk Id Cards [Archive] - FileSharing Talk

Rat Faced

04-25-2004, 07:57 PM

Originally posted by J'Pol+25 April 2004 - 19:39--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J'Pol @ 25 April 2004 - 19:39)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Rat Faced@25 April 2004 - 19:22

Most of the data on the new ID cards will also be on the new biometric passports and driving licenses anyway...so whats the point?
Some people don't drive

Some people don't have a passport.

Everyone exists. [/b][/quote]
True, however as we'll have Biometric ID cards, then why pay for the Biometric Passports and Driving Licences?

Can you recall one case where an ID card has stopped a terrorist or a Burgalry even?

If its for "Security" then why are they waiting 10 years or more before they make it compulsary?

The Home Secretary has a baby and wont let go. He wont even give straight answers to any questions on it, whatever party they come from.

The whole thing is a waste of money...in this case £Billions.

J'Pol

04-25-2004, 08:18 PM

It is difficult to comment on what is stopped by security measures being in place. Since the events did not take place.

It is difficult to comment on what they have prevented, since they prevented it.

Perhaps the card should only be for those who don't already have a passport which contains the same details as the card would.

vidcc

04-25-2004, 08:43 PM

Where i live we need id to purchase tobacco and alcohol, it doesn't matter that you are obviously over the age required...even someone that is retired has to show id. It's usually in the form of a driving permit, if you don't drive you need some form of id just to make life easier.
I can't see how it would prevent crime making it compulsory other than helping shopkeepers from making the mistake of selling certain goods to underage persons. A criminal is not going to be worried about id....in for a penny in for a pound. The 9:11 terrorist all had id...passports.....didn't stop them
i think it is more a way to keep track of tax avoidance than national security (just a conspiracy theory :huh: )

soopaman

04-25-2004, 11:06 PM

Originally posted by J'Pol@25 April 2004 - 21:18
It is difficult to comment on what is stopped by security measures being in place. Since the events did not take place.

It is difficult to comment on what they have prevented, since they prevented it.

Perhaps the card should only be for those who don't already have a passport which contains the same details as the card would.

Pedant!!! :lol:

Although you make a good point about duplicate documentation. It still won't help though. Unfortunately :(

j2k4

04-25-2004, 11:28 PM

So, can someone distill and weight the objections to these new IDs?

Is it cost, redundancy, uselessness?

Not expressing an opinion, here, just assessing. :)

vidcc

04-26-2004, 01:58 AM

Originally posted by j2k4@25 April 2004 - 15:28
So, can someone distill and weight the objections to these new IDs?

Is it cost, redundancy, uselessness?

Not expressing an opinion, here, just assessing. :)
cost...yes..to many it will be if they become comulsory, even if they don't charge directly to each person the tax payer will foot the bill. i can't see too many rushing to pay the £35 to £40 as quoted by biggles unless the government brings in an "incentive" such as carding alcohol sales as they do here.

probably the biggest objection will be the compulsory bit (if it happens)...it kind of goes against personal liberty. There is an arguement that one already carries id in the form of a driving permit or passport or even credit cards, so why would one object to an id card?...well for one you won't get into trouble for not having any of the afore mentioned, but you would for not carrying a compulsory id.

In the Uk they don't have to have their driving licence with them when they drive, if they get stopped by the police they will be given a "produce" document and have 7 days to produce the licence at a police station of their choice....i can't see them doing the same for ID if it becomes compulsory.

j2k4

04-26-2004, 02:19 AM

Is it really seen as a loss of liberty issue?

All of the objections I've seen on that basis seem a bit vague. :huh:

vidcc

04-26-2004, 04:58 AM

Originally posted by j2k4@25 April 2004 - 18:19
Is it really seen as a loss of liberty issue?

