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."
...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.
Today, NI number and basic details.
Next decade, criminal convictions get added.
Next decade, genetic abnormalities get added.
Next decade, political stance gets added (gotta get those anti-terrorism measures in there somewhere).
Paranoid? Maybe. Look back to what happened Germany in the 1930s and we should be very, very concerned about how this kind of "information" could be abused.
Visit the site, write a letter then Fax your MP.
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?)
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 hasn't had to pass through parliament because so far it isn't compulsory.
Furthermore, it would probably pass without too much problem because there is generally good public support.
>News of the pilot follows an opinion poll suggesting 80% of people backed a national ID card scheme.
If by "stupid" you mean deploying a system meant to be universal to a small handful of people, then you are right. Which is why trials like these are not done in that fashion. They will not pick any old 10,000 people. Typically in situations like this they would find a town with a population of around 10,000 people and give the cards to everyone. Then they could put the card readers everywhere appropriate, and nobody who lived in the town would feel left out.
It wouldn't be a proper test of the cards if they didn't actually scan them once in a while. And they can't put the scanners all over the country for a limited test; so they can't distribute the test cards truly randomly, where any person in the country is likely to get one. So they will probably pick one 10,000 person town. Or, better yet, three 3,333 people towns; one for each company.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
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.
"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? "
9
Aschroft recently sought information on doctors who perform abortions using his new found anti-terrorist powers.
He also sought information on Anti-war protesters again using his new terrorist powers.
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=1790
Thats just two incidents we know about because they were leaked. Now (under Patriot 2) its a crime to leak what he's using his terrorist subpoenas for.
A republican senator is equating voting for Kerry with being anti-American.
The problem as ever is not: "If you are doing nothing wrong you have nothing to fear." but rather "if your government never does anything wrong you have nothing to fear".
I for one welcome our New Labour overlords...
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
Multi-culturalism is itself a cultural attribute. Not easy to engineer, but not impossible either. Canada earned its multi-cultural credentials with Quebec, leaving an uneasy union of British and French. The recognition of two national languages went a long way to head off the tyranny of either.
Toronto is now home to dozens of languages (plus English & French) and, except around World Cup time, is quite sane. The cultures are melting, but they are melting at the edges, instead of being shredded and spun vigorously.
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.
Except that, according to opinion polls, the vast majority of British people are in favour of ID cards. Why? Probably because of the FUD whipped up about terrorism and asylum seekers.
The majority of the British people are also anti-the EU Constitution, and we're now having a referendum on it. Why? Probably because of all the lies, half-truths and other crap run by the "little England" right-wingers in the Daily Mail, and the anti-EU, pro-USA Murdoch press.
If all these screaming idiots on Slashdot would stop, step back, and give some thought to the way democracy is working at the moment, you could observe perhaps two key things:
Of course it can backfire when it comes to things like wars, "ethical" foreign policies and the like. And when you have a socialist party like New Labour doing everything it can to curry the favour of the corporate elite (who run the press and the expanding part of the economy), it really backfires sometimes.
But please, let's not be so melodramatic about ID cards for Gods' sakes. Yes, there are some privacy concerns, but I don't really see the big deal. They have them across the EU, they're not that different to something like a driving license, and though there are questions that need answering, they're hardly as big an issue as some of the other things Blunkett is ramming through.
It's like CCTV cameras. Though there are problems associated with mistaken identities, have yours or anyone elses' lives been made substantially worse because of their introduction? Privacy, in my opinion, is only a matter of your home and your private life, and violating other aspects of your privacy is only a problem if you are affected adversely, the invasion of privacy aside.
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...
I'm constantly astounded at how badly some 20th and 30th generation immigrants speak English.
Intellectual Property
Intellectual: of the mind
Property: that over which one has control
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.
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.