Slashdot Mirror
Biometric ID Cards Ready For Trial In UK
0ctal writes "Looks like us lucky Brits are getting ID cards no matter what... A 10,000 user trial starts next week. There's been a fair amount of debate on this recently, and it's been coming for some time, but live trials are sooner than expected. The trial is set up to evaluate three competing biometric products. Qinetiq, quoted by the story, are a government backed company set up to use MoD tech in civilian apps."
Looks like us lucky Brits are getting tin foil hats real soon now (TM)... A 10 user trial starts next week. There's been a fair amount of commentary on tin foil hats recently, and it's been coming for some time, but live trials are sooner than expected. The trial is set up to evaluate five competing brands of aluminium foil. Reynolds and Diamond, not quoted by the story, are a both leading company set up to use aluminium foil tech in civilian headgear apps."
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
This sounds just as stupid as a "10,000 driver trial" of right-side driving in Japan.
I hope I'm wrong, but a 10,000 user trial doesn't actually sound that impressive when you say that there are three products being tested.
I doubt that they are going to give each user 3 cards to test, it's not realistic. So that means that it's really more like 3 ~3330 user tests...
--
The last digit of pi is four.
Here - not sure if its linked off the main article or not, but discusses a lot of the reasons why its a good and bad idea.
Glad to see that privacy concerns, and not having to prove that you are a citizen are on that list.
To be honest, i'd be for ID cards in a way - we do have a bit of a problem with illegal immigrants in this country lately, who are totally abusing the system - the current trend is buying cheap cars, and then they just drive around the city in them with no tax insurance or anything.
Having ID cards would mean these guys could be instantly checked out, as many don't speak English and the police forces don't have the resources to be able to question them in any of the many different languages they use.
"Hey! Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off my property!!"
...crap out of me.
Ok, so add biometric identification to the ID we already have; passports, driving licence, etc. but why on earth are we having this centralisation? Surely everything we've learnt about security technologies says a layered approach is needed?
What happens when someone beats the system? Everyone will trust it completely because nutters like Blunkett say biometric id is unbeatable. What about the human element of the system? If someone exploits this database they can write themselves a few new lives, delete other peoples lives, etc.
It scares me. Ah well, I'll just move abroad with my girlfriend and take our 30 000 of student loan with us.
How much longer until they implant GPS devices into everybody, so that the data can be used for proving they're telling the truth about their whereabouts. (Why they couldn't work, why they couldn't have committed a crime, that they didn't stop anywhere on the way home, etc.)
Visit the site, write a letter then Fax your MP.
Flame me, but I don't see the problem. Big Brother's now intruding on my privacy snooping around in my personal data like my height and my iris scan? Are you realistically worried that our (free world) goverments are gonna show their true face and prune out all those with less than blue eyes? I for one welcome better security on my credit card (and other) transactions.
Why don't you post your name, address, and everything you've done in your life in this thread? If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.
Does anyone know if this has passed through Parliament? Everything I've heard on this subject makes it sound as if Blunkett has just decided unilaterally.
That'll be the "Sunday 25 April" he mentioned.
Qinetiq Would that be the same incompetent lot that "lost" a barge full of landmines in the English channel? Not sure I would turst them with this kind of project.
As for people being in favour of this scheme. There was a big online have your say for this last year. Several thousand people objected, they some how lost all of these negative votes and decided to count them as 1. That way they still had a majority in favour vote from the Chancellors freinds (me cynical?)
1. How many organisations already have all this information on you already, these cards aren't gonna be any worse.
2. If you've got nothing to hide, then why worry about it, and if you've got something to hide, then it's something you're just gonna have to deal with.
On the whole, the general public in the UK have nothing to fear from id cards, unless they fear a reduction in the ability of illegal immigrants and criminals to hide in the country.
After spending 3 billion pounds all that will be caught is another 3 illegal immigrants pirating software.
Does this mean that if a cop stops you on the street you must either be able to produce a valid ID card or take a trip to the police station so that your identity can be confirmed?
Where I live a government issue ID (or at least a valid social security number) is practically required if you wish to drive a car legally, open a bank account, get insured, get a job, benefit from the public healthcare and so on. Yet, we do not have a legal obligation to carry an ID and show it to any cop on the street. Sounds rather draconian to me.
"What has anybody to worry about having their true identity known?" he said.
Ah. Yet another version of "If you have done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to fear".
The owls are not what they seem
It's true what they say, we don't live in a democracy, we live in a dictatorship where we get to choose the dictator every five years.
The EU constitution, presumably soon the Euro, identity cards... The government seems intent on its "progressive" schemes no matter what the public opposition.
#define struct union
If the brits think that a nationalist in the occupied North of Ireland is going to carry around a bio-metric ID card, issued by the British State and adourned with a Butchers' Apron (Union Jack), then they're dreaming.
80% in favour clicky which to me is rather worrying. Interestingly these are being phased in by the Government due to concerns about terrorism, whereas the typically xenophobic British public is far more interested in them as a method for keeping immigration "under control". These are supposedely going to be compulsory by 2010 and the Government wishes to change the law so that carrying falsified papers leads to a HEFTY (10 year IIRC) maximum sentence. Blunkett scares the crap out of me, every week there is a new story about how he wishes to erode our civil liberties. I don't wear my tin-foil hat that often, but I have always said that as soon as ID cards become cumpulsory, I would take my citizenship, and my skills elsewhere.
Are there similar pushes for this in the USA? - who lets face it (along with Spain) were on the sharp end of the current terrorist activity.. not the UK..
I don't read your sig, why do you read mine?
A fair amount of debate yes: and all of it indicates a) it will be very expensive and b) we don't want it.
But Herr Blair and his propaganda minister Josef Blunkett (aka the blind facist) have decided that that is what we must have, and have it we will.
I think we Brits are getting to the point where we're as desperate to get rid of our right wing Prime Minister as you are to get rid of your right wing President.
The ironic thing is that Blair is the leader of the Labour party: which was historically established to protect the rights of the working class (ie Socialist, left wing). Blair however seems to see his mission to kiss the arse of Corporate Britain and fuck the workers because if they disagree they're probably don't understand what he's saying.
The scarey thing is a comment by Roy Hattersley (a leading old-school labour politician) that Tony Blair has a second rate mind: ie he's as thick as pig-shit. yet another thing he has in common with Bush it seems.
Both Bush and Blair strike me as shining examples of why Universal Suffrage doesn't work. Personally I think you should have to pass an exam before you can vote. Only simple stuff like: "Who are the leaders of the 3 main parties?", "Who is the Constituional head of state?". Let's face it, if you can't answer questions like that a) you're not well enough informed to vote and b) you don't fucking deserve to be able to vote.
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
One of these days, a non-biometric card will be introduced, and it will be cool and retro, and therefore newsworthy.
Many people in the UK feel like this.
Frustration at the autocratic actions of the government is widespread. The lack of an effective opposition makes it even more frustrating.
(Sorry, I know it's lame to follow up my own post)
Shrykk.
I won't be happy until we've all lost our humanity and we're eating Soylent Green.
By 2012, it is estimated that 80% of workers will have the card or a combined driving licence or passport.
The Big Brothers obviously are not supposed to have them ?
CC.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
This is another article on the BBC that discusses the last time Britain had a national ID card scheme, back during World War II. According to the article, it was not concerns about security shortcomings or civil liberties that ended the ID cards so much as that "the system was expensive and difficult to administer, and offered few benefits."
>ID Plans: 2008: 80% of economically active population will carry some form of biometric identity document. Estimated cost of 3.1bn pounds.
Administering a system where over 50,000,000 people each have to hold an identification card to carry on their daily business is going to have many direct and indirect costs and benefits. The people of the nation, and the government meant to represent those people, should think long and hard about those costs and benefits before implementing the system.
I for one welcome our New Labour overlords...
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
The problem is this. First we have the cards issued, and everything is nice and fluffy. No you don't have to carry it with you etc. etc.
How long before it's compulsory to carry the card?
How long before everyone's DNA is required and index linked to the card ID?
How long before it's illegal to not carry the card at all times?
Who can demand to see it? ("Papers please.") and when can it be asked for? ("Why are you out at this time of night? Papers please.")
How long before they are index linked to the IMEI of your mobile phone and periodic logs of your location taken and an easy to access system provided to civil servants?
How long before banks are required to log all your financial transactions provided in an easy to access system provided to civil servants?
How long before all your telephone, SMS, email and web access logs are indexed to your card and provided in an easy to access system to civil servants? (Note to Americans - all of the above is already logged by law under the RIPA Act and the government will be making available to bodies such as the Food Standards Agency and the local council).
How long before someone starts a side development to chip children (to protect them from all those pesky paedophiles) and integrate this with location technology to allow parents to see where they are at any time?
How long before it becomes law to have children chipped at birth? (don't forget the paedophiles!)
How long before it's illegal to remove the chips?
How long before someone gets the "bright idea" that they can be used instead of those pesky ID cards?
How long before we are treated like nothing more than cattle?
Either read Orwell's novel 1984 or bone up on database admin - both should leave you feeling concerned.
"Fucked". That's what we are.
The people who most want these measures in place know that, and know that they will always win, simply because they also know that the very few who will actually bother to try and prevent such measures will do so via the legal channels, and those channels are already owned by the people who want these measures implemented.
They own the courts. They own the judges. Rich conservatives who will always favor such measures as it protects and advances their own personal agendas.
Until The Powers That Be(tm) begin to believe that they might be dragged from their cosy mansions and strung-up from telephone poles by vast and outraged mobs, they will continue to successfully foist these things upon us, the willing and apathetic sheep.
The new ID cards will hold biometric details - facial dimensions, an iris scan or fingerprints
I guess if you're an blind Islamic female double-amputee then they'll have a few problems here.
If your blindness is due to cataracts, you've lost both hands, and your religion requires you to wear a yashmak at all times then will they give you a blank card or what?
So demand laws that will draw a clear line at what is acceptable. Don't just bitch at everything that you percieve to be bad, ask for what you want.
Idiots, the lot of you.
...is that they don't solve the problems they claim to solve.
Their only real use is to track ordinary, average people.
So demand laws that will draw a clear line at what is acceptable. Don't just bitch at everything that you percieve to be bad, ask for what you want.
lol - you really don't understand UK law. We don't have a constitution you see - basically what happens is this:
Someone does something the Government doesn't like, or finds a loophole in a law.
The Governement changes the law to make it illegal.
People don't want ID cards - the Government is citing some bullshit survey that allegedly happened and that 80% of people said they would be happy to carry cards. - Bollocks. Last year after the Government mentioend it found 1000 people wanted cards, the stand.org.uk website generated 5000 registrations from people opposed to the scheme. The Government discounted their votes as they were from the Internet (however you can bet your life had they been pro-card they would have been counted).
It's all bullshit and facade. There is no democracy here.
Yes, and then the mind control rays will be polarized in some clever way so that they penetrate even tin foil.
The point being that the scenario that you draw hasn't happened yet and is not the issue. The issue is whether we can accept an iris scan in our ID and I don't see why not. I assure you that I will also protest when they start implanting chips in babies.
What has shocked me about the ID card scheme isn't that new labour have introduced it - they seem hell bent on removing as many civil rights as possible - but the unquestioning way in which so much of the public has accepted it.
When the subject comes up and I express my feelings against it, the two responses I always seem to get are "Well, why not have it?" and "I've got nothing to hide".
Firstly, the question isn't "why not", it's "why". It will cost a fortune, make a whole new layer of beaurocracy, upset a lot of people etc etc and no one has yet given a good example of what we really gain, so, why bother?
Secondly, *everyone* has something to hide. Everyone. It may not be something criminal, it may not be something wrong, it may even be something you have no logical reason you want to keep to yourself, but you still have a whole raft of things you don't want the policeman who has just randomly stopped you to know.
I could (and previously have) go on and on, but I'll spare the gentle reader and leave it at that. If you are a halfway intelligent person who bothers to think for yourself you'll be able to come up with a dozen more reasons against introducing ID cards in no time. You don't need me (or anyone else) to tell you what to think.
Volunteers, as in people who think the ID cards are an OK thing in the first place? Who will more likely than not give positive feedback?
Neil Fisher, from QinetiQ - one of the companies developing the new technology, said the public would want to be able to prove their identity to show they were not a risk.
A risk of/for what?
> The plans are designed to tackle identity fraud, which costs Britain an estimated 1.3bn each year.
> The government has said it sees ID cards as a weapon against terrorism.
I keep seeing statements like these over and over again but I have yet to hear an adequate argument as to how it works as a weapon against terrorism, identity theft, etc.
He said the biometric system proposed would end multiple identities and give a boost to the fight against terrorism and organised crime.
I hope I'm not the only one who sees how naive this statement is...
And lastly, considering these cards will be obligatory but not free of charge, I see them as nothing more than a money making mechanism for the government than anything else.
People say I'm crazy, I got diamonds on the soles of my shoes...
How long before everyone's DNA is required and index linked to the card ID?
What, and let the evil police catch more nice rapists as a result?
DAMN, these Nazis must be stopped before it's too late!
Bollocks. Last year after the Government mentioend it found 1000 people wanted cards, the stand.org.uk website generated 5000 registrations from people opposed to the scheme.
Wow. I expect you consider phone-polls conducted by The Sun to be equally authoritative?
How utterly utterly laughable. Really.
The blind armless chick may not be able to do anything physically but she could easily be a symbol for or mastermind of something dangerous.
People say I'm crazy, I got diamonds on the soles of my shoes...
It wasn't a survey conducted by Stand, it was the government's own consultation exercise. Stand did not trust the government to count responses properly, so they asked people to forward their view via the website. It turns out they were correct, the government altered the numbers.
What about the children?
Bah!
The majority of the British people are also anti-the EU Constitution, and we're now having a referendum on it.
Perhaps someone can explain this referendum thing to me because the newspapers assume an understanding of European politics that I just don't have.
Is the referendum at attempt to rewrite the European Union constitution or is it an attempt for the UK to pull out of the European Union? I really hope not the latter, as I'm living in London under an Irish passport.
And while I'm off topic, why is it that the general population of the UK seems to want nothing to do with Europe? I just don't get it.
1. A few years later a majority of those who can still vote decide a minority of them are too stupid to vote, so they make the exams a bit harder.
Goto 1.
Intellectual Property
Intellectual: of the mind
Property: that over which one has control
There is no "tao-ti-tao" in that sequence.
So a survey done on the internet, on a site that almost only people AGAINST the idea will visit, is MORE credible?
Yeah, I know this has nothing to do with biometric data, but it has something to do with conducting survey after survey and playing around with statistics until you get what you want. This includes surveys showing 80% of the UK population in favor of national identity cards containing biometric data.
People say I'm crazy, I got diamonds on the soles of my shoes...
I'm one of the people who will be forced to take this ID card in the early roll out. Offshore UK citizens being on the initial hit list.
I already have an ID card for my resident country and already have to show this card with every credit card/ cheque purchase in shops to prevent fraud.
I notice the shops are now scanning the card too.
It started with Video rental stores (who record the data to protect the rental), I just bought a TV and the store scanned my card to identify me for the 'guarantee', which can only be used by the original purchaser.
I want my privacy back.
Idea for National ID Card Entry: typedef struct String Name; Date DateOfBirth; Sex_Type Sex; NI_Type NI_Num; Eye_Type Eye_Data; bool Terrorist; } ID_Card_Type;
You let the USA own your newspapers and TV channels who do you expect them to tell you to obey?
It wasn't a survey done on the internet, it was a survey done by the government. Stand just made it easier to respond and openly check on the number of responses.
Please log in if you want this discussion to continue, Mr AC.
Go ask the Spanish government about the 800,000 illegal immigrants from Morocco living in Spain *without* national ID cards. ID cards are compulsory in Spain.
They *also* don't make a blind bit of difference against terrorist organisations, as Spain also found out to their cost.
It's pure myth that ID cards are effective tools against illegal immigration and terrorism.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
Blunkett himself.
You may remember Qinetiq from a couple of years ago. They won a government contract to place some Census data online so that it could be accessed by people researching family trees.
The web site opened, crashed and remained unavailable for about a year.
Does anyone think that a company that can't build a simple web site can provide a working id cards system? I certainly don't.
"Stand just made it easier to respond and openly check on the number of responses."
Was it open, so that the participants names were known? Or how does Stand know?
And I'm not logging in, since I don't post with my account any more. I use it to keep a friends & foes list, that's it. Respond if you want, or don't.
alot of people say if you've done nothing wrong you've nothing to fear. thats simply not true i personaly have done several illigal things that i would probibly get done for if caught however non of them qualifyed as amoral alot of people dont realise whats wrong and whats illegal arn't one and the same
No. It doesn't. Take a look at this scenario. If you color your hair or lose weight or gain weight or get cancer or something like that, you could be very screwed.
People say I'm crazy, I got diamonds on the soles of my shoes...
If you really have nothing to hide, then you'll have sex in public ;-)
People say I'm crazy, I got diamonds on the soles of my shoes...
I've given up on the argument, this man is hell bent on doing what he wants. I don't believe the poll figures, i dont believe the general public has been well informed in any way. I still havnt been told why these cards are a good idea or what they will do out-side some politician bull-shit speak about racism, terrorism and fool-proof identity. At no point has Blunkett given a straight out detailed and logical explanation to this, and if he did i certainly didnt hear it. This man is a fucking moron.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
In SOVIET BRITAIN, you serve Government.
They're called driving licences. I already get asked to show my ID quite often: When going to certain pubs/nightclubs, when buying a mobile phone, verifying my identity when the signature has faded on my debit card, and probably a lot more that I can't remember. I don't see how having an Identity Card with just that purpose could hurt things.
As for why ID cards and not the current system of one of several forms of ID (for things like buying a mobile phone they require two forms of ID from a very short list - an my provisional driving license wasn't on them), it would give a form of identification that everyone would accept. Sure, they could be faked. But so could _every_ _other_ form of identification currently in use.
