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
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.
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
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
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
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.
Retina scans ? Oh lovely, I really want to shove my face into a scanner that 1000 people have used since it was last washed. God help me if I get an eye disease because that alter my retinal image meaning I can't use my credit card.
Any encryption used will be cracked given enough time, meaning false biometric information can be stored on the chip, give it 2 years and card rewriters will be available for every ganster in the human, gun and drug traffic trade.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. --Albert Einstein
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?
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.
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
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
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.
Yes they have the data.
Because it is all held in seperate databases across many government agencies (DVLA, Inland Revenue etc...) It's hard for them to collect it all in one place.
Currently (and trust me, I know this first hand) it takes up a fair amount of Civil Servant time to collect and collate all this data into a "file" on a person. This is usually done at the request of the NCIS (National Criminal Intelligence Service) and they don't tend to waste resources on annoying gits like me who fax thier MP saying $idea sucks. I'm not a big enough threat.
Now, put all this data in one handy place and any bugger can, at the click of a button, create a case file on me. Hell, even if they just wanted to see who this Chris Adams guy is, they'd get access to *all* my details including details of my "dependants" (You know, my Tax code says I'm married with one dependant, hyperlink here for details from Census etc...).
The main reason for the ID card idea has always been to reduce the time taken for Civil Servants to dig up cross agency data with the added bonuses of *potentially* reducing DSS fraud, random political bogeyman-du-jour dodgyness etc...
The initial reasoning behind this ID card plan was to make it *easier* for the government to check up on it's citizens.
Chris.
The British TV sitcom Yes, Minister offered a brilliant precis of push-polling technique: