Posted by
michael
on from the you'll-get-one-anyway dept.
The Rev writes "Well after the previousarticles on this subject the BBC is carrying a story about how the UK Home Office has finally admited that the overwhelming public response to its public consultation was against the idea of a National ID Card System."
There was a discussion program on TV about it a few months back, if this program is representative of what I've seen, 2 out of 3 people supported it; until they find out what it involves and how much it costs, and what advantages it gives (or not): then 5 out of 7 people don't want it.
When does the givernment ever listen to the general public? And why should they. Inmates running the asylum? I've always heard that was a bad idea. If the givernment listened to public outcries, no one would pay taxes, and weed would be legal.
When does the givernment ever listen to the general public? And why should they. Inmates running the asylum? I've always heard that was a bad idea. If the givernment listened to public outcries, no one would pay taxes, and weed would be legal.
If you live in a "government of the people, by the people, for the people" as Abraham Lincoln said; then, yes, the govenment should listen to the opinions of it's citizens. After all, your congressional representatives exist to represent your opinions.
Maybe they're not really a democracy. Maybe the U.S. military should "liberate" them. I suspect their government has weapons of mass destruction. I can see it now, "Operation U.K. Freedom".
well...yes, it should. But it doesn't happen that way.
Orin Hatch is a case in point. If 60 million people download music, I'd be willing to bet that if the people voted for decriminalization of music sharing it would pass.
Do you think it will ever happen? NO. EVER.
There's not a representative or senator today who will take the other side and say the people should be allowed to download music if they want to. I'm not claiming the courts would accept this, but thats how "the people" would vote. But representatives can talk about destroying our computers with impugnity! This is not government for the people, by the people - this is government from the top down, by feudal decree. we don't matter in the least, and elections are just held to appease us.
I'd be willing to bet that if the people voted for decriminalization of music sharing it would pass. There's not a representative or senator today who will take the other side and say the people should be allowed to download music if they want to.
Which is precisely why we're a republic and not a democracy and why the US government has (well, is supposed to have) a very limited scope of power. Most people can't or won't keep up with all the legislation that passes through Congress, so can you imagine them not only keeping up but having a deep understanding of every bill that's introduced? For as often as slashdot posts about a new bill, hundreds more are introduced that you never hear about.
Now, as dumb as I think Hatch is being about this, he does have a duty under the Constitution to "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries". To that extent, he is talking about a way of securing the exclusive right, whereas the other side would completely eliminate that right. If you're one of the ones who insists that the RIAA shouldn't be able to demand the user information attached to an IP address without a warrant because of the fifth amendment, you have to take the rest of the Constitution with the parts you like.
The interpretation of Abe Lincoln was wrong - the federal government doesn't exist to serve the people, but to regulate interstate affairs (including coining of money) and international affairs. It's not there to hand out money to special interest groups or to hand out subsidies. In fact, the federal government's role was never meant to have much bearing on the life of an individual at all because it's too easy for a distant bureaucrat to use the might power of a centralized government against people without really having to answer for it.
Back to the topic. Yes, the RIAA's model is horribly outdated but that doesn't mean we have the right to terminate their copyright. If you want them to change, don't steal their music, thinking you're on some holy cause, you're just removing sympathy for your cause. Instead, don't support the RIAA in any form at all. Go to concerts, buy CDs from your local bands, etc. The best way to get the RIAA to change or disappear is for them to not have anyone but themselves to blame for their business model failing. Make them fail, don't give themselves someone to blame.
Now, as for an ID card. I don't mind a government mandating a certain look/details for the card. It's hard for someone from NY to know if they're looking at a valid WI license because they've probably never seen one. The feds can get away with that much based on the interstate commerce clause (if you're driving outside of your state, they can claim that, by crossing state lines, you fall under the federal purview). However, under the Fourth Amendment, the federal government doesn't have the right to warehouse personal information about you, barring action of due process.
-- Don't leave your mind so open that your brain falls out. Don't close it so much that you cut off the blood.
" The interpretation of Abe Lincoln was wrong - the federal government doesn't exist to serve the people, but to regulate interstate affairs (including coining of money) and international affairs. It's not there to hand out money to special interest groups or to hand out subsidies. In fact, the federal government's role was never meant to have much bearing on the life of an individual at all because it's too easy for a distant bureaucrat to use the might power of a centralized government against people without really having to answer for it."
As politically incorrect as this may sound (not that I'm usually worried about that) but it's almost time to start another revolution. The British left England when they felt things weren't right with the government. They came here to setup a new form of government, in which the states could be individual, where freedom from oppression existed, and the federal government would watch things from the inside toward the outside, and let the states handle things internally.
Contrast that with what our government currently looks like. State laws get passed because federal money won't be allocated if they don't. States could set their own drinking age, smoking age, etc. but because of the fear of losing federal funding, they just go along with the federal guidelines. Our federal government is more worried about what its citizens are doing on the inside, that it doesn't seem to care about what other countries are doing on the outside.
Then again, I could be way off base. But, I don't think I am.
I VERY firmly believe there will be another "civil war" within the next 50 years. There are a ton of people who see the government as a means to every end and a ton of people who simply want to be left alone. Both ideologies are mutually exclusive. At this point, we can't roll back to where the government belongs because a whole bunch of people will start whining about how the federal government owes them this and that... and very few people would want to "progress" to where the others would take us if they knew just what they were heading (welcome the the United States Socialist Republic, where the state owns you). Kind of like slavery, there's a big fight on the horizon that has to be fought sooner or later because you can't have both co-existing: freedom from the government or dependency upon it. Pick one.
-- Don't leave your mind so open that your brain falls out. Don't close it so much that you cut off the blood.
I think California (and maybe Oregon and Washington) should secede from the Union. Californians are unfairly subsidizing those welfare states. California's economy is the world's fifth largest. Including Washington in the new Left Coast (Left Bank?) would be helpful because of tax revenues from Microsoft.;-)
I VERY firmly believe there will be another "civil war" within the next 50 years. There are a ton of people who see the government as a means to every end and a ton of people who simply want to be left alone.
Actually, there are a relatively small number of extremists who believe stuff like this, and the vast, vast majority who basically just want to live the way they're used to living. The (huge) latter group isn't going to get involved in any revolutions. Some members of the former group may be stockpiling weapons, but they aren't numerous enough for a revolution.
during the revolutionary war, about a third of the people wanted to stay a colony, a third wanted to be independent and a third didn't want to get involved.
As long as the "progressive" people are making a push for changes (see prescription drug coverage, universal health care, special rights for certain people, etc), more and more people are going to begin seeing the changes around them are making it so they can't live the way they're used to. Every change has a cost of some type associated with it... the question is, which costs are going to motivate people to join in the revolution.
The democrats tried to make big changes in 1993-4 and that resulted in their loss of Congress by motivating people to stop them. Republicans would lose the Congress and Presidency in the next election if tomorrow they were to start wiping out the federal entitlements.
Government has to change sooner or later according to some people, because they don't see the federal government as a fixed body. The more it changes, the closer to revolution it gets
-- Don't leave your mind so open that your brain falls out. Don't close it so much that you cut off the blood.
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries".
Where is this "limited"? When did something last fall out of copyright?
Where is this "Promote the Progress"? Copyrights have been used as much to squash as anything else.
the times are limited by the Constitution, not the method... and copyright, at it's current duration, doesn't promote progress. The Supreme Court ruled wrongly on it, IMO... of course, it's not like the Supreme Court is always right (see social security and abortion).
-- Don't leave your mind so open that your brain falls out. Don't close it so much that you cut off the blood.
Great, they admitted it.
by
Unknown+Poltroon
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Theyre gonna do it anyways, wanna bet?
-- All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
Public surveys are a joke.
by
Leroy_Brown242
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
How many people who have an opinion, on average, have a clue what's going on?
I mean, so what if they don't want something? if the government feels it is in the best interests of the people, and it is reasonable, I say go for it. I carry 2 pieces of government issued ID in my wallet. (Drivers Lic and Concealed Handgun permit.) I would love to make that just one.
How many people who have an opinion, on average, have a clue what's going on?
Few.
I mean, so what if they don't want something? if the government feels it is in the best interests of the people, and it is reasonable, I say go for it. I carry 2 pieces of government issued ID in my wallet. (Drivers Lic and Concealed Handgun permit.) I would love to make that just one.
Oh well, that's a good reason to spend 1-2 billion GBP then. Clueless with a gun? Oh goood.;-)
--
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
Re:Public surveys are a joke.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Most opinions are lazy spoonfed opinions (from a media outlet of their choosing) and consequently clueless. Most people don't want to spend time on democracy - a people's dictator (a genuine one is very rare because those in power craved it for the wrong reasons) would be better than the current corporatly manipualated democracy.
The Gov in this case were in bed with the card manufacturers (political contributions). That makes it in the people's best interests aparently.
Re:Public surveys are a joke.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
>I mean, so what if they don't want something?
"What persons want" is pretty much the basis of all human rights- i.e., we assume that adults can determine for themselves what they want.
Without that assumption, you have autocratic rule- if the government decides it is in the best interests of the people that they take away LeroyBrown's concealed handgun and have him available for public beatings, why not go for it? If he doesn't want that, so what? He doesn't have a clue about anything anyway, right?
Re:Public surveys are a joke.
by
Leroy_Brown242
·
· Score: 1
Western governments are based on trust. You trust that the person you elect is going to take care of your needs. The more people that agree with you, the better chances that person has of being elected into power.
Fortunately there are safeguards against public beatings being legal. I do feer for my right to arm myself at times though. But the rule of "Cold Dead Fingers" comes into play.
Cut-and-paste comments
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
can we just cut-and-paste the comments section from the previous two slashdot stories on this issue here? i can't imagine today's comments are going to be significantly different from what we all said before on this matter.
Re:Cut-and-paste comments
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
No need to ask, the karma whores are on the case!
Cost of a Free Society
by
digime
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The question to the government should not be whether or not the public would favor an ID card, but whether or not they would like to keep their society free. Implementing a national ID system would be a huge victory for terrorists, not the people of the UK. Terrorism would still happen, it would just happen in a society where the people had some of their freedom removed.
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Re:Cost of a Free Society
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Apparently one of the reasons the uk appeals to illegal immigrants over much of europe is the lack of a required ID to live. I like that freedom too and am not prepared to give it up to make the uk less appealing to illegal immigrants (which I think is a motivation behind this).
RIAA admits public don't want DRM music. MPAA admits public don't want region coded DVDs. Microsoft admits public don't want BSOD. Britteny Spears admits public wants tits, not music. Morticians admit public don't want to die.
-
-- - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
What is purpose of national ID card?
by
angle_slam
·
· Score: 1
I've heard them proposing such an ID card for the US as well. Why? Most adults have some sort of ID anyway, such as a driver's license. What would requiring people to get another ID card actually accomplish? Or, from the politician's point of view, what is a national ID *intended* to accomplish (it will actually accomplish nothing).
How about a little chip in the forehead or back of the hand? You can't buy or sell without it! http://digitalangel.net built a little biochip a couple of years ago. They don't seem to be talking about it anymore - government contract? Who knows?
Slashdot Mirror
2 out of 3 people supporting it became....
5 out of 7 not wanting it...
I assert that my comment is only my opinion, not that of any employer, past, present or future.
When does the givernment ever listen to the general public? And why should they. Inmates running the asylum? I've always heard that was a bad idea. If the givernment listened to public outcries, no one would pay taxes, and weed would be legal.
Th
Theyre gonna do it anyways, wanna bet?
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
How many people who have an opinion, on average, have a clue what's going on?
I mean, so what if they don't want something? if the government feels it is in the best interests of the people, and it is reasonable, I say go for it. I carry 2 pieces of government issued ID in my wallet. (Drivers Lic and Concealed Handgun permit.) I would love to make that just one.
Pretty Pictures!
can we just cut-and-paste the comments section from the previous two slashdot stories on this issue here? i can't imagine today's comments are going to be significantly different from what we all said before on this matter.
The question to the government should not be whether or not the public would favor an ID card, but whether or not they would like to keep their society free. Implementing a national ID system would be a huge victory for terrorists, not the people of the UK. Terrorism would still happen, it would just happen in a society where the people had some of their freedom removed.
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Some one must have been hit with the clubat!
The UK Home Office Later Admitted That The Public Do Want More English Teachers Though.
My
Limekiller
The vast proportion of the population are against so...
WHAT THE FUCK! Lets introduce it anyway!
RIAA admits public don't want DRM music.
MPAA admits public don't want region coded DVDs.
Microsoft admits public don't want BSOD.
Britteny Spears admits public wants tits, not music.
Morticians admit public don't want to die.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
I've heard them proposing such an ID card for the US as well. Why? Most adults have some sort of ID anyway, such as a driver's license. What would requiring people to get another ID card actually accomplish? Or, from the politician's point of view, what is a national ID *intended* to accomplish (it will actually accomplish nothing).
I thought the U.K. spoke real english, not ebonics!
How about a little chip in the forehead or back of the hand? You can't buy or sell without it! http://digitalangel.net built a little biochip a couple of years ago. They don't seem to be talking about it anymore - government contract? Who knows?