So I ask the question, why not?
Most responses seem to be along the lines of 'we don't know what they could do with the data', or that the police could stop you and demand ID. The police could stop you now if they suspected you, and ask for some form of ID, and if they thought you were a known criminal and couldn't prove otherwise, you would still be taken to the station for questioning.
All the worry about privacy concerns seems to be way too overexagerated. It's just a card that says who you are, not something that broadcasts to the world that you slept with your mates girlfriend last night, or whatever it is you don't want everyone to know.
The key feature of a compulsory universal ID card is that it allows information from anywhere to be indexed at a single point. At the moment, that information is spread all over the place and can't be easily collated. ID cards change that.
I don't believe the "nothing to hide" argument keeps coming up.
There were 6.5 million people in Germany in the 1930s who had absolutely nothing to hide but their religion. Hitler came to power and they had their ID cards stamped with the "J-stamp", were herded on to trains and then gassed by the thousand by their government.
Just 10 years ago there were 800,000 people living in Rwanda who had absolutely nothing to hide, they were identified by their ID cards as "Tutsi", rounded up by their government and then butchered with machetes.
ID cards are enablers which allow genocide on an industrial scale. The card itself no longer has to carry the information, it will simply be associated with you in a huge database, indexed by your ID number.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
"Good morning Doctor, this evil genius Tsutomu Matsumoto has compromised the great security of my biometric ID card again... I really think that this so called 'gelatin' circumvention substance should be outlawed! Anyway, could you please transplant me a new set of fingers?"
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
How the hell do you think the NAZIs identified the Jews?
Or the Hutu identified the Tutsi. Just 10 years ago FFS!
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
How big are these cards, will they fit in every pocket?
What if i want to just wear a tshirt and shorts when i go out? can i wear the card round my neck!?
I think they should make the card about the size of a memory card, and have the policemen used digital readers to check ur identity.
then u wont have any dumbass cops asking u to go to the station just cos ur haircuts different, only cops with the electronic reader would be able to check ur identity.
And also speaking about illegal immigrants, they cannot arrest someone who they think is an illegal immigrant they need to make an infraction, so if they stop a guy without papers driving a car they they can only do that if he has made an infraction. And then they can only ban him from driving, which he had no right to do in the first place.
People submitting their opinion at the suggestion of a pressure group be it by eMail or a good old fashioned paper petition does not make for any kind of statistically representative sample at all.
By the way, it is a democracy. They hold elections for our representatives every 5 years or less. Perhaps you've heard of them.
British ID cards testing rollout Saturday April 24, @06:52PM Rejected
To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
Above you say something about getting flamed due to your comment saying you don't see a problem with id cards.
All the responses I've read to you have been explanatory and not rude. However, your response here "Yes, and then the mind control rays...".
It adds nothing, yet tantamounts to a flamed response. Just thought I'd point it out to you.
Huh? How can STAND possibly know. People who are in favour of ID cards are unlikely to be voting via an anti ID cards activist site. Come on, try to apply a little logic.
If you think this is Funny, then you should read Fun with Fingerprint Readers from May 2002 issue of Crypto-Gram Newsletter by Bruce Schneier:
Interesting, isn't it? See also: T. Matsumoto, H. Matsumoto, K. Yamada, S. Hoshino, "Impact of Artificial Gummy Fingers on Fingerprint Systems," Proceedings of SPIE Vol. #4
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
The government launched a consultation exercise in autumn 2002, originally planned to end in December 2002. Sometime in November, Beverly Hughes, the then Immigration Minister, stated in Parliament that they had received about 2000 responses, overwhelmingly in favour of a card.
Stand.org.uk issued a wakeup call. They basically said "If you have an opinion on this, please tell the government." They put up a form with a free text area which would forward the response to the correct Home Office email address. It wasn't a 'click here to register a no vote' form, just a way for people to communicate their views to the Home Office.
The consultation was extended to February 2003 (can't remember why), and closed on the 28th of that month. On 28th April, Beverly Hughes stated in a parliamentary answer that the government had received about 2000 responses with a majority of 2:1 in favour. Stand had counted over 5000 responses (note they did not know what proportion were in favour as they weren't tabulating answers, but they did know that over 5000 messages had passed through their form).
I wrote to my MP to ask where the discrepancy came from, and to seek assurance that my vote had been counted. The Home Office response was that Stand had in effect coordinated 5000 no votes, and they would be counted as one vote coming from one organisation. That is untrue. I have no affiliation with stand other than sharing a concern about my rights, and since stand isn't a membership organisation the same is true of all the other respondees. Funnily enough, they also reassured me thay my particular opinion had been counted. So much for consistency.
There has been little public debate on ID cards. The draft bill was announced (leaked?) on a Friday . This is being steamrollered through, regardless of what the population think.
(It's far too nice to stay in this afternoon. I'll check back later for any response. Ithought you might be trolling as AC, that's why I wanted you to log in).
Cheers.
If it records data,
and stores a copy,
how hard can it be
for someone to copy that copy?
Isn't their an axiom about every measure has a countermeasure?
And what about ID fraud?
It's bad enough
someone could take your credit card...
But if they took your thumbprint, blood type and retina scan...
geez!
Please mod the parent up, it has interesting background info.
terrorist: Hi, I'd like to become a terrorist.
government administrator: Okay, er, you'll have to give up your ID card
terrorist: Right, here you go *hands it over*
1 week later...
constable plod: let me see your id card
terrorist: but i don't have one
constable plod: why not?
terrorist: because i'm a terrorist
constable plod: that's it sonny, you're nicked
Okay, privacy concerns aside, the worst part that no one seems to mention is that the gov't is going to charge people for these cards directly, it's not gonna be paid by taxes. Now, charging for a passport is okay by me because that's optional, you don't need to have a passport if you're staying put, but under this system, everyone MUST have these expensive ID cards, giving people no choice but to pay.
Considering they were free when the Brits last did this in WWII, when the nation was more strapped for cash, this is, in my view, unacceptable.
Yup...
...will they do. the next step in this obvious progression is forced implantation of ID chips along the design of digital angel, or maybe with even more advanced "features" that you won't really like. I've read what they are working on, and it isn't hard to imagine what the controllers really want, is it? So what then? Just take it? This isn't a joke anymore or any sort of gee whizz might be coming in the real far away future, this could be here any day if they feel like implementing it by law, the tech is here already.
How do you say NO forcefully enough if it's illegal and you have a population that is effectively disarmed completely and has a police and military force that will follow any orders given to them without question? Sometimes the law is just so blatantly wrong that you have no recourse.
I mean, just about anyone can smell this coming next, in GB, in Canada, in the US, eventually everywhere by governments. Governments may be slow, but they eventually get around to using every sort of advanced technology for the "command and control" aspects of society. Well, just run a very conservative extrapolation here, you can see what's coming next.
They hold elections for our representatives every 5 years or less. Perhaps you've heard of them.
Obviously, however there is so little difference between the main political parties, much of the population doesn't bother voting in Britain any more.
There are many downsides to ID cards.
One attraction for Blunket is having fingerprints from everyone. Then it becomes easier to arrest people where you have a crime scene with a fingerprint.
Except it doesn't. Currently fingerprints are a major weapon in crime. If fingerprint evidence gets compromised, then a major weapon is lost.
One scenario is as follows. The DB is hacked. This is certain to happen. Even the UK government cannot keep people's heath records private. There were 200,000 known cases last year of medical records being fraudulantly obtained.
Secondly, the fingerprints get turned into gummy prints. Total cost less than 100 for the materials, plus photshop or an equivalent program.
Now you leave Tony Blairs fingerprints etc all over a crime scene.
When the Crime scene lot arrive, they have a very strong audit trail. They don't analyse the prints until later. It is very difficult to hide the fact you found Tony Blairs prints at the scene of crime. Particularly if the lawyer is tipped off to get the records of all possible matches from the prosecution.
The end result, fingerprint evidence is discreditied. A major weapon is lost. Every defence lawyer when presented with fingerprint evidence would bring up the case time and time again.
Where can I get one of these?
well, the reasons given for this identity card system are to combat crime and terrorism.
what actually will happen is that criminals and terrorists will become smarter (than they already are?) which leaves us with a nazi style police state and the mistaken belief that we are safer (from criminals and terrorists).
it will become more difficult to believe, in court cases, that someone's identity has been forged.
the solution to the underlying problem (criminal and terrorist tendencies) is to take away the criminals' and terrorists' tendencies to behave like criminals and terrorists, not to "up the ante" in what is effectively an arms race.
so the focus should be on looking at solutions such as those offered by the levitators (http://www.globalcountry.org.uk) - the mad transcendental meditation people who for more than thirty years have been persistently voicing the solution to crime prevention and much much more, and working quietly to achieve their goals.
Good point. You'll be buying a "licence to live".
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
What I really hate, is when somebody mentions ID cards and the instant reply is "Oh my! Haven't you read the book 1984"? That book is an extreme. Any logical extreme is ridiculous and of no useful value to anybody. Ok, how about everybody is completely anonymous? People can go where they want and do whatever they want, and there is nothing to identify them. People don't have criminal records. There's no sex offenders lists. Terrorists can communicate bombing plots with no fear that they will be caught. It's a stupid idea and so is 1984.
Let's compare everything to what the Germans did. "Papers please?". What kind of argument is that? That suddenly the government is going to turn into a racist dictating state because they want a way to identify people?
I don't mind people being against ID cards, but at least have a sensible argument for it. No, introducing ID cards does not imply people are going to be chipped at birth and GPS will be used to track everybody's location.
Then you get people who say "well, this is how it starts!". You could say that about anything! Drivers licenses? Credit cards? The secret services use it to track you and your behaviour! It's just the beginning! No it isn't. You could take the simplest law or policy and warp it to the logical extreme. You could do it with anything. Perhaps ID cards are just ID cards, huh?
And what's the big deal about being asked to carry it everywhere to? Oh no, the authorities can verify that I am who I say I am! Sorry, but I don't believe one of our rights is to deny authentication of ourselves to people trying to keep law and order in the country.
Which is why these trials will only be of the technology alone rather than the techology in its proper social context. As such there is the risk the concerntrating on tech issues may obfuscate the consideration of the core privacy issues at stake.
Plays violent online games as: Nerfherder76
As an immigrant living in the UK, I don't mind that these cards are being discussed and introduced.
But what I do mind is how certain people's arguments for the introduction of the ID cards are just seething with xenophobia and racism. And before you start to scream about how these are just labels used by anal-PC types, I ask you this:
'Do you really think that immigrants enjoy living in the parallel society within your own country ?'
'Do you honestly think that they choose to be marginalised from the mainstream society or do you think your attitudes towards them have forced them to such a life ? '
You want them to accept your values and way of life ? Show them how, don't just scoff at them expecting them to _obey_.
Chipping has already been started. But don't confuse it with the governments increasing security: it would be something that you voluntarily accept, because it would be cool (at least young kids will).
If Blunkett told the U.K they all had to get I.D tattoos on their foreheads in order to stamp out illegal immigration, half the country would ask where to join the queue and proudly wear their I.D tats next to their swastikas and spider-webs
I recently wrote about this in a similar thread involving faked I.D.
Looking at this measure which, in the Pilot program, is voluntary but if successful is expected to become compulsory around 2014, I can see how the potential for abuse that scares advocates of civil liberties.
The problem with biometric data in an Identity card is not that the system becomes suddenly perfect and invulnerable: it doesn't. The problem is one that I think it helps for to be an American for you to understand and hate: our constitution works with the assumption that some conflicts are inevitable: people will make mistakes, or have such bad fortune that will make them so desperate that they commit crimes. Our founding fathers recognized human nature and accounted for it in the legal system and they built acknowledgement of this into our constitution with the fifth amendment as the perfect example.
