Slashdot Mirror
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?"
I'm guessing this study was funded by the company who will produce these cards and anyone supporting their fascist ideas. screw that.
Honestly, you decide to change your eye color one day, and the next thing you know, all the billboards are calling you "Mr. Yakamoto".... :P
For a second there I thought it said RECTAL scans!
The big thing to remember here is that the survey was conducted by the card maker, not an independant source. The results may not be as reliable as most would like.
Work sucked, until it became unemployment, when it became slightly more tolerable. -Tet
It is reported that in the UK, mandatory anal probes have an overwhelming approval rating
Why don't we just hand over all our biometric data to a trusted third party like microsoft. They could manage the identities of the entire population of the world and free up needed resources for governments.
passport.NET could handle this without any major changes.
[/sarcasm]
Card makers say the mind control satellites are up to 80% effectiveness.
If you want to be able to identify everybody? Why don't 'they' just implant something like an ibutton in every newborn child :P
Oh, and some explosive device so it can't be removed....
This is from a country who already rigorously monitors its citizens with CCTV everywhere they go. Perhaps the UK could be considered a testbed for how people react when their basic rights are subtlely chipped away. It's all in the name of safety and convenience.
The Ben Franklin Adage still applies, doubly so:
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty or safety. Nor, are they likely to end up with either."
People need to wake up and realize that they are slowly removing their own rights.
and stop whining about "losing freedoms" or "privacy". Sure it can be abused. But we need a way to identify people, and if you think that driver's licenses and social security numbers aren't already doing this, you're just closing your eyes to it.
If anything, requiring fingerprints or retinal scans will make these ids more secure and trustworthy.
or do you like the way id theft is so common in the US that there's a form you can fill out when yours has been stolen? look here
I really can't see the danger ! If I possess a card with my name and my finger print/retinal scan on it where is the problem ? I have a reliable way to prove my name. I dont have to show the card to anyone I dont like nor let them scan my retinal. And nobody can steal the card and use it under my name.
Having a central repository of all citizens with their biometric data may be a problem, but thats another story.
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
And that makes it right, how?
We aren't giving consent to the government to access our curriculum vitae's - that's already been done a long time ago. At this point, we are just making it more convenient for them.
And that makes it right, how?
The old "it's already being done in this circumstance so why not this way too" logic reminds me of an old story I heard about how one goes about boiling a frog--that is, one degree at a time so he doesn't realize what's happening to him until it's too late.
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
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.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. --Albert Einstein
When I got my Colorado driver's license, I was required to place my finger on a digitizer just before my picture was taken. Colorado has my fingerprint associated with my name, address, social security number, weight, hair color, eye color, picture, etc...
:-P Hey, I know, why don't we have a race to see who can conceive the most creatively evil police state in the world!
I was told I had to do it or I couldn't drive in Colorado.
Looks like Colorado is WAY ahead of the UK on this...
Go USA go...! Rah rah for the home team...!
How would this be any worse then the systems we have today. This would not hinder anyones privacy anymore then social security cards, birth certs, drivers license, credit cards, bank cards etc. If anything it would protect peoples privacy and property more then the current systems do.
Green cards scam's, credit card fraud, theft on many levels would be wiped out.
I deleted my sig years ago.
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.
ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
If given the choice, would you prefer:
[_] That your ID card be enhanced with the latest technologies, which make identity theft and fraud with your name nearly impossible, a 50% income tax break for 10 years and the privilege of being knighted by the queen, or
[_] To keep your current ID card, allow our country to fall behind the times and encourage the worlds mot notorious criminals to move here to avoid getting caught by everyone elses superior identity technology, lose your job, and be shot, or deported, or both?
The other 12% chose option #2
Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes. --E. W. Dijkstra
- Niccolo Machiavelli, "The Prince"
Taken from the Alpha Centauri computer game.
About a year ago in England a law was passed permitting UK police to carry electronic fingerprint scanners. It is, of course, a criminal offence to refuse to be scanned if an officer chooses to exercise his right to do so. Couple that with their right to search you if they have a whim to do so (sorry, that'd be justifiable cause in legalese) and I think the introduction of ID cards and their ilk is, mostly, an irrelevance: they can already do whatever they wish.
I live in the UK and I do not even have a photo on my driving license. I can lend it to anyone and they can drive my car but then hey, at present we do not need any ID at all to drive a car so they can drive the car anyway and say they are me. I can produce my license later and all is OK.
The current situation is silly and needs change so they have brought out photo licenses (like you have in the US) but no one can make me get one.
This idea will not run but a compromise will be reached like making me get a photo license so that only I can use it. They may expect me to have it when I drive. In the UK the gubment always suggest something like this and by the time it gets through it is something else.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
79% of UK survey respondents work for biometric ID card companies.
Freedom Is Universal
Linux-Universe
The technique is simple: phrases the questions in such a way that you get the answers you want:
Hard to say no to that one.
In a predominantly "minority" area:
Again, hard to say no, especially if you're a member of that under-served "minority".
(I put "minority" in quotes only because it's not really a minority in a majority "minority" jurisdiction, is it?)
Sure, $thing sounds pretty bad, whatever it is.
And so forth. You can easily construct your own loaded questions. With a few bucks, you can get a pollster to construct even more devious ones, and call a bunch of people who are in too much of a hurry to really give the question the consideration it deserves. Shake, bake, and then claim only your product/plan/candidate can solve the "problem."
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
So biometrics are not perfect, it's still better than a lame arse bits of paper we use in the USA to "identify" ourselves (not that cashiers even bother checking them - think automated gas pumps too). I'm for eye ballers and thumb printing. As for the "Big Brother" argument, how many of us in the USA don't have a birth certificate and SS#? Not many...
Somebody has already mentioned the purvasive CCTV camera that make the UK the most visually monitored country in history. What about the partial criminalization of encryption under the RIP Act? You have to give the government your key if they demand it, otherwise 2 years in prison. The governement has sought, and obtained, powers to monitor e-mail, web usage and phone calls without judicial warrants. Herr Ashcroft is green with envy.
These audacious power grabs by the "liberal" Tony Blair are only a part of a hard turn towards authoritarianism in the UK. Right now they are trying to dump the right to trial by jury in many circumstances--basically when the government (them again!) determines it is dangerous or unwieldy to have a jury trial. The private right of gun ownership has been substantially destroyed in the past several years (with a concurrent rise in violent crime, including a rapid rise in gun use by criminals). People now go to jail in the UK for so-called "hate speech".
We have A LOT of problems in the US. A government that wants to be able to detain you forever, without trial, by one man's fiat (you are an enemy combatant!) obviously needs to be checked, and quickly. But in the UK, the populace seems to accept the government-fostered fantasy that the government is actually working for the "common good", as opposed to the pure aggrandizement of power whenever possible, which is what EVERY government ALWAYS tries if allowed to do so. What has broken their will, I don't know--years of inept socialist rule? Some post-colonial ennui? Too much spotted dick?
Whatever it is, I hope to hell we can keep it out of here. We have enough problems of our own right now.
Most of what you mentioned were non-Government methods. You can "Just Say NO!" -- albiet with some inconvenience.
With a government mandated ID of this type, you can't opt out.
Governments are also very hard to police on the proper use of data/powers. They tend to classify things under "National Security" when they frequently mean "Political Career Security".
They can also change the rules on a whim. Monday could be "this can only be used/accessed under an active law enforcement investigation". Whereas Tuesday could be "...or for proactive monitoring of persons deemed suspicious". [Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?]
Worse, the changes and the very rules themselves could be classified. Witness the bullshit the pull when asking for an ID to fly in the U.S. [You need a government issued ID, it is the law. Which law? We can't tell you, it is a secret. It isn't even written down -- the TSA communicated it to us verbally.]
Governments with too much power and information are more of a danger to individual liberties than anything they are trying to protect us from.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
I, frankly, have no problem with using a retinal scan to identify myself. Retinal scans are very hard (from what I've read) to fake, and would deter common criminal activity.
Yes, any system can be hacked. Yes, one could either modify that backend to accept an illegal scan or somehow get around the retinal scanner itself...but can that not be done now?
It's quite easy to, say, get a credit card number right now. It's not like all those signatures actually get checked - one has to dispute, and then go through litigation, etc. A simple retinal scan on purchase would go a long way.
I'm all in favor.
ls:
(A)bort, (R)etry, (I)gnore?
Shlumberger, the company that made this survey, will be one of the companies to profit when the Gulf War ][ hits off.
They have a huge business in Oil extraction services and technologies.
