Slashdot Mirror


UK Government May Ignore ID Card Opposition

DangerousBeauty writes "Yahoo has an interesting article up about the introduction of id cards in the United Kingdom. The main concern of people is that the UK Government has decided to ignore thousands of people who have said they opposed the cards because they commented via the internet."

10 of 52 comments (clear)

  1. In the immortal words.. by Dr+Caleb · · Score: 2, Offtopic
    of the Prime Minister of Canada:" Am I the only one here with half a brain?"

    Nice, ignore the comments you asked for! Ssssssmart!

    --
    "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
  2. Thousands of people? by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Who cares what "thousands of people" think. I can show you "thousands of people" who oppose just about any government plan.

    1. Re:Thousands of people? by Captain+Pedantic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      True. The UK Govt ignored millions of people who were against he colonisation of Iraq and went to the trouble of a public demonstration about it. Why the fuck should they care about a few thousand tossers who feel so strongly about something that the best they can do is whine about it on the Internet?

      --

      None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
    2. Re:Thousands of people? by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Exactly... My country, the United States, has ignored millions of people who were against giving women and blacks the right to vote.

    3. Re:Thousands of people? by Captain+Large+Face · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We've already seen that the UK government has forgotten those people that voted for it. Before the war started in Iraq, there were estimates of up to 2,000,000 people opposing sending British forces to the Middle East. If the Government can so easily ignore 2,000,000, then I'm hardly surprised to see it ignore mere thousands. Unfortunately, I doubt the British public will remember this behaviour when it comes to the next general election. :(

  3. They only want comments... by Col.+Klink+(retired) · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...from people they can track down and eliminate.

    --

    -- Don't Tase me, bro!

  4. The question is: by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 2, Informative

    This could lose a lot of votes though, particularly if they ignore the comments they had via the web. Is this the poll tax of the Labour Party? Could they lose an election because of it? Probably not on it's own- but it could trigger an ireversible slide- Tony Blair already rammed through the Gulf War II, and that wasn't particularly popular either; if he does this as well he is creating a pattern, and one that can lose him the election.

    --

    -WolfWithoutAClause

    "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    1. Re:The question is: by ApharmdB · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Let's hope that it is. If you are British and have any sense, you should vote anything but Labour in the next election.

      How funny is that? The British need to vote out the "liberal" party to prevent 1984 and those of us in the US need to vote out the "conservatives."
      It just goes to show that people in power don't have any goals other than increasing their power. Their political positions are just the means by which they think they can get the most votes.

  5. See the big picture by ralphclark · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Apologies for more or less duplicating this post from another I posted under the traffic camera story.

    Consider this move together with existing laws to deny people the right to protect their data with encryption, and the increasing number of urban and traffic surveillance cameras, an increasing number of which are to be upgraded to use AI able to recognize vehicle registration number plates (i.e. "license plates" in the US) so any vehicle's location can be pinpointed and tracked in real time. They have also revealed that they are developing technologies to track your location in real time via your mobile phone more easily.

    I even saw a piece in one of the more respectable UK papers that described another technology currently in development that allows them to use shortwave EM from mobile phone masts to "X-Ray" buildings - allowing them to monitor your activities inside your own home or office, with the resulting computer generated images being automatically transmitted to a remote receiving station at some arbitrary location. These can be forwarded over the internet or whatever in real time to whoever has authority to see them.

    So very soon it will be entirely possible for the authorities to know cheaply and routinely exactly where you are all the time and precisely what you are doing. Without even getting out of their seats, for God's sake!

    Judging by the number of urban surveillance and traffic cameras about, we're not really all that far away from that situation right now, as it happens.

    Just think for a moment, people: this may all seem reasonable to you now, but are any of you old enough to remember reading George Orwell's "1984" and shuddering with horror at the very idea of living in such a world? I can tell you that the police state we are now heading for would have been completely unthinkable as recently as 1975. After all, wasn't that precisely why the people of Britain fought the second world war and endured the tension of the cold war - to prevent enslavement by a totalitarian regime? Wasn't it? Well it seems to have all been a waste of time because that is exactly what we are headed for now.

    The public are being very naive if they think that these surveillance capabilities will only ever be used principally to catch those we people we currently think of as criminals. History has shown time and time again how governments don't often relinquish powers which suppress dissent and maintain their own hegemony, instead they use them to squash opposition while they continue to increase those powers. And "criminals" includes whatever people the law says. In such totalitarian regimes, "criminals" can mean protesters and dissidents of all kinds - like authors, journalists, even people who just said the wrong thing in public - ordinary people like you and me, law-abiding as we understand the term now.

    Once ubiquitious surveillance has been a commonplace for a few years and we are all used to it being used to track lawbreakers, it won't seem such a shock when the odd government department is occasionally caught using it for their own nefarious purposes. Just as governments at both ends of the political spectrum have already been caught time and time again using any and all available surveillance technologies to defeat their political opponents.

    If current public apathy is any guide, a few years down the road after that such incidents will be off the front page (if they make the news at all) and won't even cause raised eyebrows.

    By that point, if not well before, organized public opposition to any government policy will have become practically impossible as the authorities will always know in advance exactly what you are planning and will put a stop to it before it happens. In fact that's already similar to what happened at this year's (and last year's) UK May Day celebrations.

    As for the justification that it will make it easier to catch criminals - let me remind you of the incisive words of Benjamin Franklin (often quoted

    1. Re:See the big picture by DarkZero · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...but are any of you old enough to remember reading George Orwell's "1984" and shuddering with horror at the very idea of living in such a world?

      You're new here, aren't you?