The fifth amendment to the American Constitution precludes an accused person of being forced to act as a witness against himself. This is a voluntary limiting of the government's power in the interest of society; it is an act of self-restraint in recognition of the tension between two values: government power over the individual versus the efficient administration of criminal justice.
In a perfect world, perfect I.D. cards with biometric features handed out by a government of saints who could be guaranteed in some way to never, ever misuse the power that the cards would give them would be wonderful things.
Secure I.D. cards could do wonderful things in the right hands and in the right circumstances, they might make fraud and identity theft harder while helping in legal defenses by providing authenticated proof that x was in y location at z time.
The real world provides the possibility for things that tends to make American civil libertarians sweat. In the real world in which we live today, technology works to enhance the government's weight in any prosecution while simultaneously opening the door to people you've never met and who haven't asked your permission knowing things about you and potentially using that information.
The ubiquitous cellular phone is already commonly known to provide information on its owner's approximate wearabouts in realtime. Add to this a secure and sure I.D. that, in ten year's time, you will be required to carry (with a penalty of ten years in prison for carrying a fake I.D.) and you have a situation which comes closer to one of the things that the founding fathers would have seen the soul of and hated: instead of being forced to speak against yourself in court (making the job of the prosecutor, the representative of the state, easy) you will be indicted by the government's access to technology that you either want to carry, or are that the law requires you to.
As a last thought, consider just how wise the founding fathers were: in a speculative historical scenario, the best case for forgery-resistant national I.D.s with associated databases is not to be found in England, but in the United States in the September 11th attack.
Plugging in the numbers, you're left with a very important question: would preventing the deaths of three thousand people have been worth what the I.D.s and their potential for abuse would mean to the other three-hundred million.
To mail me, remove the 'mailno' from my email addy.
"Yeah. It smells, too..."
here's something interesting I read not too long ago:
Are fingerprints really infallible, unique ID?
How unique are your fingerprints? It's general held (and as er, The Register confidently stated just yesterday) that your fingerprints being found at the scene of the crime tied you up with it pretty conclusively, but a report published earlier this year by New Scientist claims that there is little scientific basis for the infallibility of fingerprints, and that the only research indicating that there is, is fatally flawed.
This could have major implications for the criminal justice system, and could undermine the basic premise of planned ID sytems in the UK, US and Europe. The report notes that the only known study, commissioned b y the US Department of Justice and only made public in summary form, was challenged in December. The study involved matching up 50,000 fingerprint images, and concluded from this that the probability of a false match was effectively zero. However, says New Scientist, "Although this produced an impressive-sounding 2.5 billion comparisons, critics point out that it is hardly surprising that a specific image should turn out to be more like itself than 49,999 other images."
The study wasn't designed to test matches between two or more different prints from the same finger, and it was even discovered that it originally included three instances of fingerprints being listed as similar but different, when they were actually different prints from the same finger. One pair was even found to be as dissimilar as prints from different people. And the sample size is seen by many critics as being too small to be seen as valid.
Despite the apparently shaky foundations of the little 'proof' that exists, there seems to be no government enthusiasm for further research. The DoJ has refused to sanction further research, and a Department of Defense and National Institute of Justice programme fell apart last year after arguments over dissemination and review of the material.
New Scientist points out that fingerprint evidence still has a value, but that it's such a long-standing technique that it has never been subjected to rigorous scientific scrutiny. This could well be its undoing, as ID systems' need to match up prints from millions of people takes fingerprinting into entirely uncharted territory. It would surely be just a little bit embarrassing if a few years down the line governments' deployment of fingerprints in the war on terror resulted in the near overthrow of the criminal justice system, wouldn't it?
People say I'm crazy, I got diamonds on the soles of my shoes...
I can say now that I won't be carrying that card if I get one. I understand that terrorism is a bad idea, but I won't step onto that slippery slope.
RoseColor red={0, 0xffff, 0x0000, 0x0000};VioletColour blue={0, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0xffff};find / -name *mybase*|chown you
I hope I'm wrong, but a 10,000 user trial doesn't actually sound that impressive
It isn't
Just don't preach to the converted and get down to www.faxyourmp.com instead.
Tell our MP's both the civil libities AND technical reasons why this is bad. Most MP's havent a clue about electronic security. Tell them why biometrics are not the solution, why its a bad idea to have all your eggs (data) in one basket (or card), why this wont prevent "terrorists and pediatricians"(!) and why this is just a BAD idea.
Dont sit on your arse. Get faxing!
Anyone quoted by a reporter knows how little they understand
Don't believe what you read is the truth.
I could be mistaken, but acording to Fridays Today programme, this was a Mori telephone poll.
Perhaps Mori would have seen a different result if, every time someone told them to fuck off and slammed the phone down, they treated as an 'I value my privacy' responce.
Anyone quoted by a reporter knows how little they understand
Don't believe what you read is the truth.
How much longer until they implant GPS devices into everybody
The devices are not implanted, but people voluntaryly wear them. The device is named... GSM mobile phone, and it traks you...
PRIVACY IS DYING, and potilics-corporations are the killers.
The big problem these days, is that people have developed this neurotic concern towards terrorism. They've talked themselves into thinking that terrorists are the only and biggest devils on Earth and that life can't continue unless they've all been eradicated.
These non-sensical new laws and measures will continue as long as people in general hold their attitude hostage to terrorism. There is only one way to stop all of this: people as a group must get together and say "we don't give a fuck about terrorism, let them blow us up randomly, they can kill some of us but not all, we don't care. We WILL NOT have a war on terrorism, we WILL NOT impose new security measures using terrorism as an excuse."
When Al Queda attacked the US in 2001, people were shouting "we will not change our way of life, if we do the terrorists will win." Well guess what, the current war on terrorism has made the terrorists win. The constant news about terrorism, the constant new counter-measures, living in fear, etc. that's exactly what the terrorists are aiming for. Congratulations people, you've definitely lost to the terrorists.
One big magnet at home is being introduced to Mr card...
Mr. magnet meet ID card, ID card meet magnet.
Arw these embeded and can the run linux, and what would a beobulf of these look like?
You may be interested in these:
e ctid=12164609&method=full&siteid=50143
c hipimplant020225.html
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?obj
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/DailyNews/
Be wary of Warwick - he's an idiot but it is happening.
Do they take you away and put you in a barbed wire holding facility?
This is coming. Don't kid yourself. Did you think this kind of hot Frog-Water was a possibility five years ago? The world has changed a lot, hasn't it? This is by design.
You can't even thank Bush for this, even though his people helped 9-11 into being. The trap is closing fast. Of course, there are ways to avoid being processed. .
1. Wake up and actively seek the answers to the Whys and Wherefores behind the manner in which 'reality' works.
2. Once you understand the enemy, you will then have enough information to tackle the problem of what to do next. Until then, you are spinning in the dark.
3. Tin Foil Hats? Yeah, ha ha. Papers, please.
-FL
10 years for indentity fraud.
2 years for rape.
What do you think that says about Goverment prioritys.
I wonder how durable these cards would be? I get through a debit/credit card about every 2 months. They just delaminate in my back pocket. I've actualy had chips fall off some. Are we going to have to wear them like the ID tags some people wear to work?
I've also killed many a chip card with the static discharge when I get out of my car. I wonder how much info will be stored on the card I'll bet its just a number that hooks into a database. Even if it isn't the info will be stored off card so they can issue you a new one should the old one become broken/ unreadable. So wait a min what we are saying here? The govenment give us a card with a chip on it and take our biometric details and put them into a database but lead us into thinking these details are only held on the card.
Just a thought most of us brits have a national insurance card with a nice unique number on it.
I guess this means that authorities will be able to pull up a picture of you before they even see you and have a record of your biometric data (I wonder if this includes DNA?)
If I (as a Britain) am going to be identified by my iris and fingerprints, what do I need a card for?
I already tend to carry my eyes and fingers with me at all times.
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
Quote from article: "The government has said it sees ID cards as a weapon against terrorism."
Once again - for the propaganda merchants in government:
ID cards in Spain did not stop the bombings.
I do not believe the stupidity of all this.
The government have complete contempt for the UK public - they want a Big Brother Surveillance Society.
People are treated like sheep by them - what is worse - most folks accept it.
Governments must think all the public are intellectually challenged morons.
ID Cards are a Red Herring - something that draws attention away from the central issue.
FACT: it will be very simple to identify you absolutely anywhere with a portable eye/finger scanner - without your ID Card.
Once data is transmitted to base they can have your identity within seconds.
The ID Card itself is totally irrelevant - it is a means to an end.
You could be stopped anywhere and authorities would know everything about you - they would not need your ID card.
They will have effectively branded a number on every person.
Just like in 1942, when Nazi's began tattooing numbers on the left forearm of all prisoners.
Find ANYBODY in Government to deny that you can be read like a barcode on a bag of peas at the supermarket till.
They are treating us all like criminals - putting everybody's fingerprints and eye scans on file.
The ID Card propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) to say the government are doing something and c) the more malicious motive of privacy invasion.
It is clear that Governments want a surveillance society.
When you are stopped by police:
"Just look into this eye scanner sir."
Beep..beep..Garry Anderson..49..male..speeding camera violation spotted..
Linking these systems up will just be the start of things - just exactly what Tony and David want.
Of course, many blinkered and intellectually challenged members of public would say Big Brother is a good thing.
Whaaaaaaaat?! Why is it always 'how long' or 'you never know what your government is going to do.'
And why is it the people on the other side of the fence are all 'it's not like the government is going to use it or it's ever going to really effect you'?
Who really cares? It probably won't affect any of us, but I fail to see what kind of relevancy that holds. I don't agree with a lot of things, for instance the military draft, but when I confront friends with this all they respond with is 'you can get out of it easily.' Why? I don't care! It's morally incorrect by a common societal standard to impose such a draconian code, whether or whether not it is going to affect me. And even so, somewhere down the line, it will probably affect someone INNOCENT whether it is me or not. Blah, this is silly. And you know what? The people who don't see a problem with things like this are the reason it's being allowed to happen; I'm willing to bet they'll re-elect Bush and that is pretty freaking retarded if you ask me, no matter what sort of justification you have. It's like politicians play particular issues and have stances on selective problems, so when they tell someone something they want to hear, even here on slashdot (making spyware criminal?), everyone is like 'when's he up for re-election?'!
This is messed up, people, get your heads straight. I'm veering a bit off topic here, but seriously, if you're going to vote on someone just because their stances on a bunch of silly individual issues which probably do not even hold any water with their real beliefs or opinions and aren't ever going to affect anything anyway, you shouldn't be allowed to vote! If I were going to vote on someone, I would vote on the basis that I thought they were a good candidate or not. That is all.
QinetiQ is the name, not Qinetiq (pronounced kinetic)... ....a large Q to get in and a large Q to get out!
Qinetiq are a research company that used to be a branch of the MoD they became a public/private partnership a number of years ago, so some of their funding is government sourced but not all. They mainly do R&D related to MoD contracts as they still have strong business ties. I only know this due to being told to apply to them for my industrial placement year of university, I purposefully screwed that one up, I didnt want to travel approx 300 miles to work on sonar systems (sonar itself is fairly cool, but i dont have the best stomach in the world for extended 'at sea' tests)
Did it again. This is what I get for posting on VB/UBB forums and here in the same session.