These people are evil folks; but then, a company that employs agressive lobbying and spin tactics in order to turn a population into fleecable sheep (each ID card will cost over $25 per person in the UK, now thats what I call "Wool") can only be bad.
MS says that US consumers want a copy of windows on all their computers and Ford believes that nobody wishes to buy GM cars anymore.
I mean, come on.
-- james
For instance, New Zealand, a so-called enlightened and Democratically-governed nation, has had a number of Citizen Referendums over the last decade, each one overwhelmingly going against the Government of the day's desires, and each time that Citizen Referendum has been totally ignored by that Government of the day. And the citizens didn't bat an eye.
Personally I don't have a problem with ID cards, whether they have biometric information on them or not. What I really would object to is being required to carry one and produce one on the request of a Police Officer.
Someone earlier said that you don't have to carry your drivers licence in the UK when you drive, well technically you do. It is an offence to not produce a licence if stopped by the police, the worst you can get though is a caution and a notice to show your licence, MOT and insurance at a police station in seven days.
Also in many european countries people are required to carry id cards at all times, these have photos on them and could have other data too.
Just my 2 cents worth.
What puzzles me is the fact that people think that we have "private" lives and that the Government doesn't know anything about us. They think that by having an ID card, suddenly we'll all be on some huge database and that this is "wrong".
Well wake up people, you're already on a huge Government database. Look at some of the information they've got on you:
Identity theft is becoming a problem in the UK, surely a national ID card scheme with biometric data contained within it will help protect your identity?
I have taken part in a few surveys in my life. With a question like this, there is always an "IF" phrase at the beginning, or the question is presented as a choice.
Given that this survey was given by a company which hopes to make biometric ID cards, the question was probably much like:
"IF it would prevent terrorism and identity theft and IF biometric ID cards would make everything in your life more convenient and safer, with no possibility of negative consequence, would you support them?"
Or:
"Would you rather have biometric ID cards or to have your wife and children raped and killed before your very eyes?"
All kings is mostly rapscallions. -Mark Twain, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
As much as I respect Ben Franklin, I have to completely disagree with this. Even if someone is stupid enough to want to give up liberty for safety they still deserve liberty. If you start determining who liberty is for based on what they "would give up" or whatever other box you want to check off (skin color, political views, etc) for who "deserves" it, then no one has liberty. Everyone has to have full liberty, or 100% of it is an illusion.
And this new just in...
Company that stands to make millions from a technology is sells, promotes concept with skewed statistics indicating overwelmingly that the public wants the product and they want it now in spades.
Somewhat surpisingly, the public also declared that the product should cost four times what it can be offered for now.
Etc, etc, etc...
PS. Now we get to wait for it to be made law, and then watch the MPs/ministers involved become well paid non-executive directors of the self-same company. Cynic moi?
For those (Brits) wishing to state their opinion on the subject click here
If nature abhors a vacuum, why isn't there more dust in the world?
Somebody has already mentioned the purvasive CCTV camera that make the UK the most visually monitored country in history.
And it's been proven to reduce crime, and help crime detection, high profile cases like the murder of Jamie Bulger show how CCTV can be extremely helpful, and outweighs any paranoia concerns about being watched while in public. When CCTV is fitted into every home, then we'll complain, not before.
What about the partial criminalization of encryption under the RIP Act? You have to give the government your key if they demand it, otherwise 2 years in prison. The governement has sought, and obtained, powers to monitor e-mail, web usage and phone calls without judicial warrants.
How is being asked to hand over your key, any different to being asked to open your safe on production of a warrant ? Do search warrants mean locks and safes "are partially criminal "?
As for monitoring email, web usuage and so on, the Americans have that field completely sewn up.
The private right of gun ownership has been substantially destroyed in the past several years (with a concurrent rise in violent crime, including a rapid rise in gun use by criminals).
Don't even go there. We WANT tight gun laws, we don't want a gun in every bed side drawer culture. For more information see these comments.
People now go to jail in the UK for so- called "hate speech".
And you can't yell fire in a theatre despite having "free speech". Personally I'm in favour of not being able to say "blacks go home" "Jews faked the holocaust and are all money obssessed thieves" "Muslims are a lower form of life". The law came into force, because racial minorities were being harrassed with verbal abuse morning noon and night by British racists. Your right to free speech ends when it is designed to harm me, just as yelling fire in a theatre is illegal.
What has broken their will, I don't know--years of inept socialist rule? Some post-colonial ennui? Too much spotted dick?
Nice troll, we spent the best part of 2 decades under hard right rule with Thatcher, so spare me the brits are commies crap. As for breaking our will, we broke the governments will over expanding data access laws last year , and over 5000 people wrote and complained about ID cards this year.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. --Albert Einstein
That ignorant trolls like you get modded up as "insightful" or "interesting" is sad.
Here, for those who are interested in the truth, are the facts:
1. The overwhelming majority of CCTV in the UK are privately owned and maintained.
Stores, shopping precincts, bars, airports, train stations, etc are, just like in the US, privately-owned premises. And, just like in the US, they have CCTV cameras installed for security and safety purposes.
Where's the problem here? Shouldn't a store owner be entitled to put a camera up in his shop to deter would-be shop-lifters? Shouldn't an airport or a train station have cameras installed to monitor passenger traffic flow and thereby ensure passenger safety?
Would you be happier if the store owner felt less secure whilst earning his livelyhood or if the occassional passenger fell onto the tracks because a station platform was dangerously overcrowded?
2. The majority of government-owned cameras are watching the roads.
Again, these are mainly concerned with the safety of road users. Monitoring traffic jams and detecting motorists speeding through red lights isn't exactly a Big Brother scenario - so why make it out to be?
3. A minority of government-owned cameras are installed in and around high security installations and other potential terrorist targets.
Number one on this list is the US Embassy in Grosvenor Square. The area around that building is CCTV city, and has been for some time. Gee, I wonder why? Is it because the British goverment is obsessed with what the US Ambassador is having for lunch, or is it because it's a terrorist target?
Gee, let me think...
(Not too long ago, you could drive around all four sides of Grosvenor Square. But, some time in the last decade or so, some bright spark decided it was far too tempting to a potential car bomber and the side that houses the US Embassy was blocked off and protected with anti-tank measures. Not even Buckingham Palace or Downing Street are that secure. Next time you're in town, check it out - it makes Fort Knox look like an open air picnic camp.)
It's worth bearing in mind that Britain's been a terrorist target for over 30 years now. The IRA has been blowing up bombs, killing men, women and children all over Britain whilst freely raising funds in the US since before I was born. We can't (and won't) live in a society where there's someone watching you on every street corner so the security forces use CCTV cameras where they have to to ensure public safety.
(For the benefit of the "cameras can't stop terrorists" brigade, I'll point out now that IRA members rarely try to martyr themselves on suicide missions. They prefer to go in, place their car bomb, etc, and get out. Naturally, being spotted and caught is something they try to avoid, and evidence has shown that CCTVs do help curtail such activities. Suicide bombers are a different breed.)
4. Most CCTV footage is very poor, even when enhanced.
Most cameras are very low quality, black and white monitors. Getting a positive identification from one, even after the picture has been forensically enhanced is very difficult.
How such cameras (even if every single one of them was interlinked, actively manned, etc) could track my movement day in, day out is ridiculous to contemplate. There isn't a camera within half a mile of my house, and I live in a densely populated suburb of London, so where would they start?
So before you yanks (and sorry, but it is mainly yanks) go spouting off about how CCTV obsessed Britain is and how 1984-like our society is, why don't you examine the data? The real picture is a far cry from the sensationalist BS being spouted here.
So, "people need to wake up and realize that they are slowly removing their own rights", huh? US Patriot Act anyone?
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
... 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.
---
"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" - Gandhi
80% public support
I have met only one person who thinks identity cards are a good idea. But as he was a right-wing bigot who was attempting to tell me why asylum seekers were "the scum of the earth", I choose to discount his opinion.
I would only support an identity card if I was not required to carry it at all times, if I did not have to pay for it, and if the system was not administered by the current bunch of arseholes playing at government.
Indeed, I'm of the opinion that the government collect far too much information on it's citizens. Every new tax credit involves a 30 page form that asks all sorts of strange questions. I'm sure they only do it because they can, not because it's necissary. The identity card idea is just more of the same.
Do you mind, your karma has just run over my dogma.
Several years ago, in Germany we had a discussion about creating a central database to hold biological data especially of the male population. It was meant to prevent rape because the perpetrator would be pretty easily identified.
The problem that a lot of people miss is that such central databases make it _very_ easy to trace your entire life and doings.