All of the objections I've seen on that basis seem a bit vague. :huh:
put simplistically you HAVE to carry the card ( i am assuming there would be some sort of penalty for non compliance) if it becomes compulsory so you lose the freedom of choice....i am not suggesting that you lose your liberty in the locked up sense :blink: rather the condition of being free from restriction or control sense as one would not be allowed to roam freely without the id card ;).
In reality it wouldn't have any affect on the everyday lives however it will be seen as a form of control.
I do not know if these cards are going to be biometric....if they are it will give the state a bio database of every person...big brother looms

Barbarossa

04-26-2004, 09:59 AM

It was on the news that only 35% of terrorists use fake ID, so at most this measure will ignore the other 65% of terrorist activity (including 9/11, where they used they're real identities)

It just seems to be that Terrorism is being used as an excuse to bring this in, and in fact there is a hidden agenda for bringing this in that we're not party to.

For example, to cut down on benefit fraud.

The scary thing is that if Biometric information starts being held on central databases, there are many people who would be desperate to see it, for example medical insurers.

j2k4

04-26-2004, 11:58 AM

I see the concern as re: the biometric version (as a privacy issue), but it seems a bit nit-picky to complain about having to carry around a card.

Feeling that you "are not allowed to roam freely without the card"?

To speak thus is to cast a suspicious eye on the activity of "roaming freely".

Last time I roamed freely, I had my wallet for the cash necessary to truly roam in a free fashion, though I may have been less free than I was aware; I forgot to remove my ID before I roamed. :D

vidcc

04-26-2004, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by j2k4@26 April 2004 - 03:58
I see the concern as re: the biometric version (as a privacy issue), but it seems a bit nit-picky to complain about having to carry around a card.

Feeling that you "are not allowed to roam freely without the card"?

To speak thus is to cast a suspicious eye on the activity of "roaming freely".

Last time I roamed freely, I had my wallet for the cash necessary to truly roam in a free fashion, though I may have been less free than I was aware; I forgot to remove my ID before I roamed. :D
:lol:
it's a perception thing...i did say the reality is not the same as the perception.
I wonder what that libertarian person that ram raided the forum a while back would have thought of the issue ?????? :lol:
That said, how would you feel personally if you had left your ID at home while you were roaming freely (might get confused with jay walking :lol: ) and you where stopped by the police and possibly charged and fined thus giving you a criminal record. i appreciate that is a worst case scenario.
as an example of feeling, here we have the NRA spouting about the right to have guns, a personal freedom and they fight every attempt to tighten controls. We may not agree with them but we understand their constitutional rights. So why would it be considered "pickey" if someone wants the personal right to not have to carry an ID card in their own country ? It's not the fact that it's just a card It's what it represents in ones mind...just a card today...what will it be tomorrow?

All this is just theory on the assumption that the cards will become compulsory, but knowing the English (i spent a large chunk of my life there) they are prouder than we are about personal freedom, just with the English reserve they don't have to high 5 it all the time. :D

J'Pol

04-26-2004, 05:45 PM

Originally posted by j2k4@26 April 2004 - 12:58
I see the concern as re: the biometric version (as a privacy issue), but it seems a bit nit-picky to complain about having to carry around a card.

Feeling that you "are not allowed to roam freely without the card"?

To speak thus is to cast a suspicious eye on the activity of "roaming freely".

Last time I roamed freely, I had my wallet for the cash necessary to truly roam in a free fashion, though I may have been less free than I was aware; I forgot to remove my ID before I roamed. :D
I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with carrying an ID card.

Any argument that "it will be copied anyway" is just claptrap. Just because it will be copied is no reason not to do it. I know we can't make it impossible for criminals, but let's at least make it a bit more difficult for them.

Take money launderers, or fraudsters for example. Let's make it a bit more difficult for them to open bank accounts in false names.

If we make the card as difficult to copy as possible then we will stop some crime. Not all of it, but at least some. That is enough reason for me to carry 1 more credit card sized piece of plastic in my wallet.

It really is not a problem to me.

Rat Faced

04-26-2004, 06:54 PM

Originally posted by J'Pol@26 April 2004 - 17:45

I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with carrying an ID card.

Any argument that "it will be copied anyway" is just claptrap. Just because it will be copied is no reason not to do it. I know we can't make it impossible for criminals, but let's at least make it a bit more difficult for them.

Take money launderers, or fraudsters for example. Let's make it a bit more difficult for them to open bank accounts in false names.

If we make the card as difficult to copy as possible then we will stop some crime. Not all of it, but at least some. That is enough reason for me to carry 1 more credit card sized piece of plastic in my wallet.

It really is not a problem to me.
I also have no problem carrying an extra card around with me..

I do have a problem with being made to carry an extra card around with me.

I already forget to carry too many of the bloody things on a regular basis, quite apart from the feelings of indignation and stubborn pigheadedness the very idea invokes in me.

The cost is way over the top of the very limited benefits.

There is a lot more can be done with that money, even if just given to the police, than this stupid idea will help with.

vidcc

04-26-2004, 07:54 PM

Originally posted by Rat Faced@26 April 2004 - 10:54
I also have no problem carrying an extra card around with me..

I do have a problem with being made to carry an extra card around with me.

my point exactly as to how many will feel :D

the test will be seeing how many do pay up on the voluntary scheme (at least one here by all accounts)
it will be interesting to see what happens if someone refuses to pay should it become compulsory

Chevy

04-26-2004, 10:20 PM

Just seen this:

ID card scheme £2,500 fine threat
The home secretary has unveiled his plans for ID cards
People who refuse to register for the government's planned ID card scheme could face a "civil financial penalty" of up to £2,500, it has emerged.

David Blunkett said not making registering a criminal issue would avoid "clever people" becoming martyrs.

And he promised strict limits on the type of information stored on ID cards.

Under Monday's draft bill, carrying false papers will be a criminal offence but MPs have until 2013 to decide if registration should be compulsory.

Bet the average fine would be less than £100 though.

I know it's not the issue the thread as evolved into (roaming freely) but I just spotted it on the BBC News site (source) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3659355.stm)

J'Pol

04-26-2004, 11:54 PM

Originally posted by Rat Faced+26 April 2004 - 19:54--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Rat Faced @ 26 April 2004 - 19:54)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-J'Pol@26 April 2004 - 17:45

I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with carrying an ID card.

Any argument that "it will be copied anyway" is just claptrap. Just because it will be copied is no reason not to do it. I know we can't make it impossible for criminals, but let's at least make it a bit more difficult for them.

Take money launderers, or fraudsters for example. Let's make it a bit more difficult for them to open bank accounts in false names.

If we make the card as difficult to copy as possible then we will stop some crime. Not all of it, but at least some. That is enough reason for me to carry 1 more credit card sized piece of plastic in my wallet.

It really is not a problem to me.
I also have no problem carrying an extra card around with me..

I do have a problem with being made to carry an extra card around with me.

I already forget to carry too many of the bloody things on a regular basis, quite apart from the feelings of indignation and stubborn pigheadedness the very idea invokes in me.

The cost is way over the top of the very limited benefits.

There is a lot more can be done with that money, even if just given to the police, than this stupid idea will help with. [/b][/quote]
I disagree, the benefits far outweigh the cost. The cost is minimal.

You are already forced to be registered, to register your marriage and to register your children. You are forced to have an NI number, you are forced to pass a driving test, you are forced to have insurance (not really but to all intents and purposes) you are forced to get an MOT if your car is over a certain age. You are forced to do many things, this is just another fairly minimal one.

I really do not agree that the cost outweighs the benefit. However I fully accept that is probably because we are looking at this from an entirely different perspective.

There are various ways to deal with criminality, traditionally we did this by apprehension and prosecution. However nowadays we also use disruption. In essence that is making the crime more difficult to commit and in so doing minimising the level. For example if we could half the level of Excise fraud in the UK then that would save the Government around £3,000,000,000, just on Tobacco and Oils frauds. No-one would have to be arrested or charged, just by making it more difficult to commit the fraud the billions are saved.

The principle of disruption extends to most if not all areas of profit related crime. How much for example is lost to benefit fraud (which I hate because the bastards are stealing my money). So if we could help to lower that, great in my view. Same for money laundering, make it difficult for the drug traffickers to conceal their money.

Like I said, I think the cost is outweighed by the potential benefits (no pun intended).

vidcc

04-27-2004, 12:04 AM

chevy..... very valid information to the thread...thanks.

someone will obviously be voluntarily paying for the card before it becomes compulsory

leftism

04-27-2004, 03:18 PM

Can anyone provide evidence of the security that ID cards will bring? Perhaps one could begin by visiting Madrid and asking the people there? Weren't the 9/11 hijackers correctly identified as well?

If ID cards make such a big difference in the fight against crime, then why don't we see a corresponding difference when we compare the crime figures in the UK with countries in Europe where they already have them? Perhaps.. because they don't make a noteable difference?

What bothers me about ID cards is the extra functionality. Today it'll be your biometric details, tomorrow your DNA, the day after: your banking details, they day after that: your health details, they day after that: your voting preferences and so on. How long before this ever increasing mine of information starts 'leaking'?

I know authoritarians get a serious hard on about ID cards but ,to me, this seems to be a case of the emperors new clothes.

PS

Anyone considered the possibility that this database will get hacked? A centralised database with information on every individual in the UK that has to be available over a network to a wide variety of organisations seems like a high priority target to me.

Rat Faced

04-27-2004, 06:09 PM

People choose whether they want to drive a car.. and hence get a license.

If they dont have a car, then the insurance isnt compulsary nor the MOT...its a choice.

People choose whether they want to travel abroad, passports are not compulsary.

National Insurance numbers are issued, and i lost my "Card" about 3 months after i got the thing when i was 16.... I dont need it, i am not asked for it.

Same goes for my NHS number.

This will not be a choice... there is a huge difference.

J'Pol

04-27-2004, 06:49 PM

Originally posted by Rat Faced@27 April 2004 - 19:09
People choose whether they want to drive a car.. and hence get a license.

If they dont have a car, then the insurance isnt compulsary nor the MOT...its a choice.

People choose whether they want to travel abroad, passports are not compulsary.

National Insurance numbers are issued, and i lost my "Card" about 3 months after i got the thing when i was 16.... I dont need it, i am not asked for it.

Same goes for my NHS number.

This will not be a choice... there is a huge difference.
I was only making the point that we are already regulated to a large extent. I did not mean to suggest that the issues are directly or completely analogous.

Obviously one has the choice whether or not to drive, however once the choice is made then there is the cost of learning, the cost of taking and passing the test. Not just price but also time. I think the average is 20 - 25 lessons at around £25 each. I believe that most people spend between £500 - £1,000 getting a driving licence.

The insurance will then be several hundred pounds per year. For a new driver it may be as much as £500 - £1,000 depending on the location, age, type of vehicle etc.

As you say people do not need to do this, however a lot, if not most, choose to. They want the freedom and job opportunities that a car affords them. When they make this choice none of the above cost in money, time etc is really optional.

If drivers are involved in any type of road incident then they will be instructed to produce their documents to the Police within a given time, again this is not optional.

I have no problem with the card, I think the benefits outweigh the minor inconvenience of carrying it. It will certainly cost me less to have then the bloody car sitting at the door, which I couldn't really do without.

You feel differently, I am entirely cool with that. We are all entitled to different opinions.

Biggles

04-27-2004, 07:12 PM

I do have an objection to being charged for additional ID.

By all means have one system whereby the ID can also carry driving licence and passport data - I can see both a practical benefit and savings in administration. It would be possible to start out in life with an ID card for everyone and then as one's requirements through life develop it can be added to. Consequently, the overall system would cost less than running with 4 or 5 different sources.

However, I do object in principle to being charged separately for all these items. There is talk of spreading the charge between the passport and the ID (raising around £40 from each). If this is the case I will end up forking out for myself and family around £250 (or $400 for our US comrades) and this is a tad steep in my view.

There are cheats and fraudsters and these will have most to fear from an ID system. This is good, but spending £3.5b to save £3b is of minimal benefit to the Treasury. The idea is sound - now lets see if we can do it at a sensible cost.
....Am I just mean? :(

Incidently, it will do nothing for security as visitors to the country will not have a card and home grown terrorists will almost certainly be model citizens until they strike.

J'Pol

04-27-2004, 07:24 PM

Originally posted by J'Pol@25 April 2004 - 21:18
Perhaps the card should only be for those who don't already have a passport which contains the same details as the card would.
Biggles

I believe we may agree on this point.

With regard to the £3billion, that related just to halving specific excise fraud. Nothing to do with Benefits, VAT and the myriad other types. It would also equate to a yearly reduction in that fraud, not just a one-off.

vidcc

04-27-2004, 08:13 PM

i appreciate that the driving licence/permit is a compulsory thing and it does serve as ID, however that is an issue of safety. look at the carnage on the roads caused by people that have passed the test and gained the licence...just think what it would be like if is was an optional thing.
a compulsory ID card wouldn't really be the same thing at all (you don't become a safer pedestrian)
why argue for one less freedom because you already have some other form of control?..where would one draw the line.
As for the arguement of "duty fraud" well if the UK government made the duty more in line with the rest of the "unified" EU then they would take away the need to smuggle in the first place. People tend to buy things that are cheaper and thereby tax would be collected. Any arguement about the need for duty to be collected is contradicted by the fact that the "duty" is supposed to deter people from things like smoking and as argued by someone it is not to raise revenue as it is not tax.

yes the ID will cost less than having a car sat outside....but it would cost even less if you didn't have to have the id in the first place. But then the car licence is a record of one being able to safely drive a car on the day of the test ...not a permit to be a citizen of the country you were born in

Alex H

04-28-2004, 06:31 AM

Here in Australia, we've had the same issue crop up. This is from a post I wrote a few months ago:

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

YOU WANT US TO CARRY COMPULSORY IDENTIFICATION PAPERS?

No way! The western world has a long and bloodstained history of fighting totalitarian regimes, and if anyone thinks that their freedom will be ensured by an ID card you are gravely mistaken.

Eg. We have a "100 point ID check" system here, so if you are applying for a bank account, drivers licence, etc you have to have enough documnets to make up the 100 points. A driver's licence is worth 60, an electricity bill is worth 20, a birth certificate is worth 50, etc.

So if the new ID card is forge-proof, I should only have to front up with my card and I can get anything because it is secure, ie. I don't need all the others.

What happens if I loose it, or it gets stolen with the rest of my wallet?

First, I have a major problem. I am unidentifiable. I cannot prove who I am. Therefore I have to get a new ID card. I have to bring my 100 points of ID to get the card.

So if I still have to have all my other ID, why get a new one? All the other stuff can be forged easily.

It will be a minor hiccup to terrorists and a major incovenience to the rest of the 99.9999999% of the population.

So instead of carrying an ID card I can easily loose, why not just tattoo a serial number onto my forearm?

Image Resized
[img]http://www.chgs.umn.edu/Histories__Narratives__Documen/Henry_Oertelt_-_An_Unbroken_Ch/Auschwitz_Tattoo/pic12t.jpg' width='200' height='120' border='0' alt='click for full size view'> ('http://www.chgs.umn.edu/Histories__Narratives__Documen/Henry_Oertelt_-_An_Unbroken_Ch/Auschwitz_Tattoo/pic12t.jpg')

Auschwitz Tattoo. Number of Henry Oertelt B11291.

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

I still feel exactly the same way about it. My work (Electronic Funds Transfers and security) has allowed me to see some of the biometric technology in action, and believe me, a determined person will be able to circumvent it, perhaps not in such an extreme way as Tom Cruise getting new eyeballs in Minority Report (although depending on the security features, it could certainly be an option), but things like fingerprint matches are (comparibly) easy to fake cause I've watched it being done in a lab.

If anyone has seen the movie "Gattaca", you'll remember how easy it was for people to only focus on the DNA scans, to the extent that no-one would bother to just look at your face. If someone steals your card, it would be very easy for them to somhow get a fingerprint from you too. Then a fake fingerprint overlay (the method I am familiar with) and a make up kit (I doubt a physical examination would happen) would be enough to create a new legitimate card. Throw in some name changes by deed poll and a bunch of other technology (which may be located overseas) and you could have a brand new fake ID.

All this would be very complicate technically, but the point is it could be done. And it would be big business for organized crime syndicates. What happens if 3 years into the release of the new cards it becomes evident that they are forgable? Do the citizens of Britian have to all get new cards?

Or like Microsoft, would you just pay for an upgrade?

Barbarossa

04-28-2004, 09:25 AM

Originally posted by Alex H@28 April 2004 - 06:31
If someone steals your card, it would be very easy for them to somhow get a fingerprint from you too.
Too right! With a big pair of clippers they could just snip your finger right off! :blink:

This is no joke, I can't sleep at night thinking about this stuff sometimes... :(

SeK612

04-28-2004, 09:48 AM

Agreed this might make it difficult for criminals or terrorists to operate but, as with most things, a way may be found around it (for example using people who have been British citizens for a long time and have a clean record to carry out parts of attacks to diffuse suspicion).

lynx

04-28-2004, 04:58 PM

My passport expires later this year, so I need a new one - no problem. Except that I may want to go to the US in a couple of year's time so I will need one with biometric data (iris scan) so I'll need another. But that won't be good enough after 2007 (no fingerprint data) so I'll need another.

My driving license is so old that it is dropping to bits. I need a new one now. But it won't have the biometric information on it so in a couple of years I'll probably need another.

Now they tell me I will need an ID card too. How much do you want to bet that the data held on all these will be out of date in a few years time, so I'll have to get them replaced again.

If I have to pay for all of these, the personal cost is likely to run into several hundred pounds. God help anyone who has a family. If the state is going to pay, the cost for ID cards is unlikely to be only £40 per head (when have government estimates ever been close to accurate) and with replacement needed every few years (if they are going to be effective) we are likely to see ANNUAL costs approaching £3 billion.

Do any of these things make me more or less likely to commit offences of one kind or another? Not at all, most offences are committed in the belief that the perpetrator won't get caught. People do things even when they know that cameras are on them, they still don't expect to get caught.

Someone who is determined to commit some sort of attrocity is unlikely to be deterred by an ID card. In fact if the person is going to carry out a suicide bombing, they know damn well they will be "caught" afterwards, but if the bomb is large enough they may well "slip through the net".

It is another of David Blunkett's crackpot ideas. When he was leader of Sheffield Council, he bankrupted the city with equally ludicrous schemes which are still being paid for, and I believe he became an MP over 15 years ago.

j2k4

04-28-2004, 05:33 PM

Lynx-

Please resist any urge you may feel to become a perpetrator. :huh:

I would hate to have to forego our association due to a moral lapse on your part. :D

vidcc

04-28-2004, 05:54 PM

Originally posted by lynx@28 April 2004 - 08:58

It is another of David Blunkett's crackpot ideas. When he was leader of Sheffield Council, he bankrupted the city with equally ludicrous schemes which are still being paid for, and I believe he became an MP over 15 years ago.
so is the old saying true ?................. a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there :blink:

I am not mocking his physical blindness, i wouldn't wish that on anyone, rather his political vision

sArA

04-29-2004, 10:50 PM

I have avoided this thread because, I am completely and utterly against ID smart cards and I was reluctant to throw myself in as so many of you seem to think its ok.

However, I just have to put my 2 penneth worth in...

This is an area close to my work, I know enough about the subject to be pretty sure that ID cards are not going to make any difference to our levels of security but will ultimately cost us our liberty.

these quotes contain concerns voiced years ago and yet are remarkably predictive...

‘when surveillance is employed in political systems that are considered democratic, it is legitimised and restricted on grounds of necessity’ (Raab, 1997 p.156-7).

Basically, we (the government) tell you its needed and we accept it cos we want to be safe, but....

‘the danger of using the information society concept uncritically is to disguise or gloss over the reality of domination by powerful interests’ (Lyon,1988 p.149).

Help!!! :blink: I'm being oppressed! :helpsmile:

The latest concerns about ID cards from a different source than the usual media and one that is consulted and recognised as having a legitimate view. (respected academic activist group)

http://www.privacyinternational.org/issues...d-terrorism.pdf (http://www.privacyinternational.org/issues/idcard/uk/id-terrorism.pdf)

Privacy is critical to bestow intimacy, allow for innovation and to maintain dignity. The loss of privacy is inevitable with the introduction of compulsory ID smart cards.

They are a BAD idea....

This is my view...I don't expect anyone to agree with me.....but then a lot of people do...I guess its nice to able to have an opinion anonymously (soon to be lost at a democracy near you!)

Barbarossa

04-30-2004, 10:00 AM

Why not go the whole hog and microchip everyone in the back of the head. Even better if they could use satellite tracking to tell where we are at any given time.

This would be tremendous in solving crimes!

:ph34r:

j2k4

04-30-2004, 02:03 PM

Sara-

Sounds like you have good info that could bear on the argument.

Unless you are bound somehow by legalities or proprietary matters, could you give us a peek under the canvas? :)

sArA

04-30-2004, 05:17 PM

@barbie....only a matter of time <_<

Ok....some more sources....

http://www.ccsr.cse.dmu.ac.uk/resources/sh...gory=1,6&sort=0 (http://www.ccsr.cse.dmu.ac.uk/resources/short.php?category=1,6&sort=0)

I used to work here, still collaborate occasionally, there are some interesting articles on ID cards written within the last few years.

Also....this is an excellent (if rather academic) site for Surveillance stuff....

http://www.surveillance-and-society.org/

And a bit of insider knowledge... :ph34r:

I was an invited participant last year at the Center for Digital Government at Harvard, where ID cards and their uses were discussed. There were a lot of people there who are experts in this area not just a bunch of fuck heads sitting round and talking bollocks! :lol: The discussion centred around the issues of universal personal identification, its justification and practical application as well as civil liberties issues. Lets just say that pretty much no-one thought they were a very good idea in the round in that they just don't work to prevent terrorism or crime (the main reason we are all expected to embrace ID cards in the first place).

They are not secure, the data is subject to innapropriate access and use, the data can be incorrectly input and then can be damn near impossible to correct, or even to locate as there will be multiple databases with the data in. The problems of profiling where biometric data is used to identify you and other data is used to decide what sort of person you are will mean that the whole concept of innocent until proven guilty will be turned on its head.

Biometric data is only as good as its collection, retrieval and storage (problems then may occur for individuals in the refusal of services or wrongful arrest etc,...can you imagine trying to convince a petty official that the biometric data on your wonderful, foolproof and totally secure and reliable smart card is actually wrong?)

They do however offer great potential for governments and other agencies to track and control the law abiding and therefore non-threatening part of the population. :(

There has long been an argument that 'if you are doing nothing wrong then what is the problem?' Fine and dandy in principle, but perhaps not so if you happen to be say an Arab or a Muslim or interested in politics, animal welfare, heavy metal, fast cars, porn, P2P, etc, etc, etc.... in fact...anything that 'could' be deemed as potentially of 'concern' to the authorities. :frusty:

This is not a doomsday scenario, this is all insidiously creeping into our society through fear and government's desire for control.

To be honest, there are so many sources out there its just a case of googling.

Or just read Orwell's 1984 again, with one eye on current developments in technology.

I reiterate that the above is not just 'my' opinion, this is based on research and debate in the field.

I told you I felt strongly didn't I? Now you know why! :D

Rat Faced

05-02-2004, 08:13 PM

"The Government has failed to show that similar schemes in other countries have helped to reduce identity fraud. Indeed, in the U.S., the universal use of Social Security Numbers--a scheme not unlike the one the U.K. government is proposing--has led to a huge growth in identity fraud," the Law Society writes in its official response to the program.

"Despite a compulsory identity card scheme, France continues to battle problems such as illegal working, illegal immigration and identity fraud--the very things the Home Office hopes to address with identity cards. If an identity card has not eliminated these challenges in France, what makes the Home Office believe that these problems can be resolved with an identity card scheme in the U.K.?" the Law Society asks.

source (http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,115867,00.asp)

Alex H

05-03-2004, 03:36 AM

Quite true Rat Faced. Having ID papers for when you get a job or to prove who you are are great, however for the millions of people out there in the cash economy the whole system is circumvented by an ilegal immigrant willing to take a 40% wage cut for cash payment.

Couldn't governments just do the old "more police on the streets" thing instead of wasting time and money on electronic checks, re-checks, scans and data processing?

Biggles

05-03-2004, 11:22 AM

Originally posted by barbarossa@30 April 2004 - 10:00
Why not go the whole hog and microchip everyone in the back of the head. Even better if they could use satellite tracking to tell where we are at any given time.

This would be tremendous in solving crimes!

:ph34r:
:lol:

Don't give Mr. Blunkett ideas.

vidcc

05-05-2004, 05:30 PM

source (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/tm_objectid=14210861%26method=full%26siteid=50143%26headline=blunkett%2d%2dqueue%2dfor%2did%2dcards-name_page.html)

BLUNKETT: QUEUE FOR ID CARDS May 5 2004

By James Hardy, Political Editor

PEOPLE will queue around the block to register for national ID cards - but they won't work.

Home Secretary David Blunkett predicted yesterday the £35 cards will be so popular the Government could struggle to meet the demand.

But the pilot scheme of 10,000 has already been hit by major problems.

The UK Passport Service, which is running the trial, said equipment for biometric details such as iris scans has had to be withdrawn. Problems include difficulty reading iris prints and unreliable recording of fingerprints.

Mr Blunkett told the Commons home affairs committee he believed the 80 per cent target of people with the cards would be hit early - before 2013.

He said: "Once we have this up and running people will queue up for it and we will have to deal with a flow and flood of people wanting it."

The Home Office intends to set up a voluntary system - to go with new hi-tech passports - within three years.

this comment reminds me of mrs. thatcher saying "the poll tax will be very popular indeed"....and the MP (it may have been gordon brown but i am not sure) that said in the debate about MPs pay rises " the tax paying public will not be impressed if we undervalue our worth"
:lol:

Rat Faced

05-05-2004, 05:41 PM

Originally posted by vidcc@5 May 2004 - 17:38
and the MP (it may have been gordon brown but i am not sure) that said in the debate about MPs pay rises " the tax paying public will not be impressed if we undervalue our worth"

If we paid them what they were worth, then the benefits system would be much better..

....coz they'd all be on it ;)

Biggles

05-05-2004, 07:17 PM

Vidcc

Thanks for that snippet. I will do my public duty and wait till the rush has died down. :D I wouldn't want to further burden the system. Sometime in 2020 should do.

Rat Faced

05-05-2004, 09:54 PM

Originally posted by Biggles@5 May 2004 - 19:25
Vidcc

Thanks for that snippet. I will do my public duty and wait till the rush has died down. :D I wouldn't want to further burden the system. Sometime in 2020 should do.
You can go right before me then ;)

Neil__

05-12-2004, 03:47 AM

Apart from the obvious civil liberties issues. The biggest problem I have with these cards is the assumption that you’re guilty of something if you’re against them.

I know of people who want one just to show the neighbors they are GOOD citizens.

If that’s the case why have privacy at all.

As for the idea that the system will have trouble coping with demand, how about the court and prison system coping with the tens/hundreds of thousands of people who refuse to pay the fine for not having one.

If Blunket had his way everyone would be scanned at birth and also have their DNA sampled for a national database.

I don’t know what he’s doing in the Labour party I think he’s more suited to the BNP
He’s right wing enough.

Neil