Whilst this will probably get me goodness knows how many negative karma hits from the english people here, here's some little fact's about how the english government (if it's based in england, speaks english, is composed of over 75 english people, and spends 80% of 'its' money in england, it's an english government) treats the welsh and scots, not even going onto the irish, in recent centuries, using the powers it already has to abuse and attempt to destroy the native culture of the british isles. No1) Language Until 1967, welsh, the language of Wales, one of the oldest spoken languages in europe, had no official standing in Wales, where a majority of the population spoke it. In 1967, the Welsh Language Act guaranteed the right of welsh people to be arrested in welsh, go to school and learn welsh without being physically attacked for it (i'll get on to that in a second) and obtain official forms in Welsh. It went nowhere near far enough to outdo centuries of brutal oppression from our germanic overlords. Before this point, in welsh schools, children caught speaking welsh would be beaten, with a "Welsh Knot", a large lump of wood used to subdue our people into not speaking our language. In 1993, a new Welsh Language Act was finally introduced that gave some marginal concessions to welsh as a real language. It is still only spoken by 528,000 people (about 25% of the population) compared to the almost 100% populairty the language enjoyed not 100 years ago. In scotland, the situation is even worse, scots gaelic being illegal for a great deal of time (i believe punishment was death, although it may just have been inprisonment). Scot's dialect (another form of the english language, dating back to at least the 1500's) is not recognised, nay even heard of by most english people. It is still spoken by most scots, even though schools teach english, not scots. 2) Nationality, Attrocities have been committed gainst the welsh, and to a lesser degree, the scots, in recent decades. These tales are not the tales of woe of centuries past, but tales of things that occurred in my lifetime (and I'm not that old). In north Wales, there was once a village called Tryweryn. Lovely place, from all accounts, although I've never been there. Very rural community, peoples livelyhoods mostly being farming and farming related industry. Across the border, in england is a dilapidated shit hole city called Liverpool. In the 60's, they were having a water problem, not having enough of their own, having polluted all the local supplies. So, they decided to flood Tryweryn (village and farms entire) and create a large resevoir for english water. For some reason, the other 12 sites, 9 of whom were in england, 8 of which were unpopulated, did not seem suitable (despite Tryweryn being the second smalled site, offering quite a small water storage ability). The local MP's did not want it to go ahead. The locals DEFINATELY did not want it to go ahead. Liverpool did. THe goverment in London decided, screw the welsh, let's flood Tryweryn. Several terrorist attacks later, they still flooded the valley, and sent most of the inhabitant's to Liverpool, to live in tower flats (for americans, really bad, cheap, nasty high-rise appartments filled with drug dealers), their livelyhoods destroyed, their lands stolen, and their 'conpensation' an estimated 1/10th that of the value of the land taken. This sad story is repeated in several other places accross Wales, and Scotland. Funnily enough, all that lovely welsh water (being some of the purest and unpolluted in the world) get's pumped to england and sold to the english, and all profits go to the english. Also funnily enough, when welsh areas start lacking water (not a lot of welsh resvoirs IN wales), they have to pay the english water companies for the water, some of which almost certainly came from welsh resevoirs. More nationality crisis' abate, with (not a lot of americans will get this, but bear with me) the common british/english thing. If something amazing/great/brilliant acheivement etc, happe
The truth shall always be free: Boris Floricic is Tron.
Didn't Bev Hughes get the chop recently, over the immigration affair? AFAIK, she was Blunketts right hand woman. I'm beginning to think that they all need to go - Blair, Blunkett, Straw, Harmon - all of them. The level of authoritarianism and paranoia in this government is unbelievable.
I'm not sure if you're joking or not, but assuming you're not, your comments are the most ignorant I've seen here.
The issue isn't the number of organisations which hold "all this information" already, it's the centralisation of "all this information" through a single biometric index that's the problem.
Once all information for a particular person is centralised, then how is the information use controlled, who is accountible and how is that accountability audited?
It's not a case of having anything to hide. It's a case of information being power. Just as a simple example - credit Reference agencies already have access to the Electoral roll data to verify a person is who they say they are and they live where they say they do. They use this information as a part of their overall credit profile for a person requesting credit. Suppose they wanted to use ID card data instead? Who's going to decide how much of your ID card linked inforation they should be allowed access to and how relevant it is to credit scoring? A credit reference agency could make a pretty poweful case that any information held about you linked through your ID card is relevant to their profiling activities - even when it patently isn't.
Finally, the most frightening aspect of all of this is that David Blunkett and technology ignoramouses seem to think that technology is infallible, that databases are un-crackable and that there's no such thing as human error.
I think that the general public have alot to fear from ID cards - they should be very afraid.
If you think this is Informative, then I should quote Biometrics: Truths and Fictions from August 1998 issue of Crypto-Gram Newsletter by Bruce Schneier:
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
Because terrorists don't use ID cards! (This is sarcasm. They most likely will take advantage of having an ID card, because people will have trust in them).
The only difference to the security benefits of a drivers' license is NILL. Nill I tells ya.Niiilll!
I know you are psychotic, but please make an effort.
ID cards are highly unlikely of themselves to violate the Convention, seeing as they are used in most other Convention States. If the biometric element were compulsory, it might I suppose be a violation of the so called "right to privacy", but this provision is notoriously wooly and contains the usual carve-outs for public protection etc.
In Rwanda, they had ID cards marked "Tutsi" and "Hutu". When gangs of men with machetes came to rape and kill, they'd check your card and decide how many limbs to hack off on that basis.
In Germany, they used biometrics too. If your genome was Romani or Jewish, for example, you would probably end up in an oven.
In the People's Republic of China, they have inalienable identity cards too. If your parents were slave farmers, you will be a slave farmer too, and so will your descendents in perpetuity. In this way, the CCP prevents others from competing with their offspring for economic and social privilege.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
What worries me is when they
:thingatcriminalscene
do a SELECT FROM BigDatabase WHERE fingerprint LIKE
Danger of false positive? At least if they have the implanted GPS, they can rule you out. From what I heard, you have the choice of iris or fingerprint. I'd choose iris on the lines that such a false positive can't happen because you don't leave your iris print at a criminal scene. I don't fancy becoming a criminal - I just don't want the worry of a false positive.
The there's the
SELECT FROM BigDNADatabase WHERE NewlyFoundCancerCausingGene=TRUE
Wow! we could give these people extra screening - but they'd have to tell the insurance companies. IIRC, we have to tell the insurance companies if we have any DNA tests already. I donated for research once - under the strict understanding that there is no way I or an insurance company could ever find the result.
Knowing the power of data mining, it becomes worrying that machines can start making decisions. How reliable is that classification that you're a terrorist based on your pattern of baked bean purchases?
I doubt polititians will have the time to look at 60 million individual records, and data mining sounds a scary technology.