Imagine: you go to a pub or bar and drink a beer. You leave genetical evidence on the glass. You touch some wall and leave genetical evidence, you lose a hair in the subway, etc... it would be possible to trace nearly all you do.
I am no criminal. I do not want to be easily traceable.
-- I love the smell of Blue Screens in the morning.
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.
Rights can be forfeited. That's one thing you're free to do with liberty- you can squander it, and give it away. Once you've done that, it's gone, and it's difficult to say why you still deserve it. Which is sort of the point- its an unwise trade.
The Franklin quote is cited in every privacy story. There sure seem to be more and more boneheads every day who need to hear it. It seems that most people really don't mind a tyrannical snooping government as long as they're taken care of.
I gave up my essential liberties to obtain a little temporary security, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt.
One of the other attractions to government is that such a system provides a national identity database such as which doesn't currently exist. I work for a company that is shortly to go live with a project for the UK Passport Office which will provide electoral registration information to support passport applications. In time this information will be extended to other government bodies which would not be able to share it between each other, so it's going to happen anyway.
As for biometric testing, the UK Goverment's approved suppliers are almost all terrible at what they do: congestion charging is about to be introduced in Central London and relies on a system that can read car number plates. Capita, the contractor who were hired to develop the system, managed to get it to read one in early December. It goes live in a fortnight, and it's currently 4/1 that it will be abandoned before the end of the year. Other companies such as EDS, Siemens and Schlumberger Sema will be in the running to manage the system. A search of The Register or Computing magazine's news pages will show that these are not companies to whom you would entrust your identity, biometrics or no.
The article states that 1000 people were interviewed by telephone.
I would be interested to see how these people were chosen. Chances are they were pulled from a database of people who didn't check a box on a form at some time saying they didn't want to be contacted by telephone for marketing/research.
These people already have little interest in their privacy.
Current ID cards have almost no protection against identity theft. You see, even in the US we have national ID cards, they just don't work very well. New identity cards are an attempt to improve the situation.
If you think they aren't going to succeed, then you have to say why. But your blanket statement is simply logically flawed.
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".
The people of the UK are Europeans--it's a simple geographic and political fact.
... are close relatives.
According to the UK's goverment figures, mate, the biggest benefits fraudsters are, unsurprisingly, native white people.
Are they worst for that? No, of course not. They are simply more.
Far to many people in the UK are so ready to follow their prejudices in spite of information widely available regarding this kind of issues.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I'm sure the ad goes something like this....
Tired of people from other countries blowing themselves up at your bus stop? Worried that someone will fly a plane into your office building? Or how about those pesky terrorists that just love to sabotage the federal postal system?
Well, now with BIO-NID (Biometric National Identification) your worries are a thing of the past! One look at BIO-NID will have would-be hackers (terrorists) and terrorists (terrorists) shaking in their imported boots! Be the first one on your block to have BIO-NID, and be the life of the party! Just LOOK at this really hot chick. She thinks you should get BIO-NID.
Hot chick: Yes I do!
"BIO-NID, Security for the future"
Well.. over this side of the pond privacy *is* a right. You might well be recorded most every minute of your public life but the minute you're back behind closed doors it is very hard for most European govts to secure reights to invade that space. Ditto bank accounts, phone logs etc etc. In the UK it's even illegal for most govt departments to share information on an individual amongst each other.
Thank you for making that decision on my behalf. You are - at least in my case - completely wrong. It seems to me that it's only a highly vocal minority who have anything against ID cards, most of whom I wouldn't be surprised to find wearing tin-foil hats. If I had the option of carrying a single, conclusive identification document, I'd jump at the chance.
It took me two weeks last year to open a joint bank account with my wife, due to the bank quibbling over what was suitable identification and what wasn't. Birth certificates, marriage certificates, credit card statements, bank statements, utility bills, NHS cards and signature samples were among the items that were requested and submitted to prove who we were and where we lived. This was despite the fact I'd already had an account with them for 10 years. The really laughable bit was when the bank insisted on seeing a utility bill in both our names, so I phoned British Gas, asked them to add my wife's name and send a new bill. British Gas did so without question - they didn't want any kind of proof of who the additional name on the bill was, but somehow this makes it ok for the bank. I know other people who have had the same kind of trouble.
Please let me have my ID card. If you don't wish to carry one, and would prefer to carry all the other statements, bills and certificates in order to demonstrate who you are, then that's your look out.
