Card Makers Say UK Citizens Want Biometric ID Cards

ArsonPanda writes "ZDnet is running a story on a recent survey in the UK showing overwhelming 80% public support of universal, biometricly enhanced citizen ID cards. Everybody here's fine with supplying the gubmit w/ your retinal scans and fingerprints, right?"

Comments

I don't think this is going to happen...

[pr1000]

According to the BBC most people are against such an ID card and plans for one will most likely be abandoned.

Here are some links:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/2688697.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/2657143.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/2583651.stm

UK doesn't want ID cards.

[NexusTw1n]

Today's Reg Story tells a different story.

"The Home Office's consultation on its ID (aka Entitlement) Card proposals closes today, amidst complaints from privacy campaigners that the government has broken its own rules in canvassing opinions on its controversial plans. Human rights group Privacy International has lodged a complaint on the consultation process with the Parliamentary Ombudsman, due to several alleged breaches of the Government's own code of practice. "

An open letter has been sent complaining that the public was left out of the debate.

The government claim only 2000 responses have been received, yet Stand know that nearly 5000 people sent in concerns about ID cards via their website.

All British Slashdotters should Fax their MP and complain about this.

It worked last year when the stand/fax your mp campaign made the government change their minds about letting every UK agency have access to our private data.

It worked last time, and it will work again, spend 10 minutes writing a fax, and make your views and opinion of this whitewash heard.

This is a complete lie.

[Beautyon]

An independent survey at Stand has been taken, amongst others, where the overwhelming majority of responses have been against the introduction of an ID card of any kind.

The Government consultation emall address automagically responded to all submissions with "Thank you for your email in support of the introduction of entitlement cards". Its clear that they want to push this through wether it will reduce crime and fraud or not, and wether anyone wants these cards or not.

The Home Secretary himeslf had his identity stolen by a journalist to highlight the dangers of identity theft, which will without a doubt rise if these new cards are introduced.

For an insight into why these cards are true evil, read this piece in The Guardian about how the Spanish have been habituated into ID cards like battery chickens who refuse to leave thier cages when the doors are opened.

Really, if Europeans want to have ID cards, no one in the UK has a problem with that, and no one here is interested in arguing with Europeans who think that ID cards are "no problem at all". If you want ID cards, you are free(??!) to use them all you like. The British do not want them, under any circumstances short of actual war in Europe, and even then, only temporarily.

For us ID cards are a waste of time, money and most importantly, a violation of the human rights of British Citizens.

Re:This is a complete lie.

[dazed-n-confused]

That wasn't just "an independent survey". The Stand site was built specifically to submit valid feedback to the Home Office consultation exercise. Just like the developers' earlier work building FaxYourMP.

It would be *shameful* for the UK Government to ignore over 5000 presumably negative submissions -- from voters -- submitted via Stand. Especially when they know their figures don't add up, and they will be caught out. Expect a U-turn.

Re:CCTV anyone?

[Burb]

This CCTV thing is a typical Slashdot knee-jerk response to any "civil liberties" issue in the UK. It applies to shopping centres and places like that. There's no CCTV in my street, my neighbourhood, my house, my garage, my desk....

Good grief, if someone snatches my wallet I'd be quite glad if CCTV helped to catch the thief. Wasn't CCTV evidence used to catch the killers of Jamie Bulger?

Re:yeah right

[Blue Stone]

The bit about illegal immigrants is funny.
The state of the UK today, I quite believe that if the "researcher" had asked the participants, "Would you support ID cards if it meant illegal immigrants/asylum seekers [the two seem to be interchangable in a lot of people's minds] would be shot on sight?" about 75% of those asked would have said "yes!" and a further 50% of that sample would have added, "but don't kill them staright away, let them suffer a bit."

It's fucking scary is what it is.
We have a programme on Channel4, called "Without Prejudice" where a bunch of people decide whether one person from another bunch of people get £50,000, and one of the "tests" is asking about their beliefs, and usually the subject of illegal immigrants/asylum seekers comes up, and from the answers of about 95% of these people, you'd think we'd lost the war and the UK was a Nazi fucking state.
It's somewhat depressing.

/rant

If you don't like the idea of ID cards...

[mooZENDog]

... then fax your local MP (UK citizens only). stand.org.uk are campaigning against this, and you can use a web-based, quick fax submission which will help register an anti-ID card opinion.

There was recently a story in the Register (and BBC news) on how there was a large amount of negative feedback using a web-based fax gateway (FaxYourMP.com I think). The government are doing a separate study on this as well, which the stand.org.uk campagn is against. They have received assurances from the government that any web based complaints will be treated as seriously as regular letters of complaint (much easier too).

If you don't like it though, there is a quick and easy opportunity to register your displeasure at it: www.stand.org.uk.

Re:US and when ID is mandatory

[Happy go Lucky]

In the whole of the US, apart from while driving, requiring ID is considered the same as any other search and seizure. Therefore a warrant and/or "probable cause" is required to compel someone to present ID.

One: The standard is called "reasonable suspicion." RS is required to stop someone, or to detain for a "reasonable period for investigatory purposes. There's no bright-line rule about how long is "reasonable," but the courts are pretty flexible and are extremely unlikely to hold less than 30 minutes as unreasonable unless there's no basis for the stop in the first place. It's a pretty minimal standard: Walking down the street, handing something to the driver of a car, and walking away can easily qualify. RS also authorizes the officer to require ID, to use that force which is reasonable to effect the stop (including handcuffing when the subject gives indications of either fight or flight), and can justify a protective search for weapons, if the officer reasonably suspects the suspect may be carrying them. The relevant case law is Terry vs. Ohio, and the Court has pretty much sustained itself on that one. (The case you cite actually affirms Terry as to the "reasonable suspicion" standard. If you had actually read it, you'd have seen it.)

Two: ID can be required for administrative purposes (access to secure facilities like courthouses) and by any private entity for pretty much any private purpose.

Three: When I contact someone for a violation, where it goes depends a lot on whether or not he's identified to my satisfaction. If he doesn't have any form of ID, or gives me another reason to believe that he won't show up on his court date, then he's not going to be released from the scene on a citation. He MAY be released on no bond, but only after a ride and the booking procedures. The law does not obligate me as an officer to just take strangers at their word, and frequently requires that I not do so.