The British TV sitcom Yes, Minister offered a brilliant precis of push-polling technique:
...it's all about money. If less 3rd worlders are allowed into the West (i.e., England, America, etc), then the working class citizens will have MORE money in their wallets, and the people who own businesses and the stockholders of large corporations will have LESS money in their wallets.
And if more foreigners are allowed into the country, then the working class citizens will have LESS money in their wallets, and the people who own businesses and the stockholders of large corporations will have MORE money in their wallets.
And that is why Schlumberger went to England with this proposal, instead of going to the USA with it. In England, there are fewer people, and they are less easily manipulated by globalist propaganda, which is not the case with the USA.
Sig:
Navy nuke sub lifestyle?
"Deserve" means to be worthy of, to earn something. You can be guaranteed something (by the Constitution or your Creator), but it doesn't necessarily mean you deserve it. Franklin says nothing about taking away anyone's liberty. It has nothing to do with race or political views. The quote simply refers to the choice of what do you value more? Essential liberty or temporary security?
If you trade away your liberty, you deserve what you get--no privacy, the Ashcroft gestapo, Big Brother, etc. And none of those will give you any real security. (See second sentence of quote.) You don't deserve liberty anymore, because you gave it away. You did nothing to earn it or be worthy of it. You sold yourself to Big Brother and are now subject to whatever Big Brother determines your rights to be (Big Brother doesn't believe in inalienable right? Oh, boo hoo. Shoulda thought of that before you sold out. But at least you're secure, right?). You now have to hope that someone else, who didn't sell out their liberty, comes along and gives liberty back to you through a revolution, or you can stand up and earn it back yourself. Or, you can just not give it away in the first place!
OT Side Note: "Deserve" is a word that has recently taken a beating. I'm always hearing advertising saying things like "get the car you deserve" (usually offering high interest loans on $30,000 SUVs to people with poor/no credit). Bullshit! You deserve praise for saving a life, you may deserve a bonus or raise for doing something for your company, but you do not deserve a car you can't afford. People are confusing "deserve" with "entitled to because I think everyone (Society, The Man, the lender at the bank, etc.) is against me".
"Bob, it looks like you just got back from Italiano's diner! You need some pepto bismo? Oh, and why stop at that cheesy fetish shop when you can go to Porn central!"
It's minority report... With cookies... IS THERE NO JUSTICE!
It's sad that an ignorant foot like you who probably doesn't even own a passport let alone have any first-hand experience of Britain should post crap like this as if you're some kind of authority on the subject.
Let me debunk some of your disinformation for the benefit of those who are more interested in the truth rather than sensationalism:
Anyone who cares to visit UK towns late at night will see the usual muggers and vandals, all wearing the same identical grey sweatshirts and anoraks with identical deep grey hoods.
I live and work in London and I regularly go out late at night in and around the capital. I've done so for over 15 years. Total number of times I've been attacked in the street: 0.
Contrary to your anecdotal opinion, the streets aren't lined up with muggers and vandals looking to relieve me of my wallet or smash up shop windows.
Similarly, not every street corner in the average American city is populated by crack dealers looking to sell you a fix, crack whores looking to blow you to earn one, or crack heads looking to pop a cap in your ass.
The CCTV cameras may catch drunks who are too stoned to care - another delightful facet of UK life - but will then have no deterrent effect whatsoever.
Drunks don't get stoned. Drunks get drunk. Stoners get stoned. Duh.
That aside, alcoholism isn't half the issue here that it is in the US, so please don't suggest that drunken rampaging youths are as prominent as you seem to think muggers and vandals are.
Yes, people sometimes leave a pub, club or a bar drunk but let's not pretend that doesn't happen in the US. In fact, when I was at university, the people who got the most drunk and the most wrecked on a regular basis were overseas students from, surprise, surprise, the US. Yet, amazingly, I don't have a mental picture of all Americans having a drinking problem (apart, of course, from the George W. Bush and family).
The simple problem is that for the last 30+ years the UK has put large amounts of money into policing Northern Ireland and playing at being a world power (despite being poorer than Germany, France or Italy which don't play those games any more) and is now too cheap to have a proper police force.
First of all, when was Italy ever a world power? Or when did France and Germany ever have empires that were on par with the British empire? Ever heard of Canada, Australia, India, etc, all former British colonies?
I think you need to buy a new history text book and a new atlas because the ones that you've got now are useless.
Secondly, since when was the UK economy inferior to Italy's? It's probably ahead or on par with that of France and, perhaps, a notch or two behind Germany's. But, given that both France and Germany have bigger populations (much bigger in Germany's case), that's hardly surprising is it? I don't have exact figures to hand but I know that the GDP per capita of all three countries isn't more than a few percentage points apart. So, I ask you, how are we poorer than Germany, France and Italy?
While you're browsing Amazon for those school books why don't you pick up an economy text as well?
All this biometric scan and CCTV stuff is about trying to do things on no money, while wasting nearly $10 billion a year putting wall to wall police and soldiers into NI and supporting its backward economy.
Sorry, but you seem to be stuck in the 1980s. Perhaps I could interest you in living in the 21st century?
There haven't been troops actively patrolling Northern Ireland for many years now. The peace process there is advanced - although not as advanced as I or many others would like - and the levels of sectarian violence are almost non-existant. The cost of policing in Northern Ireland isn't a multi-billion dollar operation, not by a long shot.
Backward economy? Sure, the troubles in Northern Ireland hurt the local economy but people aren't exactly living in caves there. There are jobs there just like there are jobs everywhere, and, now that peace has finally broken out, a lot more employers are looking to open up sites in Northern Ireland.
The UK is now about to build 2 aircraft carriers to, and I quote the BBC, "Project UK power around the world".
The Royal Navy's commissioned two new carriers to replace two aging ones that are being decommissioned. The Navy's aircraft carriers HMS Invincible and HMS Hermes were the vital cogs in liberating the Falkland Islands after the 1982 Argentinian invasion. Without them, there would have been no way that the islanders could have been freed, proof enough that their not just for show.
The Fleet Air Arm also played a critical role in the Gulf War, and is on standby to perform its duty there once again should Britain go to war with Iraq once more.
So what's your point here? That Britain, an island state with dependencies in every ocean, shouldn't have a navy capable of protecting its interests?
Its Prime Minister wants to go and sort out foreign countries while at home the infrastructure is falling apart and, in a country where handguns are banned, gun crime is rising faster than any other.
Yeah, well I agree with you there. Our Prime Minister spends too much time worrying about standing "shoulder to shoulder" with George W. Bush than he should. I don't want a war with Iraq and neither do 90 percent of the British public. 75 percent don't trust George W. Bush either. 90 percent are convinced that he'll go to war with Iraq no matter what the UN inspectors report. It's sad that our PM is dragging us into a war that we don't want just so he can be Dubya's best friend.
Your gun crime argument is more crap though. Bare in mind that the total number of gun crimes in the whole UK for the whole of 2002 was around 3,900. And also consider that the definition of a gun crime includes waving around a replica (ie, imitation) firearm just as much as it does a crime that involves an actual gun. The number of actual gun crimes that involved a gun actually being fired was probably one fifth or one tenth of that figure.
Still, 3,900-odd gun crimes in a country with a population of 65 million. Compared to how many in a country with a population of 300 million (the USA)?
I've got more chance of being hit by lightning or winning the national lottery (14 million to 1 odds) than being shot by someone in the street. Can you say the same?
Yep, gun crime sure is "out of control" over here.
It's a pity that George keeps pandering to his little pal Tony instead of telling him to go home, sort out his own crappy country and shut the fsck up.
Oh I wish it were so. What you don't seem to realise is that just about every country on the planet, even America's oldest and closest allies, is opposed to George W. Bush's foreign policy blunders - Kyoto, missile treaties, landmines, the International Criminal Court, steel tariffs (free trade, pah!), the ongoing Middle East crisis, and, above all, war with Iraq.
If it wasn't for Tony Blair's poodle impression then George W. Bush would be all alone in wanting to go to war with Iraq. Bush needs Blair's support - not the other way around. What's amazing is that he's willing to give it, despite the overwhelming opposition of the British electorate. If the situation were reversed, and Americans voters were opposed to helping Britain fight a war, there's no way that Bush would lift a finger.
So, as you can see, your world view and, even your local view of Britain, is pretty off the ball. How you can open your mouth to offer such off-base opinions is amazing. In future, please try to restrict your comments to subjects on which you actually know something about. That way you'll save me the trouble of another lenghty posting rebutting such mindless and misinformed drivel.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Reg: All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
Xerxes: Brought Peace?
Reg: Oh, peace? Shut up!
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton