Blunkett Backs Down on UK ID Cards

i was thinking about them today... by johansalk · 2004-10-27 17:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

Well, ever the thinker, I was thinking about them as I was admiring our little society today as i walked through a typical UK small-city center. No, keep ID cards and militarized police with their guns away from our peaceful, naturally liberal spots.

Re:i was thinking about them today... by TuataraShoes · 2004-10-27 20:12 · Score: 5, Insightful
With ever increasing requirements to have your identity recorded by government, shown on demand, and your actions tracked... there is a fundamental shift in the relationship between the people and the state.

GOOD
- Government must serve people
- Policeman at door must identify himself to citizen
- People left alone to prosper - no presumption of guilt
- Government accountable to people
BAD
- Government monitor people
- Policeman require people (doing nothing wrong) to identify themselves
- People tracked to see if they are doing anything wrong
- People must justify themselves to government
Ask yourself, who serves whom?
--
Surely in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird -- Proverbs 1:17
Re:i was thinking about them today... by jcr · 2004-10-27 20:15 · Score: 3, Interesting

To put it in British terms: are they citizens or subjects?

-jcr

--
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Re:i was thinking about them today... by tigress · 2004-10-27 21:33 · Score: 1

We (Sweden) have a national ID standard, created by the SIS (Swedish Standards Institute). Any drivers license, ID-card or (I believe) Swedish passport is a valid SIS ID.

We have all of the "good" points of your list and very little of the "bad" ones.

I happen to know another western country that is becoming more and more the opposite, despite their lack of national IDs.
Re:i was thinking about them today... by Zemran · 2004-10-27 21:48 · Score: 1

??? I am a British citizen, and this proposed act only applied to British citizens. It is only people without a UK passport to read that think that we are subject to someone. Britain no longer has an empire and apart from a few islands most of the subjects have been given independence from the UK. Those that are still subject to British rule were not covered by this proposed act of Parliment. If someone is a British national they are a British citizen.

--
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
Re:i was thinking about them today... by Zemran · 2004-10-27 21:55 · Score: 1

I happen to know another western country

America has for a long time had a hang up with ID. When in the US people always asked to see my driving license and did not know how to react when they saw that my driving license does not have a photo. Every form there asks for a social security number and so I put my UK version which includes letters :) In Europe I have never been asked for ID in a supermarket like I was in the US and a British policeman cannot expect ID like they do in the US. I think that both extremes are faulty and at least with this compromise the UK may end up with a sensible result. This is something that the US could learn from but I doubt that they will.

--
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
Re:i was thinking about them today... by bobbis.u · 2004-10-27 21:58 · Score: 0
I was also thinking about ID cards the other day and I was actually thinking how good they would be.
I consider myself a decent citizen and would have no objection to being able to identify myself when required. There are a lot of people that are not decent citizens, so I also like the idea that compulsory ID cards would:
- eliminate (or severely reduce) state benefit fraud
- prevent so-called NHS tourists sponging off our already over-stretched health system
- prevent punk-ass 15-year old kids getting into pubs, getting pissed and then tearing up town centres
- allow people that don't want to learn to drive to have some form of ID card that is actually accepted everywhere
- prevent known peadophiles from being able to get jobs anywhere near children
- cut down on illegal immigration
I'm sure there are other points I will think of as soon as I hit submit. Anyway, the first 3 points would directly improve my experience as a citizen. Or subject - it has no bearing on my life what you decide to call me.
It makes me angry when people knee-jerk over ID cards. They:
- Would not help the government track you. They don't have built in RFID that are scanned everytime you walk through a shop doorway.
- Do not necessarily need to unify with drivers licenses and passports. I think this is where Blunkett got it wrong in trying to link three largely indepedent ideas - national ID, international ID and Driving Eligibility.
- Are only an invasion of "privacy" if you are forced to carry them. I don't think anyone was considering this in the UK.
I am sure some people's objection to these compulsory ID cards was mainly that they would be charged to get them. I concede that is totally unacceptable and they should be funded via taxes (so the poor are not unnecessarily burdened).
People talk about the expense of setting up the system. Yes, it would be very expensive, but that is largely a one-off expense that could well save money in the long run (see fraud prevention above).
People talk about problems of the "one true database" being wrong. Well they only need to get it right once. Your identity doesn't ever change. It's pretty unlikely you would be "accidentally" added to the list of sex offenders or known terrorists. In fact, another plus is that it would largely eliminate problems of people with the same name being persecuted as sex offenders.
To me it seems so ridiculous that, at the minute, a lot of people use names as some kind of unique identifiers. Then they realise names are not very unique so they try to use the date of birth too. Then they find two people with the same name who were born on the same day!
Lastly, those people that bitch about eroding civil liberties: you don't have to imagine the worst case scenario from day one. You only need to kick up a fuss when it appears things are actually going Too Far (TM). In case you didn't realise it, the government is actually made up of ordinary people in the UK and everything they do is for the (at least, perceived) best interests of the nation as a whole. (This should be contrasted with America where most things your government does are in the interests of the corporations that bankroll any major politician's career.)
There are a lot of caveats of implementing ID cards, but done properly they could be an excellent improvement to the country.
Re:i was thinking about them today... by TuataraShoes · 2004-10-27 22:00 · Score: 4, Informative

I appreciate your comment, and I believe you about your experience in Sweden.

The threat does not necessarily come from the current government. It may be the next government, or the one after that that targets you.

In Britain we have a British National Party which wants to stop a lot of the foreigners getting in. It is not a very tasteful policy, but it is a legal expression of a political view point. People are now loosing their jobs as police officers and school teachers if they are associated with the BNP. This is just one step away from having your career prospects damaged if you are NOT a member of the ruling New Labour Party.

You see, governments are led by people who love to exercise power. In Britain, there is political pressure from these political leaders to exercise power over what we can say and think. There is talk of laws against 'hate speech'. Of course, hate-speech is defined by current moral fashions.

A national identity database can hold details of who is a potential terrorist, who speaks out against the government... All this can be brought up on someone's screen without my knowledge. This is what is so different from drivers' licenses, etc. You don't know who has access to that information about you, or how it is used.

So, Tigress from Sweden, you may have a benevolent government in Sweden now, but beware how much power over your life and privacy you cede to it!

--
Surely in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird -- Proverbs 1:17
Re:i was thinking about them today... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-27 22:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

I can see that there are clear benefits to be derived from the introduction of ID cards, but the civil liberties issues do concern me.

Yes, the British government consists of 'ordinary people in the UK', making decisions for the '(perceived) best interest of the nation as a whole'. So were many other democratically elected governments that curbed the movement, freedom of speech, general liberties and in some cases the lives of 'citizens / subjects' that were perceived to be a threat to the nation as a whole.

Such governments have existed in the past, and will probably occur in the future. Often the incremental moves towards such a forms mean that the line between 'Protecting Society' and 'Too Far' becomes blurred.

ID cards would enable greater power to be exerted by all forms of governments. A bout of a UK strain of McCatrthyism could result in some citizens being "accidentally" added to lists of paedophiles or terrorists.

I'm not sure whether the benefits outweigh the risks associated with the project. Besides, and let's face it, the government is bound to cock it up.
Re:i was thinking about them today... by tigress · 2004-10-27 22:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

That's partially my point. National ID card or database or not, it all depends on how it's used.

Data will be collected and stored in a database regardless of wether it's a centralized database or several databases at a number of different organizations.

What people should be fighting is not a national ID system but the ABUSE of such a system, and for that matter, the abuse of the CURRENT systems, that happen too frequently already.

Yes, the secret police here in Sweden did register who was a potential terrorist, and who spoke out against the government during the 50s and 60s. However, that was illegal and it was all collected and brought up on people's screens without the knowledge of the people being investigated. They had no idea who had access to the information about them, or how it was used.

This isn't much different from what's happened in other countries though and the existance or lack of a national ID database wouldn't have stopped this practice in the slightest. In fact, in many countries that did not HAVE a national ID system, things got way worse. And I'm talking about western countries here.
Re:i was thinking about them today... by BasilBrush · 2004-10-27 22:36 · Score: 0, Troll

The BNP is a racist organisation. By being a racist you effectively exclude yourself from being either a teacher or a policeman. That's not to say there aren't racist police or teachers, but when they are found, they are got rid of. And being known to be a member of the BNP is a a way to identify such racists. Nothing wrong there, and no connection with an ID card.
What you guys seem to miss is that if the British government were replaced by a facist regime at some point in the future, not having an ID card won't help you. In that particular future, they'd still lock you up for speaking against the government, ID card or not. And they'd probably tattoo you with a bar code at the same time.
What you are proposing is doing without something now, that has benefits now, just in case of some nightmare future scenario that probably won't happen, where doing without the thing wont help you much anyway. One might just as easily say we should do without roads because in the future facist stormtroopers might use them to travel the country.
Re:i was thinking about them today... by biglig2 · 2004-10-27 22:44 · Score: 4, Interesting

We have a contract with the state; we give it power over us so it can improve our quality of life. But states are made of humans, and humans are failable, and corruptable. So we put curbs and controls in place to the state's power.

Now, the current Govt. in the UK seems to have made the thought process:
"unwritten constituion=we can do anything we want" and has gone beserk with vague and ill thought out constitutional change.

Look at Hunting. They intend to use the Parliament act to force it through the Lords. Think about that for a moment. The Lords is a mechanism to prevent Parliament enacting bad law. The Parliament act is a way to overrule that check in an emergency - for example if the Lords is blocking a Finance act and so preventing the Govt doing anything. The hunting bill isn't an emergency. Regardless of it's merits either way, it's not an emergency. What it is, is politically necessary for Tony Blair to keep control of activists in his party. Not the same thing.

Anyway, dragging myself closer to the topic:

Is it pretty unlikely to be added to the list of terrorists? Ask Ted Kennedy about that one. ;-)

Is it going to be compulsory? You yourself insist that it should be needed to get health care or to buy a beer in a pub or to get a job. That sounds pretty compulsory to me.

The expense will be huge. I cannot recall a major computer system implementation in the UK that has not been a complete disaster. Air traffic control? Disaster. Magistrate Court? Disaster. Passport Office? Disaster. Criminal background checks on School employees? Disaster. and on and on.

In fact, my objections to this scheme are almost entirely theoretical because I don't reckon they have the ability to implment it. ;-)

Here's another point: what about the guy who just got jailed for providing information from the DVLA databases to terrorists? Or the temp, who used to work for a newspaper, that got employed by the Cabinet Office, and is being investigated for leaking to the press? You trust people with that kind of hiring record?

We must envisage worst case scenarios. Hitler was democratically elected. to return to my first point: every Govt. is corrupt in one way or another, because it is full of people.

--
~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
Re:i was thinking about them today... by tigress · 2004-10-27 22:48 · Score: 1

Actually, their "nightmare scenario" is already happening. People are already being recorded for their (extreme) political views.

I have little doubt that outspoken members of the BNP are already in the databases of your secret police, where they'll remain for any future government to look up.

A national ID won't make any difference here though. But it does have its benefits in other matters.
Re:i was thinking about them today... by TuataraShoes · 2004-10-27 22:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

That's interesting, and I'm sure, true.

If a traffic officer asks me for my drivers licence, radios back to base, someone will have my driving record up on the screen. But they will not (I hope) have intelligence my political views, my health record, my travel history...

This is the point about keeping these various IDs for specific purposes separate. The government has no right to know information about my health, my political views, etc., since I am not breaking the law.

--
Surely in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird -- Proverbs 1:17
Re:i was thinking about them today... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-27 23:00 · Score: 0

> This is just one step away from having your career prospects damaged if you are NOT a member of the ruling New Labour Party.

Erm... no it's not. As was pointed out being a member of the BNP is a good indication that you're racist. Not only that but the BNP is a facist organisation, not as open about its politic as it used to be, but it hasnt changed (they've just tried to keep quiet about it). If they were to get into power they will go about things the same way Hitler did in germany (they support all the policies detailed in 'mein kampf').

There are always some fluffys around who will support a facists parties right to free speech. They're wrong. To support the right of free speech of someone who wishes to take it away, for good, is hypocrisy. If you genuinely want that (as in voting no to a participatory democracy) then go for revolutionary tactics and stop dicking about with our reformist parlimentary system.
Re:i was thinking about them today... by TuataraShoes · 2004-10-27 23:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

I am not a supporter of the BNP. I disagree with their policies. However, if you label them 'racist', you are not in anyway countering their argument.

They claim they are not 'racist', so perhaps that makes you a 'liar'. I don't really mean that, it's just a point about using labels to dismiss other people's arguments.

The BNP says people from other countries should go and sort out their own countries. This is different from the current government who wants to bring doctors and nurses from 3rd world countries which obviously impoverishes those countries by taking their best talent and the fruits of their investment in their own people. So there is some merit in some BNP policy.

However, personally, I disagree with BNP policy. Yet I think it is possible for someone to see merit in the BNP political argument without being racist.

So if people who think that this political solution is good cannot teach, then what next? Perhaps people who believe the Bible should not be allowed to teach (the Bible speaks against homosexuality).

Just remember, if you happen to agree with every moral standard that is currently in fashion, then you probably would have done the same if you lived in a different era - and you may not be thinking for yourself.

--
Surely in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird -- Proverbs 1:17
Re:i was thinking about them today... by DuncMan · 2004-10-27 23:10 · Score: 1

I can easily refute your 'benefits';

> eliminate (or severely reduce) state benefit fraud

Why don't current facilities already do this? What makes you think that the flaws in current systems won't also affect a system based on ID cards?

> prevent so-called NHS tourists sponging off our already over-stretched health system

You're opposed to helping those in need? And the main problem affecting the NHS is poor and mismanaged funding. Their money is misused to fund expensive unnecesary technologies or tiers of ineffective management. And imagine what they could be done if the taxpayers' money (at least [GBP]3,000,000,000.000) which would be wasted on the ID card system is instead given to the NHS...

> prevent punk-ass 15-year old kids getting into pubs, getting pissed and then tearing up town centres

Oh, please, the pub landlords and off-licence operators should already be preventing this and they don't. There are already several usable methods of proving age, including a photocard. Just having a new form of ID won't make them suddenly do their job properly.

> allow people that don't want to learn to drive to have some form of ID card that is actually accepted everywhere

I can't drive. I already have plenty of forms of ID which are accepted everywhere (credit cards, bank statements, utility bills, passport...).

> prevent known peadophiles from being able to get jobs anywhere near children

Another fiction. You seem to feel that an ID card is a magic wand which can do all sorts of things which existing procedures and forms of ID don't do, and will fix all the flaws in existing procedures (e.g. checking whether someone is a registered sex offender).

> cut down on illegal immigration

Eh? How? Currently someone can sneak into the country and take a job with a morally dubious employer who is more interested in maximising profit than in following employment law. You believe that if ID cards are introduced then the morally dubious employer will suddenly decide to follow employment law?

ID cards are not needed to solve these problems, or cannot solve the problems, or the problem doesn't even exist.

Here's a clue: The problem with the numerous current forms of ID is not the IDs themselves- it's *people* who fail to follow the relevant procedures properly. We absolutely don't need ID cards, what we need is for people to be more responsible and to do their jobs properly. And, yes, to fix flaws in existing procedures. An ID card, or associated laws and punishments, can't and won't magically cause any of those things to happen.
Re:i was thinking about them today... by tigress · 2004-10-27 23:10 · Score: 1

Well, even if there is a national database, it doesn't necessarily mean that anyone can access anything about anyone else.

It's fairly trivial to make sure that a traffic cop (or their HQ) will only have access to your driving record (and possibly if you're a known fugutive), just like it is today. Just make sure that the national ID database usage is regulated properly, as any other database should be.
Re:i was thinking about them today... by TuataraShoes · 2004-10-27 23:14 · Score: 1

Perhaps the basic difference here is that you are apparently willing to trust the authorities to regulate this properly. I am not.

I think the ID cards and the national database are going to happen anyway, so I hope you are right. But history of political leadership tells me that sooner or later, I will be right.

--
Surely in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird -- Proverbs 1:17
Re:i was thinking about them today... by tigress · 2004-10-27 23:24 · Score: 1

You might very well be right. In fact, there have been cases where authorities have failed to regulate database use. An example of that is the registration of political views here in Sweden during the 50s and 60s, which was illegal but happened anyway.

I believe there will be cases where this regulation will fail, as well as when it'll succeed. I think that if it succeeds, it'll be because groups of ordinary citizens like you and me will be keeping an eye on the authorities, because I do not trust them to regulate things properly without enough supervision from the outside.

I think that in the end, we'll both be right, to one degree or another. It's been an interesting discussion.
Re:i was thinking about them today... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-27 23:28 · Score: 2, Informative

The BNP's official line may be that they care about nationality not race, but a lot of the individual members are pure racists. I moved to the UK from Belgium, and during the last local elections the BNP candidate came to my house campaigning. I explained that I wouldn't be voting for him as his policies would lead to me being thrown out of the country, and his exact response was "you're alright, it's just the non-whites we're after".

(In case you are wondering how I could vote, for local elections all EU citizens can vote in the area where they are resident. It's just national elections that are different.)
Re:i was thinking about them today... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-27 23:31 · Score: 0

No, keep ID cards and militarized police with their guns away from our peaceful, naturally liberal spots.
I take exactly the opposite view here in the USA. I *want* a national ID and I want it to be federal law that it is required to produce that ID in order to vote. I'm sick of Americans bitching about how you can't require people to show ID at a polling place because not everyone has a photo ID. Fine, give everyone a photo ID... call it the voter ID or something, but we MUST verify that the people who are showing up at the polls are the people who they say they are. This election is turning out to be one of the most corrupt ever with huge amounts of fradulent voter registrations on the rolls from Democrats trying desperately to steal this election. That's criminal and we need a photo ID system to stop this shit. It has nothing at all to do with privacy but with you being able to prove that you are who you say you are.
Re:i was thinking about them today... by CountBrass · 2004-10-27 23:50 · Score: 1

Err no, you are NOT a British *citizen*: there's no such thing. You are a *subject* of the UK crown.

--
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
Re:i was thinking about them today... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-27 23:56 · Score: 0

Or to put that another way...

The (New Labour Party) is (the party of Government). By (not) being a (member of New Labour) you effectively exclude yourself from being either a teacher or a policeman. That's not to say there aren't (non-New Labour) police or teachers, but when they are found, they are got rid of. And being known (not) to be a member of the (New Labour Party) is a a way to identify such (deviants). Nothing wrong there, and no connection with an ID card.

See, It's easy innit??
Re:i was thinking about them today... by Mattsson · 2004-10-28 00:01 · Score: 1

But in what way do your national passport or national driverslicence differ from a national id-card?
All of them contain some sort of proof of your identity, right? And all of them are tied to one or more databases, that can contain any kind of information that could be used or missused by the goverment if they choose to.
Why would having an identity-card be so much more privacy-intruding than, for example, a passport?
If the goverment think that you are linked to an organisation that they do not like, you're probably allready in a database somewhere anyway.

--
/.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
Re:i was thinking about them today... by BasilBrush · 2004-10-28 00:21 · Score: 1

Actually, their "nightmare scenario" is already happening. People are already being recorded for their (extreme) political views. That isn't a facist state. People with extreme political views have always been watched and recorded in most developed contries. For centuries.
Re:i was thinking about them today... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-28 00:33 · Score: 1, Interesting

This is a common misconception. British subject status was abolished in 1981, except for those who do not have any other form of national citizenship. In fact, we've had UK citizenship since 1949, although citizens of Commonwealth countries were theoretically British Subjects as well. At some point this changed to 'Commonwealth Citizen' (as citizens of Commonwealth countries are still allowed to vote and stand for election in UK) and British Subject became just one of the several forms of British nationality.

Incidentally, it most definitely says "British Citizen' in every passport I've had since the early-1980s.
Re:i was thinking about them today... by BasilBrush · 2004-10-28 00:34 · Score: 1

I don't agree with every moral standard that is currently in fashion. How very presumptuous of you. Have you not just made a more wild assumption than people in the BNP are racist, even though they claim they aren't?
The fact is the BNP policy to send immigrants back to there place of origin only applies to "blacks, asians and gypsies". It's a racist policy. I've seen a documentary about the BNP which followed one of their top men, and he was very careful to sidestep any question which might reveal him as a racist. However he wasn't careful enough, and he was caught out being extremely racist when he thought the camera was switched off.
I appreciate your liberal desire to give people the benefit of the doubt. But it's misplaced here. There isn't any doubt as far as the BNP are concerned.
Re:i was thinking about them today... by trewornan · 2004-10-28 00:43 · Score: 1

To support the right of free speech of someone who wishes to take it away, for good, is hypocrisy
No, it's the test of someone who really supports free speech. People who support free speech except when somebody says something they don't like are hypocrites.
Re:i was thinking about them today... by BasilBrush · 2004-10-28 00:54 · Score: 1

Which again is not an argument against the ID card. In your nightmare scenario, the clincher would be whether you were a member of the governing political party or not. They wouldn't need a national ID card to establish that. The possetion or non-possetion of a party membership card would be enough to establish that. Or the presence on the membership list.
On the particulars of this case, your attempt at equivalence doesn't work. It's not the membership of the BNP that excludes them, it's being a racist. They'd be equally excluded if they were not a member of any party but were openly racist. Racism isn't simply another political viewpoint no better or worse than any other.
Re:i was thinking about them today... by AGMW · 2004-10-28 01:09 · Score: 1

What you are proposing is doing without something now, that has benefits now
Whilst I would have to admit to not liking the idea of ID Cards from a privacy/liberty standpoint, I'm also puzzled as to what the benefits are supposed to be for me personally or for society in general. It perfectly obvious what's in it for the Government!
Also, using the BNP as an example was probably not so great, because of the racism involved, but it is worth noting that they have been making reasonable inroads in some areas of the country and attracting people who are not necessarily racists. If there are people who currently support the BNP who are not racists (and I believe there are) then are they not just another political party with some unpleasant members (not unlike some of the other parties!).
As it happens, I really don't like what the racists overtones of the BNP manifesto, but I'm quite uncomfortable about not letting them speak because I believe in freedom of speach. It's not really a "Freedom of Speach" issue unless you disagree with what is being said!
A different example from a few years back. A friend of mine was signed up to the CND by some university mate for a laugh. He got some magazines sent to him. Nothing to worry about. It was pointed out to him that being a member of the CND might preclude him ever getting a job in certain circles - the MOD, for example, would frown somewhat on CND membership - and it then took him 6 months to get his name removed from the membership.
ID Cards will probably start with something useful like Name, Address, Gender, Age. I believe I have heard that they want your religion for some reason. How difficult is it going to be to add more personal information at a later date. Social Group, Political leanings or sexuality for example. At some point it is going to become apparent that by some clever data mining you will be able to identify a small section of the community who are dangerous for some reason and they will be rounded up.
I understand that there's a large handfull of paranoia in here, and I've no idea what the odds are of it coming true, but the head-in-the-sand mentality of those who are pushing us towards what feels like the edge of a cliff whilst denying that this is even a possibility somewhat scares me!

--
Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
handmadehands.co.uk
Re:i was thinking about them today... by mikerich · 2004-10-28 01:24 · Score: 1

We have all of the "good" points of your list and very little of the "bad" ones
Knowing nothing about Swedish constitutional law can I assume that the Swedish constitution lays out the fundamental rights of the citizen? Things like rights to privacy, association, religion that sort of thing?
Britain is practically unique in not having such a constitution. Whereas most of Europe and the US believe in positive rights - those that are fundamental and cannot be infringed, Britain has negative rights - you are allowed to do anything that is not forbidden by law - but no entitlements are protected from infringement by the government passing a law. We call this Parliamentary Supremacy and it is a very bad thing for democracy.
An Act of Parliament could be introduced which is utterly crazy, repressive or just plain evil - and it could not be overturned in the British Courts. If an extreme government gets into power - even with a slim majority they can do what they want without checks or balances applying.
The UK incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights through the 1998 Human Rights Act which should protect people from abuse of their rights.
However, the HRA specifically permits the government to introduce legislation which is in violation of the ECHR - provided they tell Parliament that it is such. The Courts are obliged to follow UK law over international law even in the case of direct conflict.
Where we do have some hope is if UK legislation conflicts with European Community legislation. The UK - as a member of the EU must incorporate European law into domestic law (which is done through the European Communities Act 1972.
EC legislation is supreme over UK law where there is a conflict. Fortunately, the EC has a sizeable body of law that protects people's rights in cases of discrimination, economic activities and movement. Which is something that never gets mentioned by all those people who want to take the UK out of Europe.
Best wishes,
Mike.
Re:i was thinking about them today... by Zemran · 2004-10-28 01:29 · Score: 1

Strange, I am a British citizen and know full well what I am and you tell me I am wrong. I was looking at my passport while I wrote my comment. Where do you get your fancifull ideas from, obviously not from anywhere worth reading. Maybe you should put down your Sesame Book of the World and get out and meet some real people.

--
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
Re:i was thinking about them today... by mikerich · 2004-10-28 01:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

What you guys seem to miss is that if the British government were replaced by a facist regime at some point in the future, not having an ID card won't help you. In that particular future, they'd still lock you up for speaking against the government, ID card or not. And they'd probably tattoo you with a bar code at the same time.
But an ID card system allows them to find you oh so much quicker than one without.
I can't recommend IBM and the Holocaust (Edwin Black, ISBN: 0316857718) highly enough for anyone even vaguely interested in the social effects of advanced technology. The book covers IBM's relationship with the Nazis through their German subsidiary.
During the 1930s many European countries were automating data for censuses and social provision. Almost all of these systems were based on IBM punchcard technology manufactured in Germany.
The Nazis loved censuses and openly included racial profiling on their punch cards. Other countries wanted to know about race, religion and occupation for benign purposes such as providing social services. The Dutch were at the forefront of this, wanting to make sure that everyone was given equal access to social services. So they innocently asked about individuals race - so as to ensure there was no discrimination.
When the Nazis rolled in to the Netherlands they grabbed all the census records and the punchcard machines. They then just ran the cards looking for Jews - and out popped all their addresses.
In short, 75% of Dutch Jews were murdered by the Nazis thanks to an extensive automated ID system. In France, which had similar levels of Jewish integration into the population, but no automation, 'only' 25% were killed.
That our politicians are prepared to go ahead with such a system despite this clear warning from history is terrifying. I'd say Blunkett was blind - but that might be in poor taste.
Best wishes,
Mike.
Re:i was thinking about them today... by mikerich · 2004-10-28 01:49 · Score: 2, Informative

I think the ID cards and the national database are going to happen anyway, so I hope you are right. But history of political leadership tells me that sooner or later, I will be right.
And don't just worry about the authorities - how about the people manning the system? Only this week an employee of the DVLA was found guilty of passing on addresses of people to animal rights activitists/terrorists.
Best wishes,
Mike.
Re:i was thinking about them today... by BasilBrush · 2004-10-28 01:54 · Score: 1

Lot's of interesting topics here!
The aims of the ID card from memory are: to cut down on fraud, to cut down on identity theft, to cut down on fraudulent benefit claims, to stop illegal immigrants accessing the welfare state. All of these things are for the good of the ordinary law abiding person, because they are the people that ultimately pay for all of this criminality.
I don't find it credible that people join a political party without having a clue what it's policies are. And the BNPs policies are racist. Someone who joins a racist party is a racist. Of course, they might seem at face value to be perfectly reasonable people. My grandma for example was a lovely lady in many ways, but she was a full on racist. Whilst I treated her as any grandson should, I wouldn't want her to have been a teacher or a policewoman.
As to the freedom of speech issue. The British do not have a constitutional right to free speech as the Americans do. Extreme racist talk in public can and is an arrestable offense as "incitement to racial hatred". It's funny that those who present racism as just another political viewpoint don't realise that the concept of freedom of speech is also just another political viewpoint. The notion that we should live in a society where speech is free is no more fundamental than the right to live in a society which is free from racism.
On the data mining issue. There is a huge amount of data that can be found out about an individual already by anyone. If I know your name, and roughly where you live, about £30 will buy me detailed information about who you are, who your family is, where you work, whether you have any debt problems, etc. The government can of course find out much more about you with data mining. It's a fact of life. The existance or non-existance of an ID card doesn't fundamentally change that. However it does make it less likely that the government will have incorrect data about you.
If you are really worried about a government keeping tabs on you, there's plenty of other things you should be avoiding. What are you doing on the internet giving your opinion? That could be used to provide evidence against you. What about your mobile phone. Records are kept you know. What about computerising the NHS? Surely it would be safer to stick with paper notes that doctors don't share. Really, if we allowed the possibility that something might be misused in some future nightmare scenario, we wouldn't make progress with anything.
Re:i was thinking about them today... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-28 02:09 · Score: 0

Maybe you shouldn't believe everything you read. Especially on government documents. We are all subjects.
Re:i was thinking about them today... by BasilBrush · 2004-10-28 02:28 · Score: 1

It was also the nazis that developed the concept of Autobahns. It made it much quicker to move stormtroopers around. Does that mean that autobahns and the motorways and interstates that are based on them are bad. Should we have never allowed them to be built in case of some future nightmare facist government got control in Britain or America?
What about rockets? They were developed by the nazis to kill civilians. Shouldn't rocket technology have been avoided?
The fact is that any technology could and would be taken advantage of by some future nightmare facist state. But that doesn't mean we should live in mud huts now just in case.
Re:i was thinking about them today... by mikerich · 2004-10-28 02:41 · Score: 1

The fact is that any technology could and would be taken advantage of by some future nightmare facist state. But that doesn't mean we should live in mud huts now just in case.
What it says is that when you've seen technology abused you either don't use it again or you place safeguards around it so that it cannot be misused.
Blunkettcards are being introduced with next to no protections. the system will be overseen by a judge appointed by and answerable to the Prime Minister - and not Parliament. People will not be able to see the access records to their card. There are no restrictions on what data will eventually be put on the card nor which organisations will be able to access the data. No procedures have been put in place to redress errors in the data, the use/abuse of the card. No consideration has been given to the effect on the Data Protection Act of sharing large amounts of data within organisations, within government and exporting the information...
A spot of constitutional law - written constitutions and bills of rights are there to prevent abuse of power by governments against the individual. We have almost no protection from government in the UK. So giving them more power over us is a bad thing.
Oh and the idea of the motorway came from Italy and rockets were first used in combat by the Chinese.
Best wishes,
Mike.
Re:i was thinking about them today... by BasilBrush · 2004-10-28 03:00 · Score: 1

What it says is that when you've seen technology abused you either don't use it again or you place safeguards around it so that it cannot be misused.
So, in what ways are motorways and rocket technology being safeguarded against misuse by a future facist government?
A spot of constitutional law - written constitutions and bills of rights are there to prevent abuse of power by governments against the individual.
Interesting that you have faith in a constitution. Why would you choose this particular government to be qualified to lay down principles that all future governments must follow? The mess that is the mass ownership of guns in America is down to the fact that the constitution was written at a time when gun ownership seemed like a good thing. Times change.
We have almost no protection from government in the UK. So giving them more power over us is a bad thing.
So are you against increasing the number of policemen? On the one hand, they are useful in combatting crime. On the oitherhand there's the possibility of them being misused as a political army against the people, as happened at Orgreave.
Oh and the idea of the motorway came from Italy and rockets were first used in combat by the Chinese.
And the ID card wasn't invented by the nazis. You can't seperate them on that flimsy basis. They were all used by the nazis to further their aims. As were airplanes and ships. Perhaps those should be banned too.
Re:i was thinking about them today... by computechnica · 2004-10-28 03:09 · Score: 1

Yes but to use a cheque in Britain you have to show a card from your bank that is basically a replacement for a ID card. In the US our drivers license number is used and verified by a computer in some places. Both systems have a similar burden of proof.

I have a US drivers license that does not have a photo on it due to being military. To avoid dimwit cashier confusion I use only cash or credit/debit cards.

--
Science is the Real TRUTH!
Re:i was thinking about them today... by bobbis.u · 2004-10-28 03:19 · Score: 1

Firstly, I can't believe I was moderated down just because I happened to make some points the tin-foil hat brigade didn't afree with.
Anyway, I will just pick up on a couple of points, because I should be working...
>I can't drive. I already have plenty of forms of ID which are accepted everywhere (credit cards, bank statements, utility bills, passport...)
The only form of ID you mentioned there is a passport. All the others just show that you have in your possession an object with a name on, which you say is yours. Not everyone has a passport. You also have to pay to get one. Current passports are easy to fake because they are trusted as a document in their own right, as opposed to being linked to a centralised database.
>on paedophiles...
I think you will agree that you should have to provide proof of who you are to get some jobs. There should be a form of ID that is highly secure in these cases, i.e. one which cannot be fooled without faking the card, and hacking into the database. And despite what people think, there are plenty of databases that are almost infallibly secure.
>Here's a clue: The problem with the numerous current forms of ID is not the IDs themselves- it's *people* who fail to follow the relevant procedures properly. We absolutely don't need ID cards, what we need is for people to be more responsible and to do their jobs properly. And, yes, to fix flaws in existing procedures. An ID card, or associated laws and punishments, can't and won't magically cause any of those things to happen.
I agree wholeheartedly with you that people are the problem with the current system. That is why I personally believe we would be much better off if we had a GOOD centralised, computer system. Once set up correctly, a computer never makes mistakes. Their beauty (in this case) is that they are inflexible. Everyone would be treated the same. A correctly configured system would only need a comparatively small infrastrucure of trusted people to be effective. Admittedly choosing those people would be a problem, but you don't hear many cases of wayward MI6 agents (I know there have been some). Safeguards would obviously be made to ensure no one person could do anything damaging.
Be clear that I was not arguing that this particular ID system would have been great. I was merely pointing out that ID cards are not inherently bad.
Re:i was thinking about them today... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-28 03:30 · Score: 0

Regardless of their abhorrent policies the BNP is a legitimate political party and people should not be excluded from employment for being a member of a legitimate political party.
Re:i was thinking about them today... by mikerich · 2004-10-28 03:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

So, in what ways are motorways and rocket technology being safeguarded against misuse by a future facist government?
Since you're obsessed with motorways, lets lay the autobahn myth to rest. Pre WW2 Germany had one of the lowest rates of car ownership in Europe, Volkswagen did not deliver a single car to the people before the outbreak of war and almost all freight continued to be moved by rail. The autobahn were designed from the start to move troops and tanks. The propaganda angle was that Germany was moving into the motor age. It didn't.
Access to rockets is (somewhat) controlled by a series of international agreements as are devices such as nuclear weapons, chemicals and biological agents. So they can be enforced through international law.
And try as I might I fail to see how a motorway can be used to persecute a particular member of society. An ID card can.
Interesting that you have faith in a constitution. Why would you choose this particular government to be qualified to lay down principles that all future governments must follow? The mess that is the mass ownership of guns in America is down to the fact that the constitution was written at a time when gun ownership seemed like a good thing. Times change.
A constitution does not usually lay down law - rather it confines actual laws saying what is and what is not permissible. And no, a constitution is not for all time - they have things called amendments (which is what you are citing when referring to Amendment 2 to the American Constitution). Constitutions can be changed - BUT - and here is the important bit - they have a principle called entrenchment - they cannot be overturned by a simple piece of legislation. The US Constitution can be amended at any time provided that there is majority support - not only in Congress but in at least two thirds of the states. Constitutions can be changed, but only when required. Provided you write a good constituion (which the founding fathers did) you have a good way of ruling.
And whilst I disagree with the tenate of the 2nd Amendment, I think it is a little presumptuous of us to say it should be changed when there is clearly little popular support for such a move. When (and I hope it is a when and not an if) the majority of Americans want to revoke the 2nd Amendment they have a procedure to do so.
Compare it to the UK if a government were to ban a fundamental right (an abstract term in British constitutional law) it could do so with a simple Act of Parliament (it'll be even easier if Blunkett gets his emergency powers bill through the Commons). And that's it - no judge can overturn it, no one can declare the law wrong, the European Court on Human Rights could scream but not overturn it, and provided it didn't breach the EC Treaty 1957, there is nothing the European Court of Justice can do either.
I find it hard to believe that there is an argument for not having a constitution.
So are you against increasing the number of policemen? On the one hand, they are useful in combatting crime. On the oitherhand there's the possibility of them being misused as a political army against the people, as happened at Orgreave.
There is nothing about increasing the number of police in my argument. If on the otherhand police were given new powers then my argument stands. We are policed by consent only - not by the imposition of powers.
Do you for instance support stop and search? Which has time and time again been used in a discriminatory way against young blacks and now young Asians? before you give anyone any power you should be certain that they will use it in a responsible manner and be held to account if they do not. The British government and the police are largely unaccountable to the population.
And the ID card wasn't invented by the nazis. You can't seperate them on that flimsy basis. They were all used by the nazis to further their aims. As were airplanes and ships. Perhaps those should be banned too.
Re:i was thinking about them today... by mcpheat · 2004-10-28 03:51 · Score: 1

Look at Hunting. They intend to use the Parliament act to force it through the Lords. Think about that for a moment. The Lords is a mechanism to prevent Parliament enacting bad law. The Parliament act is a way to overrule that check in an emergency - for example if the Lords is blocking a Finance act and so preventing the Govt doing anything. The hunting bill isn't an emergency.

This is nonsense. The Lords have no say on finance bills so the Parliament act would not be used. There is no requirement for an emergency to use the Parliament act and as it can only be used if the Lords twice block a Commons bill so any emergency in likely to be over by the time a bill could go through this procedure. The Parliament act is designed to unblock stalemates between the Commons and the Lords and ensure the supremacy of the elected house over the unelected one. The Commons have voted to ban hunting 7? times in the past 5 years so this is exactly the situation it was designed for.

However I still believe that this government is a bunch of facist control freaks.
Re:i was thinking about them today... by DuncMan · 2004-10-28 04:06 · Score: 1

You can have a "good centralised, computer system" if you want. All it will be is a single repository for information which already exists in various repositories. If people can't, don't or won't follow correct procedures for using the existing repositories, what makes you think they'll behave any differently with a new "good centralised, computer system"? True, computers never make mistakes. But people are the weak link here, and they'll still be part of any new system so a new system won't fix anything.

And don't forget, the average criminal is smarter, more inventive and much more motivated than the average non-criminal. Your "good centralised, computer system" will be cracked and compromised (and thus rendered unreliable and useless) within hours or days of going live, regardless of what 'security' measures are implemented, because it'll be such a high-profile high-value target. The ID cards will be forged too, because anything which can be manufactured and read can be copied and an ID card will be a similarly high-profile high-value target.

If you're being modded down then it's because you're wrong, not because people merely disagree with you.

And what if the "tin-foil hat brigade" are *right*..?
Re:i was thinking about them today... by TuataraShoes · 2004-10-28 04:32 · Score: 1

I didn't say that you agree with every fashionable moral. My point is that most people who think for themselves sometimes find themselves swimming against the tide. Those are the times that we need protected freedom from authorities that want to govern our private lives.

I used the BNP as an example of a legal group who is out of step with media fashion. I said several times that I disagree with them. I am not standing up for their policies. I am standing up for the legal expression of political opinions.

I've seen some pretty unsavoury documentary pieces about certain conservative and labour leaders, too. Some of them have ended up in prison. Some of them have been caught saying 'racist' stuff. But that doesn't mean that anyone who in associated with the same political party is equally crooked.

Since we think for ourselves, one day it may be your opinion or mine that is considered subversive. That's when it is bad to find that the government has a database of your activities and associations.

--
Surely in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird -- Proverbs 1:17
Re:i was thinking about them today... by BasilBrush · 2004-10-28 04:57 · Score: 1

They're not being. They're being excluded for being racist. If they could prove that they are members of the BNP but not racist then they wouldn't be excluded. But that would be quite difficult.
Re:i was thinking about them today... by Jeff+Kelly · 2004-10-28 05:07 · Score: 2, Informative

"Pre WW2 Germany had one of the lowest rates of car ownership in Europe, Volkswagen did not deliver a single car to the people before the outbreak of war and almost all freight continued to be moved by rail. The autobahn were designed from the start to move troops and tanks. The propaganda angle was that Germany was moving into the motor age."

That's just plain wrong. The very first Autobahn (as they are called in germany) was the AVUS in Berlin, which had been finished in 1921. The second one was built in Italy and was finished in 1923. Plans to build several more motorways in germany had been considered by the german government in the weimar republic but had to be postponed because the project couldn't be funded due to the high reparations payments to france and the economic downturn at the end of the 1920's.

What you most probably mean is the "Reichsautbahnen", which were built during the third reich. BUt all they did was to take the old plans from the weimar republic and make them real. The major difference between these and the original plans was that the nazis extended them to include more motorways than originally planned (By the start of the war 3.300 Kilometers had been completed. Preparations began in 1933 so it tokk them five years to build all that) and also to impose some kind of standard on the construction of them. But those motorways would to some extend have been built even if there had not been a nazi germany.

Jeff

It's alwa
Re:i was thinking about them today... by Harassed · 2004-10-28 05:14 · Score: 1

> But that doesn't mean that anyone who in associated with the same political party is equally crooked.

Oh come on! These are *politicians* we are talking about. Of course they are all equally crooked.

The only way to get non crooked politicians is to immediately ban anyone wanting to hold and public office from doing so. I'm afraid I have no idea what you'd replace them with though although some form of jury-style selection might work. Of course, this will never happen as the politicians will have to vote themselves out of a job!
Re:i was thinking about them today... by radish · 2004-10-28 05:26 · Score: 1

Wrong. This is a strangely common misconception. I am a British Citizen. It says so on my passport, it says so on my US Visa, and it says so on a number of other very official documents.

--
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
Re:i was thinking about them today... by cakefool · 2004-10-28 05:53 · Score: 2, Informative

I have lived in Bradford for 4 fears, which has a large asian population, with some large areas of white only and some asian only. When I once got lost in the asian only area I was chased - by a ricerboy civic, and only got away because I'm not stupid enough to lower my car and thus can handle speedbumps at 50mph.
Anyway - The BNP campaign came round to our house for the local elections and started trying to get my vote. I stood, arms folded and listened to this shaven headed, pierced chap waffling about my rights as the indigenous(sp?) population. He wafled so long that he was still there when the landlord turned up(Asian) for the(late) rent. The BNP chap spat at him and kicked his car as he stormed off. I have met 5-7 BNP members, and they were all incredibly racist, as were the 20 or so BNP voters I knew.
In short, I have seen both halves of this racism, and The BNP is a joke - any rational person knows what they are about.
Re:i was thinking about them today... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-28 06:40 · Score: 0

OOO OOO OOO They tell you you're a citizen and you believe them?!?

Check out the way 'citizens' are treated, particularly those with minority status of any kind, and then tell me that we're not all just subjects really.
Re:i was thinking about them today... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-28 06:59 · Score: 0

Look at Hunting. They intend to use the Parliament act to force it through the Lords. Think about that for a moment. The Lords is a mechanism to prevent Parliament enacting bad law. The Parliament act is a way to overrule that check in an emergency - for example if the Lords is blocking a Finance act and so preventing the Govt doing anything. The hunting bill isn't an emergency. Regardless of it's merits either way, it's not an emergency. What it is, is politically necessary for Tony Blair to keep control of activists in his party. Not the same thing.
If a bill has failed to go through the House of Lords five times and the government keeps trying to pass it they obviously think it is important, the house of Commons is the elected body and by historical precedent(for the last 70 odd years anyway) always gets its way it is not the function of the house of Lords to continually block the same bill from the Commons. To me this is the abuse of the system not the Commons trying to get a law passed for the last three years. If you disagree the best course of action is to persuade your friends and family of your point of view and start a letter writing campaign the only thing an mp is scared of is not getting re elected.
For the record I am pro hunting.
Re:i was thinking about them today... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · 2004-10-28 07:05 · Score: 1

People with extreme political views have always been watched and recorded in most developed contries. For centuries.

Yes, but now you can get a list of all members of a particular party or religion with their addresses included, along with recordings of anything objectionable that they've said. I would imagine that this is rather novel.

--
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Re:i was thinking about them today... by dizzyduck · 2004-10-28 10:09 · Score: 1

Yes but to use a cheque in Britain you have to show a card from your bank that is basically a replacement for a ID card.

It's called a cheque guarantee card; when paying by cheque in stores you need to produce it to "guarantee" that the cheque will be paid. It's perfectly possible to use cheques without a cheque guarantee card (e.g. mail order). The card isn't really an ID card at all - it's your debit (or if you prefer, ATM) card.

--
Allergy advice: Contains eggs.
Re:i was thinking about them today... by BasilBrush · 2004-10-28 11:37 · Score: 1

Of course. Technology moves on relentlessly. But you can get that list and those recordings that with or without the existance of ID cards. You can get that now, when we don't have and ID cards yet.
Re:i was thinking about them today... by BasilBrush · 2004-10-28 12:31 · Score: 1

Since you're obsessed with motorways, lets lay the autobahn myth to rest.
I use autobahns because history of arguing the point shows it's a killer argument. You can't logically pull the "what if there is a facist government" argument about ID cards and not also argue that there shouldn't be any autobahns/motorways.
Hey if you don't like that one, try trains. They were used to transport Jews tro the gas chamber. Without trains, the ultimate solution could not have worked in the way it did. So if one shouldn't have ID cards because they made it easier to ound up Jews, then one shouldn't have railways either.
Access to rockets is (somewhat) controlled by a series of international agreements as are devices such as nuclear weapons, chemicals and biological agents. So they can be enforced through international law.
I didn't say missiles, I said rockets. The X-prize demonstrates that pretty much anyone in a free country can build rockets, subject to health and safety rules.
And try as I might I fail to see how a motorway can be used to persecute a particular member of society. An ID card can.
No more and no less than an ID card. If the storm troppers are in London, and you are in Oxford, the storm troppers can get to you quicker on the Motorway, but thay could still get to you in a more inconvinient way without. Likewise, they can identify you more easily with an ID card, but they can identify you anyway without one.
I'll drop the constitution issue. This discussion about ID cards is wide enough without following down that path.
Do you for instance support stop and search? As it currently is, yes. The British government and the police are largely unaccountable to the population.
I agree. However that doesn't advance the cause against ID cards. If a future facist government came to power, the pre-existance or not of ID cards would not matter very much either way. The government already has all the information about you.
Those people who argue that 'the only people who have anything to fear are those who have something to hide' can be proved demonstrably ignorant.
Straw man. I accept that ID cards could be used by a future nightmare facist state. But then so could all other forms of technology and information. It is no reason for not taking advantage of them now.
Your argument appears to be that since we haven't had a fascist government in the UK (which is possibly why we are being so complacent about the scheme) we shouldn't do anything to check future abuses of power. Which borders on irresponsibility.
No it isn't my argument, and you could never logically get that impression from anything that I've written. It's another straw man. Which borders on dishonesty.
You don't work for the Home Office do you?
No, but I once worked for a local education authority. But that had no effect on my belief that ID cards provide more benefits now than possible dark threats for the future. Technology is neutral, it can all be used for good or bad. I don't belive in holding technology back just because it might one day possibly be used by someone for bad, if it can be used for good right now. I find paranoia doesn't make for good policy.
Re:i was thinking about them today... by AGMW · 2004-11-01 01:56 · Score: 1

This is all kind of old now, but I shall reply anyway.
The aims of the ID card from memory are: to cut down on fraud, to cut down on identity theft, to cut down on fraudulent benefit claims, to stop illegal immigrants accessing the welfare state
That is what the Government have said the aims are. I do not believe that it will cut down on any of the above in any real terms. In any such battle, the criminals may be termporarily thwarted but they will rally round and find some new way to exploit the ID card in their favour.
I don't find it credible that people join a political party without having a clue what it's policies are.
Oh boy! Did you not watch the BBC documentary on the BNP in Yorkshire? Frankly it scares me that these people are allowed to breed [joking], but they are out there. I'm not aware of what the BNP policies are, but I thought it was something about repatriation and closing the borders to new immigrants. The current Labour government has limits on new arrivals which is only different by degrees. Someone who joins a racist party, who knows it is a racist party, is a racist, but as I mentioned above, I believe there are people who do not see the BNP as racist, and there are most certainly people who vote for a party without knowing what their policies are!
Data mining
I know information can be found out at the moment, but as you say, if one wishes to fall off the radar one could decide to do so. Once we have an ID card based system, this becomes far more difficult.
I hope you're right, I really do. Its just that I get the feeling that the Goverment are NOT trying (again!) to introduce ID cards for our benefit and at this point in time I'd rather they didn't force it through, costing us billions of tax pounds into the bargin!

--
Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
handmadehands.co.uk
Re:i was thinking about them today... by BasilBrush · 2004-11-01 05:01 · Score: 1

I'm a native of Bradford, W. Yorks. The BNP in Bradford is openly racist I can assure you. They contined on in the tradition of the National Front. No one can be a member of the BNP in Bradford and not be fully aware they are in a racist organisation.
I hope you're right, I really do. Its just that I get the feeling that the Goverment are NOT trying (again!) to introduce ID cards for our benefit
Then for who's benefit? It's clearly not populist issue, so it's not a vote winner. So unless you can find any hint of backhanders going on, I fail to see that they aren't doing what they see as best for the country.
costing us billions of tax pounds into the bargin!
Unless you've done some calculations, that's a hell of an assumption. There's an awful lot of money wasted on fraud, both benefit fraud and other kinds. You are paying for benefit fraud right now through taxation, and you are paying for many other sorts of fraud in the prices you have to pay for goods. It's an enormous amount of money flowing from honest people to crooks. Whether the ID Card will save enough money to cover costs is an open question. In my view it's worthwhile even if it gets close, purely because it's worth some money to prevent or catch crooks.
Re:i was thinking about them today... by AGMW · 2004-11-01 21:45 · Score: 1

Still reading the thread ... wow!
Bradford BNP ... from the BBC documentary I got the distinct feeling that they were hoodwinking some people into supporting them by varying the message in their flyers to target existing local unrest. Obviously, as a local, I shall have to bow to your superior knowledge on that one. I was up around Dewsbury myself over the Weekend visiting relatives and the whipping up of social disquiet is doubley (is that a word?) sad in an area that is otherwise so friendly. Mind you, anywhere's going to appear friendly to a soft southerner!
Backhanders ... [adjusts tinfoil bowler] Governments tend to want more power, ostensibly to make it easier to run the country, help the people, etc. ID Cards gives them more power, and it is the the power that they crave. I could be convinced that they think that it will benefit society, but this crowd have not done anything recently (if at all!) that would indicate they have anything other than eyes on their own security of tenure. A political party (these days) is trying to get in, and stay in, power, otherwise they wouldn't argue against the current government when in opposition, and swap sides and argue for the very same things once elected! They didn't train the troups they sent to Iraq because it could have cause political trouble while they were pretending to listen to people's objections to the war putting the troops in extra danger for political ends. Unforgivable!
Billions ... From a BBC article The £3bn cost of ID cards .... There is a lot of money wasted of fraud (and elsewhere [cough]expenses[cough]) and there's no way that the Government is going to manage to bring this project in on time and within budget!
If it managed to stop the fraud then I could be convinced that it would pay for itself. So the question is "will ID cards stop fraud?" and my (perhaps weak!) argument is that I don't think it will. I'm happy to admit that it may reduce fraud for a while, but unless the rules governing the use of ID Cards are incredibly draconian (eg ID checked all the time when doing anything and everything) it simply will not stop it. I'd like to bet that fake UK ID cards will arrive before everyone in the UK gets the real ones.
I agree that it is worth something to catch crooks, but I'd say that the 3+bn UKP could be better spent on the existing Police force and achieve a far better return on the investment.

--
Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
handmadehands.co.uk

I'm blindist! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-27 17:33 · Score: 0

This sounds terrible - but I've always thought that a guy who couldn't see wouldn't really be able to grasp the full privacy implications of any aspects of government policy.

Re:I'm blindist! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-27 17:41 · Score: 0

Yeah! B/c the guy is blind means he can't conceptualize privacy. Asshat!
Re:I'm blindist! by niittyniemi · 2004-10-27 20:19 · Score: 2, Interesting

> This sounds terrible - but I've always thought that a guy who
> couldn't see wouldn't really be able to grasp the full privacy
> implications of any aspects of government policy.

My problem with a blindman being in charge of a large government
department is that he can't possibly assess all the data necessary to
come to a competent decision - he quite literally can't see what is
going on around him!

I am yet to see any sort of article in any sort of media about whether
Blunkett is fit to be a government minister. Something that needs
serious discussion....without accusations of prejudice being bandied about.

The national ID scheme will be a waste of money and bypassed by
villains. Even by Blunkett's best estimates only 99 out of 100 people
will likely have an ID card. If you are a terrorist you are not
going to get one and if you do it will be somebody elses. That defeats
any purpose the ID scheme may have.

I recommend Dr Ross Anderson's written submission to the Home Affairs commitee as further reading.

Choice quote:

There are good reasons why the typical citizen currently has a number
of cards, keys and other access tokens. Cramming more function into a
token makes it more liable to failure, more complex to maintain, a
more attractive target for forgers, and a greater threat to privacy.

--
The Machine stops.
Re:I'm blindist! by pklong · 2004-10-27 21:19 · Score: 1

No, it's not blindist, it's ignorant.

There are plenty of able bodied MP's who make completely stupid decisions. Think about all the millenium projects or the poll tax. Think about Tony Blair supporting Dubbya's war against saddam (those protests were truely massive).

There is a party for people like you. Were you can victimise people because they are a little different to you. Its called the British Nat^W National Party.

--
Philip
Signatures are broken
Re:I'm blindist! by Alioth · 2004-10-27 22:25 · Score: 1

Actually, if you are a terrorist you are likely to have a valid and correct ID card so you can blend in with the crowd. The Sept.11 attackers all used valid ID.

ID is only worthwhile for tracking terrorists if they have already committed an act or been caught or otherwise fingered. In the case of suicide bombers, by definition their attack will usually be their first and last, it's pretty much pointless.

--
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Re:I'm blindist! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-27 23:42 · Score: 0

It isn't his blindness I have the problem with, it's his blinkers.
Re:I'm blindist! by kraut · 2004-10-28 01:21 · Score: 1

The problem with Blunkett is not that he's blind, but that he's a control freak wanker.

As for the nice quote: When did the government ever listen to people who actually know what they are talking about? Viz. the R.I.P bill...

--
no taxation without representation!

This doesn't seem like a new conclusion by MagicDude · 2004-10-27 17:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

There was an old british show called Yes Minister. It was on the air from 79-81, and it was about a newly apointed minister in the british government (like a cabinet secretary in the US), and satired how politics ran, with pandering and incompetitant politicians and the civil service who really ran the show, but had to make the politicians feel like they were in charge and so on. It's quite funny. Anyways, back in 1980, they were discussing the creation of this national database and they had already run though how it was going to be a disaster and nobody would like it and such. It's interesting how when they could see the problems that would arise from this system 24 years ago and spoof it on TV, that it would take to long for the government to catch up to the BBC.

Re:This doesn't seem like a new conclusion by aaza · 2004-10-27 17:49 · Score: 4, Funny

Reminds me of a conversation between Sir Humphrey and Sir Desmond (both of "Yes, Minister")
Sir Desmond Glazebrook : Surely once a Minister has made his decision, that's it, isn't it?
Sir Humphrey Appleby : What on earth gave you that idea?
Sir Desmond Glazebrook : Surely a decision is a decision.
Sir Humphrey Appleby : Only if it is the decision you want. If not it is just a temporary setback.
I want to know if this decision is a decision, or a temporary setback.
quote found on imdb's "Yes, Minister" quotes section

--
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, however, there is.
Re:This doesn't seem like a new conclusion by isometrick · 2004-10-27 18:12 · Score: 0

Sattire does make you feel better, though. Makes you feel good that at least a few other people see the problems.

But maybe that just discourages change even more ...
Re:This doesn't seem like a new conclusion by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-27 19:04 · Score: 2, Interesting

Not quite. Whilst Americans might believe that any government owned organisation does nothing but back up the government, those of us elsewhere no otherwise. The BBC, and Australia's ABC, whilst being government owned, have a hell of a lot of control over their own affairs. Here in Austrlia, the ABC, along with SBS (our multi-cultural channel), of our media organisations, are by far the most likely to be unbiased in their coverage of events. Hell, there's a lot of content on both that's incredibly critical of our government - content that none of the commercial channels would even consider showing.
Re:This doesn't seem like a new conclusion by DJCF · 2004-10-27 19:32 · Score: 1

Damn good show. Very funny. Apparently, it was Margret Thatcher's favorite program.
Re:This doesn't seem like a new conclusion by DJCF · 2004-10-27 19:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

Agreed. Want an example of that? The War between the BBC and our Government over Iraq. It claimed the life of David Kelly and the jobs of a whole legion of BBC managers from the reporter who broke the story up to the BBC's managing directors.

I think the BBC is pretty independant.
Re:This doesn't seem like a new conclusion by AGMW · 2004-10-27 20:18 · Score: 1

it was Margret Thatcher's favorite program
... so much so that she actually wrote a sketch ...
The Thatcher Script

--
Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
handmadehands.co.uk
Re:This doesn't seem like a new conclusion by doodlelogic · 2004-10-27 20:23 · Score: 1

A temporary setback

At least in the sense that each tiime Blunkett punts the idea out to his civil service advisers, they seem to come up with more reasons why the idea is bunkum.
Re:This doesn't seem like a new conclusion by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-27 20:25 · Score: 2, Informative

Well, it's an arm or subsidiary of the government, at least.

It is neither of those things. Must we have the same silly conversation every time the BBC is mentioned on Slashdot? If you can't grasp the concept of a Crown Corporation and the mandate which enables the BBC and the TV Licencing Authority then please just be quiet in future.
Re:This doesn't seem like a new conclusion by Alioth · 2004-10-27 20:31 · Score: 1

Yes Minister also covered a compulsory European identity card, and how Hacker managed to use it as a gambit to stop his department from being disbanded.

--
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Re:This doesn't seem like a new conclusion by iBod · 2004-10-27 21:02 · Score: 3, Insightful

It seems to me that the BBC is one of the few parts of the British media that is challenging the govenment at all.

Saw an excellent BBC documentary last night called "The Power of nightmares" which shows how the right has manufactured 'imaginary enemies' and exagerated threats (we all know which ones) so that they can tighen their grip on power.

Hardly toeing the government line is it?
Re:This doesn't seem like a new conclusion by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-27 23:39 · Score: 1, Interesting

what is odd is that it's the fact that the BBC is *not* the British goverment which enables it to have
an audience abroad. so it's hardly a secret across Africa and Asia, for example, where it's given respect. only Americans with what appears to be a very black and white view of the role of the state have any difficulty understanding.
Re:This doesn't seem like a new conclusion by jez9999 · 2004-10-28 00:10 · Score: 1

That doesn't excuse the licence fee.

--
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Re:This doesn't seem like a new conclusion by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-28 00:46 · Score: 0

I think the creators of 'Yes Minister' actually said they got many of their ideas for the show from the politics of the 1950s, which demonstrates how little changes indeed.
Re:This doesn't seem like a new conclusion by meringuoid · 2004-10-28 08:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

Saw an excellent BBC documentary last night called "The Power of nightmares" which shows how the right has manufactured 'imaginary enemies' and exagerated threats
Did you see last week's episode? They've been doing it for a long time. Apparently the neocon cabal had a go at this sort of thing in the seventies. First off, they decided that the CIA wasn't doing its job properly. So they had their own people go over the data as well. What did they come up with? A whole lot of Soviet superweapons that were so tremendously secret that there was no evidence for their existence at all! That was the frightening part - the neocons KNEW the Soviets had all kinds of secret weapons, so the fact that they could hide them so well, and put on this totally convincing act of being behind in the arms race, was a shock.
First lesson learned: bullshitting about nonexistent weapons can help your political goals.
Later, one of their political sympathisers came to be head of the CIA. At the time, the big story, popularised in some alarming book or other, was that the Soviets were behind every terrorist organisation worldwide. ALL of them. A report was demanded from the CIA, which had to prove that this was indeed true. The intelligence analysts were amazed. 'But it isn't true,' they replied. 'But look at all the evidence,' said the neocons. Most of this evidence turned out to actually be the CIA's own propaganda... but hey, you do as the boss says. Report produced, Soviets denounced as Evil Empire.
Second lesson learned: the intelligence services can always be bullied into producing a report that matches your propaganda needs.
Who's this 'they' I'm referring to, btw? Just a generic 'neocons' or 'the right'? No. The same few names throughout. Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle... all Bush's minders. The same damn cabal all the time. It's enough to make you start wondering if maybe there isn't something to all this conspiracy crap about Illuminati...
And yes, it's plain enough that the BBC doesn't toe the government line. They're never going to admit defeat over Hutton. Have you seen the recent storylines on Spooks?
Advice to future PMs: don't fuck with the BBC...

--
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.

Moral: Liberty by BrianGa · 2004-10-27 17:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

It just goes to show that there are a lot of nice sounding reasons for us to give up some freedom and have it nickled and dimed to death, but there is one main reason to keep freedom and that is freedom. Unlike these other things, liberty is an end in itself - it derives from the fact that people are creatures of choice and not like the animals. There is no such thing as too much liberty ... it would be like saying that science is too rational.

Re:Moral: Liberty by vijayiyer · 2004-10-27 17:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

Alas, this is a dying concept. Ask your average person on the street about a national ID card, and they use the "if you've got nothing to hide..." justification. Nowadays, people like to err on the side of perceived safety rather than liberty, and I fear the days of true liberty are numbered (or perhaps already gone). The unfortunate fact is that the pioneers of personal freedom would nowadays be branded as extremist [right/left] wing ideologues.
Re:Moral: Liberty by Goosey · 2004-10-27 17:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

A favorite quote of mine:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

I agree with this dead dude, btw

--
--- "End Of Line" - MCP
Re:Moral: Liberty by Zinoc · 2004-10-27 17:52 · Score: 1

HMS Liberty was already sunk many years ago. People are now just wondering what happened to the old girl.
Re:Moral: Liberty by Timesprout · 2004-10-27 18:07 · Score: 1

There is no such thing as too much liberty

You obviously dont have kids. Jokes aside though there must be limits to everything, including liberty or we are straight into anarchy which is not all that good for us either. There must be a certain balance and regulation in society or else it implodes. The difficulty is in finding the balance that protects society without excessive constraint while at the same time ensuring that the system guardians cant easily overide the mechanisms for their own ends.

Nominally this is the purpose of democracy. Unfortunately nowadays politics has become an end in and of itself and political immorality together with the apathy of the masses is removing the last remaining checks and balances. Soon we will have the 'liberty' we deserve.

--
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
Re:Moral: Liberty by -brazil- · 2004-10-27 20:26 · Score: 1

Nice quote, but usually thrown around with little reflection on what liberties are essential and what safety is little or temporary. Sometimes these pesky adjectives are even omitted entirely.

People in countries with mandatory ID cards generally find this big hoo-ha about them unfathomable and/or amusing.

--
The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.
--Henry Kissinger
Re:Moral: Liberty by 16K+Ram+Pack · 2004-10-27 21:16 · Score: 1

Put this to them...
"So, as you've got nothing to hide, you won't mind me putting cameras in your bedroom and bathroom, then".
Sadly, such concepts of liberty are not strong in the UK because there is no-one in politics or the media with a libertarian standpoint. Even the Tories, who have played the "liberty" card over Fox hunting often fail to do so in other areas. Because most politicians are professional politicians now, they are a bunch of cowards.
Re:Moral: Liberty by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-27 21:29 · Score: 0

In a civilised society there is always a balance between individual freedoms and the overall good of society. If we had unlimited personal freedom to do entirely as we wished without fear of the likely repercussions we would live in anarchy. In order for society to run smoothly and be fair for the majority, we have to sacrifice a certain degree of personal freedom. Just where that balance lies is something we are still figuring out...
Re:Moral: Liberty by 16K+Ram+Pack · 2004-10-27 21:34 · Score: 1

Absolutely. Sometimes you have to protect certain groups from exploitation (although that doesn't stop TV from being allowed to advertise junk food and boy bands).
However, there's an attitude in government that people should be protected from themselves, led by a dumb press with politicians who are cowards. Government gets involved in all sorts of things, like the price of soft drinks in pubs, instead of leaving it to the market. It's based on an idea that people can't be educated, informed or trusted to make their own decisions.
Worst of all, once you start down the "people need looking after" track, it gets worse and worse.
Re:Moral: Liberty by WoodenRobot · 2004-10-27 23:21 · Score: 1

"So, as you've got nothing to hide, you won't mind me putting cameras in your bedroom and bathroom, then".
I always respond to this "If I've done nothing wrong, then I don't need to be watched."
A government that automatically that spies on the populace 'just in case' is a government that is making the assumption you're a criminal in the making.

--
---
"I did nothing. I did absolutely nothing and it was everything that I thought it could be."
Re:Moral: Liberty by turgid · 2004-10-28 01:03 · Score: 1

Even the Tories, who have played the "liberty" card over Fox hunting often fail to do so in other areas.
People have short memories. I was 5 when the Tories came to power. They didn't get deposed until I had grown up, graduated from university and got my first proper career job.
Michael Howard (current Tory leader and in all probability, next UK Prime Minister) was their last Home Secretary. He was every bit as bad as David Blunkett, and used to spin about how we lived in a "modern, liberal democracy."
A liar and a hypocrite (and an Authoritarian), just like all the other politicians, Labour and Conservative (Tory) alike.

--
Stick Men
Re:Moral: Liberty by Fulcrum+of+Evil · 2004-10-28 07:49 · Score: 1

Ask your average person on the street about a national ID card, and they use the "if you've got nothing to hide..." justification.

Heh. Everybody's got something.

--
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"

Re:Bringing this back to the America's topic by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-27 17:41 · Score: 0

I hope Kerry is popular abroad, especially if he thinks the German and French Armies are going to take the US' place in Iraq.

Re:ID cards = bad idea by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-27 17:43 · Score: 1, Funny

I know it maybe hard you USA-type folk to understand but, the world is not a part of the US but the US a part of the world.
The drinking age in the UK is 18 not 21!

Re:ID cards = bad idea by BeeRockxs · 2004-10-27 17:43 · Score: 1

Even with compulsary ID cars here in germany, I've never had a bartender ask me if I'm older than 16.
Heh.

Differs from a drvier's license, how? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-27 17:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

I already have an ID that I carry everywhere. It is called a driver's license.

I don't see how an National ID card changes anything. Especially for a country like the UK where the driver's licenses are issued by the national government.

So one want to explain (in relation to driver's licenses):
1) How this costs me any freedom I haven't already given up?
2) How this is supposed to stop terrorism?

OK, if you want to solve other problems like (a) long haul truck drivers having multiple IDs to avoid insurance/ticket issues, or (b) the fact that we are running out of Social Security numbers and will have to assign babies the numbers of dead people, I am OK with solving things like that.

And, if it is just one more card I have to carry in my already crowded wallet (thank you gorcery store loyalty cards) ... well, then F' that.

But I fail to see how this is the end of the world or the world's saviour.

Re:Differs from a drvier's license, how? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-27 18:19 · Score: 0

Especially for a country like the UK where the driver's licenses are issued by the national government.

The UK is part of the EEA, and driving licenses issued in other EEA countries are valid here. National legislation attempts to restrict that to settlement date plus three years for newcomers, but it has never been tested in court. Given that EEA licenses are issued by 20-odd different governments with different systems it would be easy to slip in under the radar and stay out of UK databases.
Re:Differs from a drvier's license, how? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-27 18:40 · Score: 0

Hey, I learned somehting today.
BTW, whats the EEA?
Re:Differs from a drvier's license, how? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-27 19:37 · Score: 0

EEA means the European Economic Area, the old name for the EU. But is it really possible to get a driver's licence from another country without being resident there?
Re:Differs from a drvier's license, how? by mogglestein · 2004-10-27 19:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

Because if you dont drive, you dont need a drivers licence. I walk around every day and don't carry any document that can legally prove my ID. Those rare days that I need to legally prove who I am (opening a new bank account for example, something I've only done twice in my life, or flying to some place, usually about twice a year) I take my passport. The police have (as far as I know) no legal right to stop me and demand that I prove who I am. Even with drivers licences I believe that if you get stopped without yours whilst driving you have 5 days to turn up at the police station with your licence in hand. Most people I think want ID for conveniance, since they percieve more and more places are requiring legal ID (how many bank accounts do you open a week?), security and fraud protection are rather woolly issues most people seem to see as more of a nother argument for rather than a personal pressing issue, where is conveniance is more personal issue. If this makes sense.
Re:Differs from a drvier's license, how? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-27 19:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

Being a yank this will probally blow your mind but...

A *hugh* proportion of people in England DO NOT DRIVE.

The reasons for this are pretty understandable.

Petrol in England is really expensive, at around four times what it is in America. There is a reason why Europeans do not drive SUV and prefer same economy numbers like a Golf etc.

Traffic congestion is a major problem, with london being in almost constant gridlock and there being almost nowhere to park anyway.

There just isn't the association with, driving == freedom, or driving == coming of age, that Americans seem to have. Partly because of the above reasons but also because it is a completly different culture in England with sad wankers like trainspotters taking the place of rice boyz etc. Even though the public transport system is a nightmare (although I have never used public transport in America).

And Distances are not that great anyway. You could probally travel from the northest point of England to the south in a couple of days depending on whether you count Scotland or not.

Saying that a ID card is not needed in England because everyone drives and hense has a drivers license is like saying that they should have built Windsor castle closer to the airport. Not everywhere is some cultural bastardisation of American, Yet. /me sniffs and turns up his nose
Re:Differs from a drvier's license, how? by TuataraShoes · 2004-10-27 20:26 · Score: 4, Informative

You don't mind having to identify yourself on demand?!

Then why did you post as an Anonymous Coward?

--
Surely in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird -- Proverbs 1:17
Re:Differs from a drvier's license, how? by Alioth · 2004-10-27 20:36 · Score: 2

It differs from a driving license because:

1. In the UK, even when driving, you don't have to carry your license. It would be an offence not to carry your ID card if compulsory - this means everyday forgetfulness can easily be a criminal offence.
2. You don't have to drive. Many people in the UK don't, and therefore don't have a driving license or passport. At the moment, the only people who this really impacts are those who look like they might be under 18 going to buy alcohol. However, even if you didn't drive, the ID card would be compulsory and it would be mandatory to carry it with you.
3. Inconvenience. Cycling and running clothing often has no pockets.
4. Cost. A drivers license is optional (especially where there is reasonable public transport). The costs for this all singing all dancing biometric ID will be quite high. Guess who has to pay - YOU do. For something that is essentially pointless.

--
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Re:Differs from a drvier's license, how? by deadbadger · 2004-10-27 20:43 · Score: 1

Differences:
1) National biometric database. If you were just being asked to tootle down the police station for fingerprinting, would you be so unconcerned? Because that is what is necessary for this scheme.
2) Production on demand. You can be stopped in the street and have your ID demanded of you. If you do not produce it within X days at a police station, you are breaking the law.
There are many more differences, but these are the enormous ones. As Blunkett himself says, the difference is not the card, it is that the legislation means the police will have the power to make you prove that you're not "up to no good". Of course, it doesn't even do this; it just proves you have a card, but never mind. When did it become incumbent upon me to prove my good nature?
Ask yourself this: if there were truly no significant difference between a driving licence and an ID card, why are we spending billions of pounds on the latter? This is a licence not to drive, but simply to live in our own country. IMHO, the government should exist at our convenience, and not vice versa.
Re:Differs from a drvier's license, how? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-27 20:45 · Score: 0

this is purely to keep those lazy civil servants employed.
Re:Differs from a drvier's license, how? by jeremyp · 2004-10-27 20:47 · Score: 1

This post is actually partly bullsh*t.

Most adults in the UK do drive.

SUV's are popular although not as popular in the US.

Scotland has never counted as part of England. For some reason the Scots always seem to get upset when we English refer to the whole island as "England".

Scotland certainly does count as part of the UK and the northern most tip of the UK is a little less than a thousand miles from the furthest extremity to the South.

--
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
Re:Differs from a drvier's license, how? by Gordonjcp · 2004-10-27 20:50 · Score: 1

You could probally travel from the northest point of England to the south in a couple of days depending on whether you count Scotland or not.

Scotland isn't in England.
Re:Differs from a drvier's license, how? by SenseiLeNoir · 2004-10-27 20:59 · Score: 1

There is a "Prove It" ID card that can be obtained by 18+ year olds who do not look 18, in order to buy Alcohol. Again, its entirely optional.

--
Have a nice day!
Re:Differs from a drvier's license, how? by Oddly_Drac · 2004-10-27 20:59 · Score: 4, Interesting

"The police have (as far as I know) no legal right to stop me and demand that I prove who I am."

They do, depending on the circumstances.

"Even with drivers licences I believe that if you get stopped without yours whilst driving you have 5 days to turn up at the police station with your licence in hand."

A 'producer' is a slip of paper that has boxes ticked to indicate what documents you have to take to a police station within 7 days of being given it. I've gotten away with 10 days and a telling off.

"Most people I think want ID for conveniance, since they percieve more and more places are requiring legal ID"

No, generally they want proof of address; this then links to the Experian credit database and the electoral register (which Experian have full access to, but most other companies do not...a recent change to mean 'opting out' of the sold copy of the electoral register is now possible). Proof of address is as simple as a utility bill. You'd be surprised how many times a Passport is refused as ID.

As for 'ID as convenience', this is a fairly daft idea that completely ignores the problem of government misuse of databases, or even the idea that the government _can_ maintain a very large database after the style of Envision, the TV License people. Who, incidentally, evade the Data Protection Act.

"security and fraud protection"

Of course, the chip and pin proponents completely fail to realise that it shifts liability from the merchant to the consumer, so instead of the supposedly superior method of having someone check the signature on the back of the card with the actual signature (which is still the accepted method for cheques worldwide), they've gone for 9^4 combination with a private key that relies on nobody shoulder-surfing in a store.

Likewise, the Biometric card identifies the person holding it. To suggest that the technologies used in such a card wouldn't be duplicatable within a couple of months of rollout is to ignore the fact that our 'new' passport design was faked within 2 weeks of unveiling, and you can _still_ obtain a chain of documentary evidence for a false persona given the desire, money and tools.

This is essentially the backdoor to the desired gene/fingerprint database that gives Blunkett the giggles and it's this that has earned him Big Brother awards galore. The man has _introduced_ 270 offences over the term of the present government, and is one of the reasons I'm questioning my socialism.

--
Oddly Draconis
Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.
Re:Differs from a drvier's license, how? by R.Caley · 2004-10-27 21:01 · Score: 1

I already have an ID that I carry everywhere. It is called a drivers license.
That you do carry it with you is not the same as if you had to. You don't even have to have one.
And the driver's licence is connected to a quite limited (and by all accounts crap) database which doesn't doesn't have the ability to connect it to everything else about you.
Of course, even a limited ID and database can and will lead to bad consequences. A man was sent to prison last week for using his position at the DVLA to pass on the names and addresses of the drivers of cars which were seen visitig a farm to animal rights loonies, who then started to terrorise the families involved.
Scale that up to a database linking your car licence to your government issued ID to your bank details to your health records to your school records, to the register of who is related to you by births/deaths/marriage or because you mentioned them on a tax return to your membership of organisations you payed fees to from your bank account to ...
Even if we were (bizzarely) to totally trust this and all possible future governemnts, do we trust everyone employed by every small government agency?
Things are bad enough as it is, with NI numbers as the worst part. But the main advertised reason for the new cards is to make finding these kinds of links trivial rather than requiring some work.
At the moment there is only an issue of someone takes an interest. With a unified scheme in place, the whole range of automated fishing and data warehousing techniques -- and those which will be developed in the future as technology continues to evolve -- will be available to that animal rights loonie and his equivalents and every bent policemen with a grudge and, of course, to the political party in power.
A final example. Anyone remeber Shirley Porter and her scheme to sell off council houses in marginal wards on the theory that home owners were more likely to vote Tory? Imagine what schemes for subtle vote manipulation are available once you can link all this information together.
At least they haven't got arround to proposing electronic voting yet, though the all-postal votes may be a step that way.

--
_O_ .|< The named which can be named is not the true named
Re:Differs from a drvier's license, how? by SenseiLeNoir · 2004-10-27 21:05 · Score: 2, Interesting

Even more intresting, my UK Driving License doesnt even have a photo!

When I passed back in 1994, there were NO photos on the Driving License, and the actual license is a peice of A4 size (Almost letter, for the Americans here) paper that is folded into four.

Imagine the look on the faces of American Car Hire companies when i show that when they request to see my license when I drive in the US!

Althoguh now we do have a photo License card, in-line with most otehr countries, you are not required to carry it with you whilst driving anyway. And for just routine check stops its rarely asked, i know because a few years back, I used to get stopped frequently because they thought I looked "too young" to be driving a Mercedes. But all they did was give some slight questions whilst they checked the databse, then let me go without even checking my ID.

PS, yes it was a pain that they kept stopping me, but then again, if some young joyrider nicked my car, at least I knwo the police do actually act on suspitions, and they were pretty friendly and apologetic when they stopped me.

--
Have a nice day!
Re:Differs from a drvier's license, how? by jazman · 2004-10-27 21:06 · Score: 1

Americans often confuse the relative status of England, Scotland and Britain, so let me explain it with a parallel:

Is Canada part of the USA? No. -> Scotland is not part of England.

Is Canada part of the American continent? Yes. -> Scotland is part of the British Isles.

So, Scotland<=>Canada. England<=>USA. British Isles<=>the Americas. Clear now?

The only major difference is that Scotland is partially ruled from London, whereas Canada IIRC is completely self-governed. Nevertheless Scotland is a separate country from England (and personally I'm in favour of complete Scottish independence, if they want it), although the borders are not fortified and there is no passport control.
Re:Differs from a drvier's license, how? by iBod · 2004-10-27 21:11 · Score: 1

I don't know where you get you're idead from.

Generally, non-driving adults are looked upon as being rather eccentric in the UK.

I speak as one who chooses not to drive (even though that would be the easier thing for me to do).

Everyone is always surprised, even shocked when I tell them I don't drive. They either thing you're very poor, disabled in some way or are very slightly mad.
Re:Differs from a drvier's license, how? by KontinMonet · 2004-10-27 21:18 · Score: 1

Well, it's not considered that eccentric if you live in London. Driving in London is a complete pain and if you go anywhere near the centre you suffer the Congestion Charge. A lot of people I know can drive but don't and, like me, don't carry a driving license around with them.

--
Did he inhale?
Re:Differs from a drvier's license, how? by iBod · 2004-10-27 21:26 · Score: 1

True. It was when I moved to London that I stopped driving. Even though I don't live there anymore, I still don't drive.

Believe me, in some of the more provincial parts of the country, they think it's very odd if you choose not to drive.
Re:Differs from a drvier's license, how? by 16K+Ram+Pack · 2004-10-27 21:36 · Score: 1

IIRC If the police ask for your name and address, refusing to give it, or giving a false one counts as an offence.
Re:Differs from a drvier's license, how? by 16K+Ram+Pack · 2004-10-27 21:38 · Score: 1

A parallel I'd use is if someone said that California was part of Texas.
Re:Differs from a drvier's license, how? by pjt33 · 2004-10-27 21:40 · Score: 0

I live in Cambridge. A lot of people I know cycle rather than drive.
Re:Differs from a drvier's license, how? by ahillen · 2004-10-27 21:43 · Score: 1

3. Inconvenience. Cycling and running clothing often has no pockets.

Now that is a reason I surely haven't thought of yet. :) I carry my ID in my wallet, and if it is inconvinient for me to carry along my wallet (like, say, when cycling or running), I don't have it with me, period. Now, in principle, I guess, you are supposed to have your ID with you here in Germany. But it is surely not a criminal offence not to have it. Of course I never had the opportunity to 'test' that myself, since I never was asked for my ID on the street. On the other hand, it came in handy yesterday when I had to pick up a parcel for me at the post office and they wanted my ID to prove that the parcel was indeed for me. Maybe they would have accepted my driving licence. But I know people which don't have a driving licence, so I don't know what one would do in their case...
Re:Differs from a drvier's license, how? by 16K+Ram+Pack · 2004-10-27 21:58 · Score: 1

That's probably because it's really difficult to do so.
If you live in London, you can quite easily get to anywhere in the city, and for getting out to places, you are often on direct lines.
Try getting from Oxford to Cambridge without a car. You'll often have 2 or 3 connections to make. It's quite impractical. Although for many people, train is a good and viable option a lot of the time, and they still sit in cars!
Some places outside London are OK because they sit on major junctions - Bristol, Manchester, Birmingham, Didcot and Reading (and some others).
Re:Differs from a drvier's license, how? by mikechant · 2004-10-27 22:02 · Score: 1

I already have an ID that I carry everywhere. It is called a driver's license.

Well I don't. I don't drive and don't want to drive. Currently it is perfectly legal for me to leave my house and walk, get a bus or get a train and go anywhere in the country with no documents whatsover. I think if this changes, there will be thousands of people delibrately breaking the law by not carrying their id card.

However, at present the id card proposals don't go beyond possibly having to *own* an id card - there is no proposal to have to carry it at all times. I'm not saying this won't change, but I think it would encounter massive resistance.
Re:Differs from a drvier's license, how? by mikael · 2004-10-27 22:11 · Score: 1

A national ID card scheme was tried out in the UK back in the early 1970's at the same time as members of the British Commonwealth were first moving into the country (and usually into the cheapest, most crime-ridden areas).

The police would arrest them for not carrying their ID cards with them; which they were not doing because they feared being mugged and having their ID cards stolen.

Catch-22: If you do carry your ID card with you, it gets nicked and you get grief, hassle and aggro from the authorities for a replacement.

And if you don't carry your ID card with you, you get grief, hassle and aggro from the authorities.

--
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Re:Differs from a drvier's license, how? by cdavies · 2004-10-27 23:04 · Score: 1

It differs in that not everybody has a driving license, wants a driving license or needs a driving license.
Walking/public transport saves me money, helps the environment, and leaves me distinctly less stressed than my motoring colleagues.
I'd welcome a universal ID so I could actually identify myself without demands for documents I have no intention of ever owning.
Re:Differs from a drvier's license, how? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-27 23:08 · Score: 0

I think you'd be better off questioning the left wing credentials of the entire UK parlimentary labour party.
Re:Differs from a drvier's license, how? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-27 23:42 · Score: 0

why do you carry your license everywhere?

I've got mine in a drawer somewhere, no idea which one. I drive everyday and haven't seen my license in over 5 years (it's pink paper in a plastic sleeve). I could find it in a few days if I had to.
Re:Differs from a drvier's license, how? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-27 23:45 · Score: 0

"....ou get grief, hassle and aggro from the authorities."

only if you're black.
Re:Differs from a drvier's license, how? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-27 23:45 · Score: 0

It depends where you are. I live and work 10 minutes away from Birmingham city centre by train, and from there I can take a train to any other city in the country. On the rare occasions when I need to use a car (usually to take heavy items from one place to another), I can just call a taxi. A lot of my neighbours feel the same way - I'd say that around half of them either can't drive or just don't own a car.

On the other hand, I used to live in Yorkshire, where the public transport links were just atrocious. The nearest bus stop was half an hour walk away, and the buses only turned up once an hour. Anyone living there without a car would be crippled.
Re:Differs from a drvier's license, how? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-28 00:04 · Score: 0

It would be an offence not to carry your ID card if compulsory

Then that's the problem that needs to be fixed, not the idea of an ID card in general.
Re:Differs from a drvier's license, how? by Quobobo · 2004-10-28 00:16 · Score: 1

Idea that came to mind after reading the rating of your post: require all moderators to learn the difference between insightful and informative. Apologies for going off-topic, it's just constant these days. Everywhere there's posts like yours that point out something insightful and are rated informative, and vice versa. Time to meta-moderate more, I guess...
Re:Differs from a drvier's license, how? by jez9999 · 2004-10-28 00:18 · Score: 1

Heh heh. My advice to all 18s would be not to bother with the so-called 'Prove It' card. Much ado about nothing. You go to the trouble of getting a passport photo, paying for the card and waiting for *ages* to get the thing in the post. Then, the one time I actually needed to use it, I was told 'we don't accept Prove It cards. Only passports or drivers' licences.'

--
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Re:Differs from a drvier's license, how? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-28 00:25 · Score: 0

Because no one demanded it.

Identification on demand != 24x7 identity broadcast

And no, you're not in a position to demand identification, so don't bother.
Re:Differs from a drvier's license, how? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-28 00:28 · Score: 0

Blunkett is a fascist cunt, that is what he is.

I'd rather have Thatcher back in power than have him continue his "I'm blind, therefore I can get away with all this shit" hard-on political stance.

Someone else put it very clearly when they said that the ID card and laws surrounding the ID card turn our government from working for the people into turning the people into monitored subjects and essentially tipping the balance of power. We all know that government shouldn't have too much power, but they use the media to brainwash the people into thinking that new totalitarian laws are justifiable, when they are not.

And it isn't just the UK having these issues, the US has them, I'm sure that other European countries have them.

I don't really care about the ID card myself, it is the laws surrounding it (Identify Yourself!), the fact that the police do misuse powers, the fact that government cannot and should not be trusted with things like this ... also I don't want to have to pay for this thing.
Re:Differs from a drvier's license, how? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-28 03:33 · Score: 0

Because in most states (US) you are required to have your license with you when you drive. Although the cops will usually just give you a warning if you don't.
Re:Differs from a drvier's license, how? by radish · 2004-10-28 05:38 · Score: 1

Nevertheless Scotland is a separate country from England (and personally I'm in favour of complete Scottish independence, if they want it), although the borders are not fortified and there is no passport control.

Crap.

Scotland is part of the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". Great Britain is a geographic entity, not a political one. It is the landmass which comprises England, Scotland and Wales. The UK also includes Northern Ireland (not part of Great Britain), hence the long winded name.

The UK is a soverign country, England is not, Scotland is not and Wales is not. Look at the UN, is there a seat for Scotland, or England? No. The UK is a member of the UN. Likewise NATO, the EU. The individual consituent states of the UK are not recognized outside of the UK itself.

The Scottish Parliment is a Regional Assembly. It has some power over that area, in the same way a City or District council has some local power, it's just over a larger area. There is no passport control because there's no legal border, people who live in Scotland are issued UK passports just like those who live in England - there's no difference.

--
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
Re:Differs from a drvier's license, how? by radish · 2004-10-28 05:41 · Score: 1

50% of the people I know in the UK of driving age in the UK don't do so - and I can promise you they are not poor, disabled or mad. If you live in a city and can commute by public transport there's often no point in driving.

But then that's not unique to the UK. I live in the US now, and although I can drive, I haven't in over a year. I just don't need to.

--
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
Re:Differs from a drvier's license, how? by radish · 2004-10-28 05:49 · Score: 1

Speaking as a Brit living in the US, maybe I can offer some insight here.

The British don't use drivers licenses as universal ID like the Americans do. This is for a number of reasons:

* Many people in the UK don't drive
* Until recently, drivers licenses didn't have photos
* There simply isn't the same need for ID all the time

The last one is the killer. I get asked for ID here in the US all the time. It actually drives me mad. I'm 28 years old, and look that age, yet I get carded in virtually every bar I go to, just to buy a fricking beer. I get carded on the way to work, I get carded if I try to enter a government building. I sometimes even need ID when I want to buy something with a credit card. This doesn't happen in the UK. I was drinking in pubs from when I was 16 and never got asked for ID once. I have never had to have ID to use a credit card there, etc etc.

People here assume you will have ID on you all the time, and therefore there's a presumption that it's OK to ask for it all the time. Back home most people don't have photo ID on them as they go about their business, and therefore no-one trys to ask for it. I am sad that when these ID cards become common (or mandatory) the anonymity of just walking around doing your thing without having to identify yourself every step will be gone. It's something I miss from home.

--
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
Re:Differs from a drvier's license, how? by Oddly_Drac · 2004-10-31 22:41 · Score: 1

"when they said that the ID card and laws surrounding the ID card turn our government from working for the people into turning the people into monitored subjects and essentially tipping the balance of power."

The idea of the government working for the people is an American ideal. You're in a country where parliment is made up from people who actually sought the power, without the 'service' BS that the Americans flowered up their political process with.

Government is there to steer the country, internally and externally using the Home and Foreign office. They get jittery when the tax income falls, or when people pick up the rocks to see what's skittering underneath. Things like the Dame Porter affair are not that unusual.

"I'd rather have Thatcher back in power"

And the West Midlands serious crimes squad? No, we're better off in the current world than the one that allowed the government of the time to be so pig headed as to ignore public opinion, which happened during the strikes of the late seventies, and sanctioned baton charges against peaceful demostrations. The world is made of it's current state, not by cherry-picking nostalgic portions of history.

"We all know that government shouldn't have too much power,"

No, that's our opinion. Governments have as much power as _we_ allow them before making enough noise and reducing campaign contributions, but knowing when they've gone too far is a matter for opinion...and when you have enough people of a like mind...

"We all know that government shouldn't have too much power, but they use the media to brainwash the people into thinking that new totalitarian laws are justifiable, when they are not."

Be careful, you suggest that people don't like the idea of an ID card, when people are generally focussed very closely on the things that personally hinder or help them. You could make the ID card attractive, but the major concern of the technically competent is that this is a costly panacea to a problem that doesn't really exist, and we'd be sold on the ignorance of the government on a solution that would waste OUR money.

"I don't really care about the ID card myself, it is the laws surrounding it (Identify Yourself!), the fact that the police do misuse powers, the fact that government cannot and should not be trusted with things like this ... also I don't want to have to pay for this thing."

Then you care about the ID card.

--
Oddly Draconis
Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.

Who am I? by jbrelie · 2004-10-27 17:44 · Score: 1, Insightful

I don't think that a nat'l ID is such a bad thing. Most people already carry multiple forms of ID anyway. A standard would make it easier. Case in point, my friend doesn't have a driver's license, and many bars have turned down his state issue alternative, becuase it's not familiar.

The key element is with how it's used. I don't want to have to swipe my RFID ID to use the pisser at the mall. There needs to be rules about how and when an ID can be required.

Yeah I know that this is a UK topic, but hey, at least I spoke [typed] generally.

Re:Who am I? by nels_tomlinson · 2004-10-27 18:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

Most people already carry multiple forms of ID anyway. A standard would make it easier.
With a single form of ID, there is a single point of failure. When the One True Database has bad data about you, you will be screwed. If the One True Database says that you are a sex offender, then you are.
Furthermore, since the One True Database is always right, by definition, you will find it harder than ever to fix those mistakes.
Government inefficiency is the most immediate bulwark of our freedoms in the U.S. We don't want to risk eliminating it.
Here's a useful litmus test: if something would make life harder for would-be terrorists, it's going to take away freedoms we can't afford to loose, and the government wins. That's worse than letting the terrorists win, since the government has the ability and moral authority to kill far more of us than the terrorists could ever dream of hurting.

--
See what I've been reading.
Re:Who am I? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-27 18:18 · Score: 0

Much opposition to ID cards stems from a backlash against them after WWII; there is a feeling in the older generations that compulsary ID cards are one of the things we fought against.

Some people feel that it's worth it to avoid the hassles in proving ID when opening bank accounts or getting a drivers license, but I feel that overlooks the obvious point that these issues are under government control - is there really a need to produce three separate forms of ID before making a 1GBP deposit?

Many of the British technical community are opposed to the scheme on the grounds of the linked database. The government has thus far been vague about the content of this database, but budget overruns, security lapses and uncontrolled increase in scope seem likely on the basis of past history. For example, a recent NHS IT upgrade was slated to cost 2.3bn GBP over 3 years. The cost is now estimated to be 6.2bn over ten years, with a 12-24bn cost of roll-out [source]. That's a fairly typical example of government IT project management, whatever the country.

It's also unclear why a central database is even needed; a card with a digital photograph cryptographically signed by a government authority would surely prove identity without the associated risks of identity theft and privacy loss that a database represents.

More Information:
PI FAQ on "Entitlement Cards"
Register commentary (anti)
BBC (neutral)
Re:Who am I? by jbrelie · 2004-10-27 18:27 · Score: 1

No offense, but I think you're jumping the gun here. Who said anything about taking away every other form of ID? Picture a laminated social security card with the same layout nationwide and a picture of the cardholder. That's what I'm talking about. There doesn't have to be any Tolkien/Orwell/Wachowskiesque computer overlord.
Re:Who am I? by mdecarle · 2004-10-27 18:58 · Score: 2, Informative

Oh-oh. Here comes Belgium again.

1. We have a national-ID card. This contains the State Register Number, name and address and marital state (reissued every few years - soon an e-ID !).

2. Then there's the driver's license, has your name but not address (never reissued, except when it changes).

3. But we also have a SIS card (Social Identity System), that contains information on deseases you have and medicins you normally take (this aids if you're at the pharmacy, and you want prescription drugs without prescription - if you normally take them). Already electronic, does not get reissued (data changes). This card helps when you get to a hospital (like after an accident) and the doctors check your card, see your health-status, and can treat you properly.

So, Big Brother lives in Belgium, I assume?
Re:Who am I? by tigress · 2004-10-27 19:31 · Score: 4, Interesting

And what makes you think that you can't get screwed over even if there is no "One True Database". In the UK, people are still being mistaken for criminals, in the states, even Senators are being stopped as terrorist suspects.

Here in Sweden, there's been a standard for ID-cards for several years. Any SIS-approved ID-card (such as, for instance, my drivers license, bank ID or postal ID) is valid for identification.

I have yet to see any lack of civil liberties resulting from this. On the contrary, our ID-cards, along with our personal numbers (think social security numbers, except better) make it easier to make sure who's who. And that's the point if it all, anyway. To let you tell others that you're the one that your ID-card says you are.

As for databases, well, there'll never be a "one true database" anyway. Different organizations will always have their own databases. A standardized ID will let them make sure who's who though, so that you won't get confused with that terrorist guy on the floor above, who just happens to share your last name.
Re:Who am I? by Harmfulfreeradical · 2004-10-27 20:10 · Score: 0

Most Gulf countries have a single-ID requirement (e.g. Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman), even for expats. The only time you are *required* to use it is when you are asked by security officials to declare your residency situation. Other than, it serves to quicken government processes requiring one (or any) of the following: birth certificate, proof of address, health certificate, passport, photographic proof of ID. If the UK's uni-ID was designed to serve the same purpose (i.e. the swiss knife of IDs, so instead of having to bring in piles of photocopies and contracts, you'd just use your uni-ID), it wouldn't be such a bad idea.

--
Don't worry: your brain will eventually work inspite of you.
Re:Who am I? by -brazil- · 2004-10-27 20:32 · Score: 1

For example, a recent NHS IT upgrade was slated to cost 2.3bn GBP over 3 years. The cost is now estimated to be 6.2bn over ten years, with a 12-24bn cost of roll-out [source]. That's a fairly typical example of government IT project management, whatever the country.

Fairly typical of IT project management, period. Private enterprises are, on average, no better.

--
The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.
--Henry Kissinger
Re:Who am I? by jimicus · 2004-10-27 22:03 · Score: 2, Informative

As for databases, well, there'll never be a "one true database" anyway.

Erm... yes there will. That's pretty much the whole point of an ID card, according to David Blunkett.
Re:Who am I? by eibon · 2004-10-27 23:47 · Score: 1

With a single form of ID, there is a single point of failure. When the One True Database has bad data about you, you will be screwed.
Time to give Sandra Bullock a call?
Re:Who am I? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-28 00:16 · Score: 0

All of the hijackers on 9/11 had valid ID. How would an ID card have helped?

Now take your wallet with an ID card in it. Match up with your credit card and you have all the information needed for fraudulent use of the card. And this is an anti-crime measure?
Re:Who am I? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-28 00:22 · Score: 0

"As for databases, well, there'll never be a "one true database" anyway. Different organizations will always have their own databases. "

Do you not see the contradiction in your own words?
Re:Who am I? by glesga_kiss · 2004-10-28 01:00 · Score: 1

With a single form of ID, there is a single point of failure. When the One True Database has bad data about you, you will be screwed. If the One True Database says that you are a sex offender, then you are.
And that's not the worst of it!! To get one of these new fangled cards, you first need to identify yourself using current identification. Birth certificates, drivers license, passport and so on.
If you can fake the precursor to getting a card, you can get a fake one. Fake birth cert/passport/license? Relatively easy to come by if you know the right people. And because everyone trusts the new system, you get to move around freely with no one chalenging who you really are because you have this piece of plastic in your pocket that's never wrong.
ID cardswill make the terrorists life easier, not harder. Right now they have to fake several pieces of ID, and be validated using different techniques each time they are called to do so. All they'd need to do in the future is a one time con to get a card, then they are set for life, or until that ID get's "don't fly'ed", at which point they get a new one.
Re:Who am I? by JimBobJoe · 2004-10-28 02:00 · Score: 1

Here in Sweden...

Keep in mind that the ID card experience in ever country, every regime, is very different from that in other countries.

One of the things I like to say is, if you don't have a problem with ID fraud, then you probably don't need to have the card in the first place. What the card is used for in places like Sweden, Germany or Belgium is achieved in other parts of the world perfectly effectively without an ID card.

Further, ID card fraud rises at least geometrically with the quantity of cards issued (for a variety of reasons.) California has probably ten times the driver's license fraud problem of my Ohio even though they only have 3 times the amount of cards issued.

On the other hand, while Sweden has a fairly benign fraud issue, a much smaller country, like my birthplace of Costa Rica, has massive ID card fraud, with a sophisticated standardized biometric based ID card. There are a variety of reasons for this, a lot of it owing to easily bribed officials and the fact that the cards are too powerful (allow illegals to work in Costa Rica) but it's amusing to me because Costa Rica is a relatively small country.

A standardized ID will let them make sure who's who though, so that you won't get confused with that terrorist guy on the floor above, who just happens to share your last name.

Fortunately that's because terrorist get special ID cards with the letter T on them.

Re:Bringing this back to the America's topic by xlv · 2004-10-27 17:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

National ID is anathema to Republicans, but would Kerry consider the idea if elected? He is popular abroad, where such IDs are common place...

While I'm sure you enjoyed bashing Kerry, the fundamental difference between the US and Western Europe is that in most countries over there, the individual still has control over his/her data, meaning a company cannot resell the data without the individual's consent so having some form of national ID is not such a problem over there as it doesn't open the door to big corporations tracking your every move...

Election next year - possibly by eamacnaghten · 2004-10-27 17:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

There is a strong possibility there will be a general election in the UK next year.

Not that this has anything to do with delaying implementations of unpopular laws though....

--

Web Sig: Eddy Currents

Re:Election next year - possibly by Zinoc · 2004-10-27 18:02 · Score: 1

Not that this has anything to do with delaying implementations of unpopular laws though.... Of course not, that would be far too cynical :P
Re:Election next year - possibly by mikerich · 2004-10-28 02:02 · Score: 1

There is a strong possibility there will be a general election in the UK next year.
Which is why, if this is introduced in the Queen's Speech late in November (as everyone expects) it will be a bad law. The various committee stages will be abbreviated, the Lords consideration will be curtailed and the votes conducted on a three-line whip.
The government cannot allow the bill to fall before the dissolution of Parliament, so they will push it through using the 1911 Parliament Act if necessary.
The best hope is that the Commons refuses to approve a second reading of the bill, but I suspect all New Labour drones will be on a 'don't rock the boat' footing.
If you are in the UK (AND ONLY IN THE UK) - use faxyourmp to fax YOUR MP and let them know you don't like the idea of ID cards. The figure of 80% support is crap and was given in response to the concept of a voluntary, free card - not the compulsory, expensive Blunkettcard (your inflexible friend) we're being pushed towards.
Best wishes,
Mike.

Re:Bringing this back to the America's topic by Antony-Kyre · 2004-10-27 17:56 · Score: 0

The better question, would the American Founding Fathers and Mothers go for this idea? What would they think? Were the Founder 'Parents' for or against big government?

My little conspiracy theory.. by hools1234 · 2004-10-27 17:59 · Score: 1

Well here is my little conspiracy theory... First its an ID card, then its RFID tags on food because it makes sense. Then RFID tags for pets because we don't want to lose them, because we love them. Then criminals because we want to be safe. All of this total common sense. Then we should tag hospital patients because it makes sense, helps make sure they get the right treatment. Then perhaps we should tag any known terrorist with some form of device... then tag everyone, have a one world economy, cashless society where we all pay electronically by just swiping our hand - because we all know credit cards are too easily stolen or lost. It makes sense. Well while we are at it, we should probably have one world government as well.. with social security numbers linked to our Microsoft Sender Id.. perhaps Bill Gates could be our president. It all makes sense... Except maybe the bit about Bill Gates. Big brother will be watching!

--
iSnack 2.0 - Download it now to your iToast 9.0

Feh. by Pig+Hogger · 2004-10-27 18:04 · Score: 2, Funny

In France, it is compulsory to carry ID at all time; yet, France is seen as a beacon of Liberty and Freedom throughout the world, and if you tell a frenchman that his liberty is severely curtailed by that, he'll scratch his head and maybe ask for some explanation... France has 60 million of population; surely the problem can be scaled efficiently to handle 5 times as much people?

Anglo-saxon countries have those terrible hangups about State-issued ID (amongst other things), mostly for neurotic reasons that can be traced back to the magna-carta. Yet, such IDs can solve a lot of problems that are currently awkwardly and unevenly addressed; like drivers license, for example.

It's not everyone who can have one; blind people, those with motor disabilities or simply heavy cases of dyslexia (it's no good to mix the gas and brake pedals) will make sure that plenty of people will be oddballed by not having what is regarded as an ID-card.

The hodge-podge of US motor-vehicle registration systems (one in each State) make it so many different ways of doing ONE thing.

Banks clerks simply underflow their stacks when confronted by someone who doesn't have a driver's licence; they're simply not programmed for that.

And what about the misuse and abuse of social-security numbers? Video-clubs will ask for it to rent a goddammed DVD!!! It is not likely that a video-club will keep it's database as securely as a bank does.

Re:Feh. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-27 18:29 · Score: 0

Anglo-saxon countries have those terrible hangups about State-issued ID (amongst other things), mostly for neurotic reasons that can be traced back to the magna-carta.

No, Anglo-Saxon countries are just a little more pragmatic ;-) Ask yourself: "What benefit do I get from carrying official ID?"

The lazy answer is: "I can prove my ID when asked to do so."

The pragmatic Anglo-Saxon reply is: "Remember that having to prove your ID is a requirement set by a government in the first place. If the requirement isn't set, there's no need to carry ID and absolutely no benfit from doing so.
Re:Feh. by Jerf · 2004-10-27 18:37 · Score: 1

Anglo-saxon countries have those terrible hangups about State-issued ID (amongst other things), mostly for neurotic reasons that can be traced back to the magna-carta.

I recommend you investigate the provenance of the phrase "Show me your papers." (Google is not your friend on this one, I tried.)

Neurotic, or another one of those "those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it" sort of things?

And what about the misuse and abuse of social-security numbers? Video-clubs will ask for it to rent a goddammed DVD!!! It is not likely that a video-club will keep it's database as securely as a bank does.

You falsely assume that people against state IDs are otherwise OK with the situation as-is and implicitly accuse them of hypocrisy. Speaking at least for myself, I am not happy with the situation as is, so no hypocrisy here. (Although perhaps not for the exact reason you think; some reasoning here, but also, even though Social Security really isn't a national ID card, it is, as you point out, wildly unethical for entities unwilling to safeguard it to require it. Whether or not it is a "national ID" is irrelevant; the point is that it is a highly privacy sensitive information (a term I define quite carefully), and for corporations in general to require it, but not respect and safeguard it, is very unethical. Going along with the writeup I link, the problem with a National ID card is it concentrates the privacy-sensitivity so much that no real entity can ever be responsible enough by my standards to handle that kind of power over me... therefore, it will simply be taken, against my will and with no compensation to me of significance. (And remember, ethically I set my price; this precludes the obvious comeback to that phrase.) Not a good thing.)
Re:Feh. by Brandybuck · 2004-10-27 19:04 · Score: 1

France is seen as a beacon of Liberty and Freedom throughout the world

They are seen as a beacon of liberty only within France. Outside it's just France. You know, the nation that confused the Reign of Terror with political freedom. That was an imperialist colonial power within my lifetime. That even today takes children to court for wearing religious dress. Frankly [sic] the French have redefined liberte as whatever they want it to mean at the moment.

--
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Re:Feh. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-27 19:18 · Score: 0

I recommend you investigate the provenance of the phrase "Show me your papers." (Google is not your friend on this one, I tried.)
Not to give it away or anything, but you might try a search for "Papieren, bitte!"...
Re:Feh. by mindstormpt · 2004-10-27 19:29 · Score: 1

Frankly [sic] the French have redefined liberte as whatever they want it to mean at the moment.

That reminds me so much of another country...
Re:Feh. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-27 19:56 · Score: 1, Interesting

In France, it is compulsory to carry ID at all time;

Check your facts right. This is absolutely bullshit, the ID card in France is even not compulsory to GET.
Re:Feh. by -brazil- · 2004-10-27 20:38 · Score: 1

That's "Papiere".

So now we're basing our idea of history and politics on 30-year-old Hollywood movies?

--
The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.
--Henry Kissinger
Re:Feh. by mikeplokta · 2004-10-27 21:32 · Score: 1

The problem is actually using a driving license for purposes for which it was never intended, as a general ID document. It should be illegal to request or present a driving license for any purpose other than to verify eligibility to drive -- problem solved, as the non-license-holders will no longer be discriminated against. And if the banks and the bars really need to be able to verify people's IDs, they'll have to pay to run their own systems -- as the bars do in the UK, in fact.
Re:Feh. by greenechidna · 2004-10-27 22:07 · Score: 1

I spent a year in France as an engineering student. Many of my friends were North African. They were continually being stopped by the police and asked for ID. Compulsory ID cards do not automatically take your freedom away but they do make it very easy to do so at some later stage. This is the whole reason why the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" argument is flawed. I think that Martin Niemoller summed it up very well: "When Hitler attacked the Jews I was not a Jew, therefore I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the Catholics, I was not a Catholic, and therefore, I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the unions and the industrialists, I was not a member of the unions and I was not concerned. Then Hitler attacked me and the Protestant church -- and there was nobody left to be concerned."
Re:Feh. by cowbutt · 2004-10-27 22:25 · Score: 1

In France, it is compulsory to carry ID at all time; yet, France is seen as a beacon of Liberty and Freedom throughout the world, and if you tell a frenchman that his liberty is severely curtailed by that, he'll scratch his head and maybe ask for some explanation...
Carrying an ID card isn't something I particularly object to. I already carry a number of them for various purposes (e.g. my employee ID card).
The main things I object to are:
Using the legislation as a backdoor to establish a national ID database
Using the national ID number as a primary key to join your records between many databases. I like the idea of there being no 100% reliable way of doing this right now, and more importantly, that everyone knows that all present ways of doing this are imperfect.
The assumption by the state that the cards and associated database will be 100% reliable, when in reality, they will not. Biometrics are still very immature technology, and all generate false acceptances AND false rejections
Being asked to pay for the dubious privilege of being compelled to opt-in to such a system
Concerns over what will be recorded on the embedded memory in the card (SmartCards are the proposed system), how I as a citizen can gain access to and verify the accuracy of that information, and who else has access to which parts
Concerns over how the system can be misused in the event of a less benign government being in power. I don't like the assumption that all future UK governments will be basically-decent, especially with the rise of the extreme-authoritarian and racist parties, due to (IMHO, misplaced) concern over immigration and asylum
--
Re:Feh. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-27 23:25 · Score: 0

Papieren, bitte!

They're bit clangy and a bit jammy
Re:Feh. by kraut · 2004-10-28 01:18 · Score: 1

>Yet, such IDs can solve a lot of problems that are currently awkwardly and unevenly addressed; like drivers license, for example.

Drivers licenses are not an issue in the UK. They work fine (apart from the last government idea, which was photo-card licenses, which are great in theory, but in practice not usable for anything useful, like renting a car).

I can't see a compelling problem that merits spending £2 billion + of taxpayers money.

--
no taxation without representation!
Re:Feh. by mezis · 2004-10-28 03:19 · Score: 1

This document (in french) confirms that it is not compulsory to even possess an ID card in France.

On the other hand, you do have to be able to prove your identity using some other ID (driver's licence, employee ID, even a local public transport ID).
Re:Feh. by Brandybuck · 2004-10-28 06:19 · Score: 1

Of course! To be Fair and Balanced (tm) I am merely pointing out another petty tyranny pretending to be the epitome of liberty. All I am doing is pointing out the log in France's eye, so that France can remove it to better see the splinter in the US's eye.

--
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!

Too Much Data on One Card? by Apple+Acolyte · 2004-10-27 18:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

The article description claims this idea was sold to the English through the promise that it would replace other forms of identification. Speaking as one of those "evil" Americans, I must say that I would not want the US to create a national ID that would incorporate/obviate other forms of identification. It's already bad enough that so many places (like schools) use the US social security card number as a form of public identification, which is something the social security administration specifically warned against. That situation is improving, however. But if one's social security card, passport and driver's license were combined into one, the negatives would far outweigh the positives.

If the US were to adopt a universal ID like the one advocated for England, I could only predict a security nightmare. Rest assured that calls for a US national ID will be on the lips of so many politicians if (when) there is another terrorist attack. Yet, far from improving the situation, a national ID would make the US less secure. For one, a national ID would greatly simplify the counterfeiting process. And for another, thieves would reap infinitely greater illicit rewards for stealing wallets. I'm glad the English are rejecting their proposal. (Really scare derivative thought: a global ID! EEK!)

--
Part of the hardcore faithful who believed in Apple long before it was cool again to do so

ID cards have *NOT* been scrapped! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-27 18:09 · Score: 3, Insightful

Plans for ID cards have *not* been scrapped in the UK.

From the article....

Plans to combine new compulsory identity cards with passports and driving licences have been dropped by Home Secretary David Blunkett.

and then it goes on to say that .....

The legislation to allow ID cards is widely expected to be promised in next month's Queen's Speech.

So, all they have done is backed down on plans to combine ID cards with other forms of ID.

We will still have to get ID cards, and *pay* for the prililage!.....

But the Home Office said the prices remained unchanged: people would pay either £35 for a stand-alone ID card or £77 for a passport and ID card together.

WTF! I have to get this by law, *and* i have to pay for it. So it's a TAX then?!

ID cards are unnecessary. They are just jumping on the 'Total control prevents Terrorism' bandwagon, and we all know that's a load of BS.

This is why no one in the UK trusts labour anymore. The sooner GW's lap dog is kicked out of office the better.

Re:ID cards have *NOT* been scrapped! by The+Mgt · 2004-10-27 20:37 · Score: 1

WTF! I have to get this by law, *and* i have to pay for it. So it's a TAX then?!
Given that we'll be paying for these ID cards there is the probability that there will be large numbers of refuseniks.
The sooner GW's lap dog is kicked out of office the better.
Unfortunately the Labour party don't look like dumping him at the moment and while the LibDems have improved in the polls I can't, even through my most rose tinted glasses, see them do more than replacing the Tories as the opposition at the next election.
Re:ID cards have *NOT* been scrapped! by jimicus · 2004-10-27 22:11 · Score: 1

More to the point, how do other political parties feel about this? After all, the opposition is not obliged to oppose the government on every single issue. Frequently, they don't.
Re:ID cards have *NOT* been scrapped! by mikechant · 2004-10-27 22:19 · Score: 1

This is why no one in the UK trusts labour anymore. The sooner GW's lap dog is kicked out of office the better.

And the alternative is what? Michael Howard's Tories? Don't make me laugh. Judging by their record they'd be at least as bad as Labour on civil liberties *and* completely stuff the economy as well. I remember 14% mortgage interest rates when I had my first mortgage under the Tories (oh, and 3-4 million unemployed, and the recessions) even if you've forgotten.

BTW this is not a pro-Labour rant - I'm probably going to vote Lib Dem and hope they can replace the Tories and eventually challenge Labour in 2-3 elections time.
Re:ID cards have *NOT* been scrapped! by Aim+Here · 2004-10-28 00:17 · Score: 1

I wouldn't worry about the fee. That fee is designed not to be part of the actual ID card act.

Blunkett's obviously planning on some form of Labour backbench revolt. Putting this fee as a bag on the side of the ID card bill means that when the bill is going through parliament, Blunkett can easily 'compromise' by dropping it and that way the backbenchers can pretend to have a spine and claim some sort of phony victory without actually having to vote against the government in parliament.

That way, an equitable, just and fair compromise between the government and the public is reached. We get to be thorougly surveilled, snooped on, and generally pwned by the government but in return we only have to pay for it through our income tax, rather than paying a flat rate when they open up a file on us. Sounds fair, yeah?
Re:ID cards have *NOT* been scrapped! by mikerich · 2004-10-28 04:33 · Score: 2, Informative

More to the point, how do other political parties feel about this?
LibDems and the nationalist parties wholly against (there has even been talk of the Scottish Parliament refusing to play ball with the scheme).
The Conservatives haven't made up their minds, indeed the Shadow Home Secretary (and I thought Blunkett wouldn't cast a shadow) has been pro-ID and against them in the same speech.
UKIP - probably for them as they'll then be able to identify foreigners.
Best wishes,
Mike.
Re:ID cards have *NOT* been scrapped! by BlindShep · 2004-10-28 07:46 · Score: 1

So you answered you own question then. The alternative is the Lib Dems?

And i hadn't forgotten about 14% interest rates, unemployment, or the Tories. I was just pointing out that Tony Blair cannot be trusted anymore now that GW has his hand up Blairs ass working the mouth.

And no, i won't be voting Tory. Actually i won't be voting for anyone 'cause i don't live in the UK anymore, and unlike the American system that makes me ineligible to vote.

--
A Dog isn't just for Xmas. With luck there will be some left over for Boxing day as well.

National ID cards are a distraction!!! by logicnazi · 2004-10-27 18:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

I keep hearing concern over things like a national ID card or other mandatory identification system. However, these sorts of worries just distract us from the real privacy concerns.

Pragmatically we already have national ID cards. Between drivers liscensces, passports and social security cards we have all the disadvantages of a national ID card. I can barely get through a day, much less a lifetime without these IDs.

The fact that I *could* theoretically get along without these cards doesn't mean anything. If I created a national DNA database (full DNA which could be tested for diseases) it wouldn't be okay if I allowed people to pay $100 to opt out.

Continuing to crow about things like national ID cards distracts from real issues of privacy. Defating national ID schemes gives us empty victories that make us think we are maintaining our privacy.

--

Personally I think maintaining privacy, at least in the traditional sense, isn't a viable option. Even if we win every legislative victory it is too easy to give corporations access to our personal data for a minor convenience. The fact that a few privacy minded individuals might avoid this net makes no difference in the big picture. Any societal harms will still occur even if 1% of society is not in any database.

Privacy, despite the name, is not a personal issue. The harms are not individual, accuring to you because your information is in a database but rather societal resulting from the fact that a large enough percentage of people are in databases.

Instead of fighting minor skirmishes against ID cards while our privacy is eroded behind our back we should try and minimize the negative social effects of privacy. The primary danger that erosion of privacy provides is that effective privacy will be availible only to the rich. This is already happening....cameras aren't put in well to do suburbs.

I contend this is the primary danger from losing privacy. Everyone does socially unacceptable things behind closed doors, be it smoking joints or having kinky sex. If we don't make sure privacy is lost by the well-off at the same rate it is lost by the poor we risk exagerating the problems we have in the war on drugs. Namely, where the poor and minorities are targeted, either legally or just by insurance companies and public opinion, for their 'inappropriate behavior' while the rich get a free pass.

--

If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:

Re:National ID cards are a distraction!!! by pbettendorff · 2004-10-27 19:30 · Score: 1

As someone living in a country with mandatory IDs (Switzerland), the whole discussion is very amusing. Yes, I carry an ID all the time. No, I did not have to show it in the last six months to anyone. Usually, I need it for thing like opening a bank account and for contacts with the state.
However, when I had to stay for some time in the US, I was asked for ID on many occasions, like in the Supermarket when I wanted to by a couple of beers, or even in a video store when paying with a credit card.
Re:National ID cards are a distraction!!! by smoker2 · 2004-10-28 17:43 · Score: 1

A short time ago, some young idiots tried breaking into my car. I didn't notice anything until the police contacted me. Apparently some passers by had reported the attempt, and the police had later arrested the 2 (well known to the authorities) offenders.

I hadn't noticed because they had tried to open the passenger door, and I am the driver, and its dark when I leave for work.

Anyway, the point is, the police asked me for a statement, which I agreed to. During the interview, in amongst the normal relevant questions, like did you hear/see anything, blah blah.. the officer asked me how tall I thought I was !

WTF ?

Just one more small piece of data on my identity going into the dbase I guess. The problem is, that to avoid being part of this dbase, you cannot use the services of any government agency, be it police, fire, hospital, whatever.

So we already have no choice in the matter of privacy.

France is the bacon^H^H^H^Heacon of what? by Joseph_Daniel_Zukige · 2004-10-27 18:15 · Score: 1

taking liberties, did you say?

Heh.

Oh, sorry, that's ad hominem. Or something.

Why? by themoodykid · 2004-10-27 18:15 · Score: 3, Interesting

Can someone explain why there is a push for ID cards of this sort?

Sure, we do have driver's licenses and passports, but are people wanting to combine them just in the name of efficiency or what?

On the other hand, what's so bad about having a card like this?

Re:Why? by mcpheat · 2004-10-27 21:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

Can someone explain why there is a push for ID cards of this sort?

The explanation is that David Blunkett is a facist control freak in a department of facist control freaks.

The justification given for these cards has varied over the last 5 years with the current bogey man e.g. asylum seekers(codeword for illegal imigrant), benefit fraud(at one point they were trying to pass them off as "entitlement cards"), terrorism, identity theft etc. but they have not produced a coherent explanation as to how any of these problems would be solved by their cards.
Re:Why? by glesga_kiss · 2004-10-28 01:10 · Score: 1

Can someone explain why there is a push for ID cards of this sort?
Because the companies that make them and the back-end technologies that they use give bribes to political parties. We call them "campaign contributions" instead of bribes so it all stays nice and legal. Politics is business nowadays.
Re:Why? by UpnAtom · 2004-10-28 05:57 · Score: 2, Informative

Can someone explain why there is a push for ID cards of this sort?

Blunkett wants a solution for his immigration problem and the police are in favour.

Currently, illegal immigrants are impossible to track whilst their claim takes months to be processed.

Naturally, the police are a little bit more focussed on stopping criminals than protecting civil liberties.

On the other hand, what's so bad about having a card like this?

I'm much more concerned about the impending database state. So much data is collected on us already and the only thing stopping it and all future data (eg DNA & CCTV tracking) being indexed by anyone with a grudge or genocidal tendencies is our flimsy democracy and the lack of a unique identity number.
Re:Why? by ceedee99uk · 2004-10-28 06:42 · Score: 1

On the other hand, what's so bad about having a card like this?

http://www.no2id.net/ for a detailed debunking.
hth

Re:Privacy: West versus East by Arzach · 2004-10-27 18:15 · Score: 2, Interesting

Yep, no national ID Cards here in the good Ol' US-of-A. **** Item: Social Security Card # **** Item: Drivers License # **** Item: U.S. Passport # Just try applying for ANYTHING (college courses, credit card, library card, Blockbuster video card) these days w/o one of the above. Want a driver's license? Better be prepared to fork over your SS#. You want a passport? Besides having a U.S. Birth Cert, you need to have some other form of I.D. Such as a drivers license. Um, which requires (okay, at least in CA) you to provide your SS#.

smart card vulnerabilities? by Joseph_Daniel_Zukige · 2004-10-27 18:20 · Score: 1

like this and this

Re:Bringing this back to the America's topic by russint · 2004-10-27 18:24 · Score: 0

As you may or may not know, the "American Founding Fathers and Mothers" are:
1.) Dead.
2.) Dead.
3.) Dead.

What they think or do not think doesn't really matter.

--
^^

I'm a DBA for a large government by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-27 18:26 · Score: 2, Funny

Some think governments can't manage big database projects

I take offense to this. Why, just the other day I managed the following:

SELECT * FROM the_people WHERE sex = 'female' AND marital_status = 'divorced' AND divorce_date >= date_sub(now(), interval 2 month) AND age >= 16 AND age Just doing my duty as a civil servant by catching them on the rebound.

3rd normal form? whats that?

Re:I'm a DBA for a large government by pjt33 · 2004-10-27 21:48 · Score: 1

3rd normal form? whats that?
Going wildly off topic, I wish the DBAs at my bank knew what 3NF is. That way maybe when I move house I'd only have to tell them once.

The database is the problem, not the card! by Timo_UK · 2004-10-27 18:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

All the biometric data will be stored centrally, so the cops don't even need your card to find out who you are, the simply take a fingerprint. This is COMPLETELY different from German, French etc, cards and goes way beyond them. Why the media don't point that out is beyond me...

--
Timo's Audio Software http://www.esseraudio.com

Re:The database is the problem, not the card! by jsebrech · 2004-10-27 21:05 · Score: 1

All national ID cards have centralized databases, the difference seems to be biometrics, which in practice is not that much of a difference, since identifying you by your name and picture, or by your fingerprint, does not make a big difference.

I think this entire thing is overblown. Most countries in Europe have national ID cards. My country too. We don't have militaristic juntas running the country, we don't have government spying on people more than the british one does (with all the CCTV cameras). We do have less identity theft. After all, all westernized nations have cards used to identify you, be they driver's licenses, credit cards or what have you. And there are always centralized government databases with your basic data in them. People just focus on this ID card because it's an easy target, but the difference to privacy and civil rights is negligible.
Re:The database is the problem, not the card! by UpnAtom · 2004-10-28 04:41 · Score: 1

I think this entire thing is overblown. Most countries in Europe have national ID cards. My country too.

So what? Most people are prejudiced, doesn't make it OK for me to be.

We don't have militaristic juntas running the country,

Such a database doesn't make it easier for militaristic juntas to gain power. It just makes it easier for them to persecute people if they do.

we don't have government spying on people more than the british one does (with all the CCTV cameras).

No, but thanks for pointing out why the British shouldn't follow your lead.

And there are always centralized government databases with your basic data in them.

Not legally there isn't. Not in Britain anyway.

People just focus on this ID card because it's an easy target

Because it's an easy target is EXACTLY why we should focus on it. When everyone has these cards and some future government changes the law to put your DNA or religion on there, or to make all corporate databases available to them, how is anyone going to stop them?

but the difference to privacy and civil rights is negligible.

Tell it to the Jews that were persecuted in the Holocaust thanks to IBM database technology.

This is the 8th try... by TyrranzzX · 2004-10-27 18:31 · Score: 2, Interesting

I believe it's the 8th time they've tried to convince the UK people of this by announcing a program if my count is right, in the past 2 years. Apparently, all 33 million of them are giving the government the good ol' n' sturdy one fingered salute. They'll do mass protests and burn their ID cards they will. Now enough of them seem pissed off that the people in government are beginning to get the message that continuously forcing this kind of thing on them is wrong and won't work, time to change strategies. Kinda reminds me of the IP law for software that was forced, and forced, and forced for about 2 years and eventally signed in a very weak state.

--

Candy-Coated Knowledge

Re:This is the 8th try... by jd · 2004-10-27 19:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

Actually, it's about 60 million, and it has been tried almost yearly since the 1950s. After the Poll Tax fiasco, though, the British are more confident about defeating unpopular Government measures through mass protest. Also, the British tend to regard national ID as an open invitation to dictatorship. (It gives one central authority far too much information about far too many people.)

Mind you, the British have changed their minds in the past. The reason Nynex laid all the cables in Britain is that British Telecom were banned from doing so in the 1940s. The reason for the ban was that cable networks were seen as dangerous, as in the event of a dictatorial Government, the media would be controllable from a central point. (It was also argued that if people didn't have radio receivers, it would be harder for resistance groups to communicate unobtrusively by radio.)

Today, of course, we wouldn't dream of having an unelected foreign Government dictate British policy, control British troops, invade British businesses, ... Oh.

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Re:This is the 8th try... by DJCF · 2004-10-27 19:52 · Score: 1

hey'll do mass protests and burn their ID cards they will

I don't think they will - I mean, I personally don't know anyone who would - except for me. Well I hope we will, anyway. (Wouldn't want to be the only one doing the burning!)

Re:ID cards = bad idea by gregduffy · 2004-10-27 18:31 · Score: 0, Funny

I think it's plain wrong that they require kids to have cars in Germany. Can everyone there afford cars for their kids?

I think not.

non-story by Fishy · 2004-10-27 18:42 · Score: 1

This was never really going to happen, it was only a suggestion thrown around.

Really what kind of slashdot story is "not on the passport, but on another card"?

A good idea by mrshowtime · 2004-10-27 18:50 · Score: 2, Funny

A great way to get people to use this new id card would be to make it so that you could not be able to buy or sell without the id card, or a tattoo of the id card/w chip implanted.

--
"Jeremy, you need to get to an internet cafe and cut and paste some appropriate sentiments about me from the world wide

Mrs. Thatcher... by jd · 2004-10-27 18:54 · Score: 1

...liked the show and thought it very realistic. I guess we now know just HOW realistic...!

(I wonder... Does Sir Humphrey Applebey read Slashdot? Is he Jon Katz' evil twin? Find out in next week's exciting episode...)

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)

Re:Mrs. Thatcher... by MagicDude · 2004-10-28 03:20 · Score: 1

I wonder... Does Sir Humphrey Applebey read Slashdot?

Unfortunately, Nigel Hawthorne died a few years ago. He had a heart attack while battling pancreatic cancer. He was a great actor. Interestingly, he was also one of the first openly gay actors in Hollywood.

Why are ID cards a bad thing? by Moderation+abuser · 2004-10-27 18:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

The "If you've nothing to hide" and all that argument. Well, ask the Jews in Germany with the J stamp on their ID cards, or the Rwandans who were massacred because their ethnicity was mentioned on their card whether they thought they had anything to hide.

You may well think you have nothing to hide today, but tomorrow ID cards are the perfect discrimination tool, that is after all the whole purpose for an ID card.

Why ID cards are useless, or at least, the arguments given for them so far are bogus:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/ican/A2561834

UK campaign against ID cards:
http://www.no2id.net/

--
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.

Re:Why are ID cards a bad thing? by tigress · 2004-10-27 19:50 · Score: 1

I'm sorry, but that has nothing to do with ID-cards. If you're going to discriminate, an ID-card more or less won't stop you.

I'm asian, living in Sweden. Anyone who as much as looks at me will be able to tell. I'm legally allowed to NOT have an ID-card. Even if I got rid of all my ID-cards, there'd still be records about my ethnicity. There'd still be records with my address, phone number and so on.

Anyone determined enough would be able to tell that I support GLB-issues. Another point for discrimination. How would getting rid of ID-cards stop me from being discriminated about that? What if I was to hug or kiss another girl in a semi-public place? Would it matter if I carried an ID-card or not?

You *WILL* be able to be identified regardless of wether you have ID-cards or not. The issue is not about the cards, but on how you protect data that can be matched against you. Such data can be matched against you regardless of wether you have a national ID-card or not. Making it harder for organizations to match you uniquely only makes it more expensive to maintain such databases, and it increases the chances that your identity will be mistaken for someone elses. However, it does NOT stop anyone determined to find out details about you, merely makes it take a bit longer.
Re:Why are ID cards a bad thing? by aCC · 2004-10-27 20:15 · Score: 1

What a stupid and outrageous argument!

What about all the countries that *DO* have an ID card? Do the Germans still use their ID card to track down Jews or anybody else? How come they are quite happy to only have a small card instead of a passport to carry around. Do they really have less freedom than anybody else?

What about the Americans with their driver's license which is a defacto ID card? Are those used to find and exterminate anybody? Or the French with their ID card. Is it used to kill people on a great scale?

Unbelievable to what lows some people go to argue against something like this. ID cards might be useless or scary in some eyes, but don't argue against them by citing Genocides which made use of some identification of people. No Genocide needs any ID card to be carried out.
Re:Why are ID cards a bad thing? by Moderation+abuser · 2004-10-27 20:35 · Score: 1

"What a stupid and outrageous argument!"

Really? Are you saying that it didn't happen?

Are you saying that 60 years ago in what had previously been a democracy, Jews weren't identified by their cards, herded into concentration camps and gassed by the million? Are you saying that 10 years ago in Rwanda, Tutsi weren't identified by their ID cards, taken to village halls and butchered with machetes by their government?

Because it did happen. In the real world where governments change and extremists get into power these things happen and ID cards make it easy for them.

--
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
Re:Why are ID cards a bad thing? by AGMW · 2004-10-27 20:44 · Score: 1

What a stupid and outrageous argument!
What about all the countries that *DO* have an ID card? Do the Germans still use their ID card to track down Jews or anybody else?
You are somewhat missing the point. I do not think (or at least hope!) that our government would turn on us (or more importantly, me!) in such a manner. What we (some of the Anti-ID Card people) are trying to point out, is that it makes it possible! I suppose the Jews in Germany didn't think they were going to be rounded up when they got the 'J' stamp (I don't actually know, but one assumes they might have made a stand earlier if they had!). Small steps that all, in isolation, seem perfectly sensible can end up providing the government with too much power (or at least the opportunity to exercise too much power) over the populace.
We don't know what new laws are going to be forced through - I'm not a fan of fox hunting, but if you were a born-and-bred fox hunting type you are about to become an outlaw, and then what are they going to ban - fishing probably!
The other side of the coin, is that it really isn't going to help the ordinary citizens to have one of these cards. It's not going to stop crime, or terrorists, or ID theft and it IS going to cost a huge (or indeed *hugh*) amount of money to setup and administer.
[adjusts tin-foil hat]

--
Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
handmadehands.co.uk
Re:Why are ID cards a bad thing? by aCC · 2004-10-27 21:07 · Score: 1

I can appreciate your argument to a degree, but not the silly, undifferentiated one before. There are many valid arguments against the ID card, but just because it could make it easier to create a genocide doesn't mean that you should in any way use that kind of "end-of-discussion" argument.

Genocide doesn't need an ID card at all. The jews were much easier identified by the markings they had to wear. No need for an ID card. People in Darfur get killed in a Genocide without an ID card.

My point is that using this argument goes against what you like to achieve, because people stop taking you seriously then. You have an ID card anyway which is your passport (or driver's license). What if the government just declares that everybody has to carry their passport from now on? Same effect without the new ID card. Can also be used for Genocide (like everything).
Re:Why are ID cards a bad thing? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-27 21:59 · Score: 0

Actually, some issues are "end-of-discussion". For those who wish to force ID cards upon me and force me to present ID against my will it is "end-of-discussion".

"I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775.

"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." - George Bush, Sept 20, 2001

Pick your side.
Re:Why are ID cards a bad thing? by AGMW · 2004-10-28 00:45 · Score: 1

Indeed, the doomsayers on one side trying to tell us that the Government are going to come and steal our children if we get ID cards, and the "if you've done nothing wrong you've nothing to fear" Daily Mail readers on the other.
As always, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
My argument is that legislation changes. New laws are being added to the pile all the time, and often after some tradegy as a knee jerk reaction. I can envisage the creation of a new law that could make me a criminal in the future due to something I might call a hobby now, and remember that this is only thinking about how general circumstances may change that could affect me. This doesn't address the tin-foil hat ideas of the Government actively seeking to destroy me for religious/ethnic/political/whatever reasons.
Think it doesn't happen
- look at Zimbabwe!
- Look at our great and good Government trying to dig up dirt on a Paddington Crash Victim to discredit her
- On the "done nothing wrong" side, what about the people locked up in Guantanamo Bay with no trial? Granted, many of them may well be involved with terrorism, but I bet there are a few innocents locked up there who have "done nothing wrong ...".
Also, if it's going to be so damn useful to all of us, why are they talking about making it mandatory? Surely if there's going to be such a huge benefit to us having one we're all going to be falling over ourselves to get one!
From my perspective I see it as a very costly exercise in, at the very least, risking my future liberty for no personal gain. There is nothing in it for me except the thought that it might just turn out, in fifty/hundred years, that the people alive then look back at this event as the point where they were sold out to Big Brother by a bunch of do-gooders.
I just hope Blunkett has the foresight to have the cards made with rounded corners, because I hope that will save him a lot of discomfort when they get shoved where the sun don't shine!

--
Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
handmadehands.co.uk
Re:Why are ID cards a bad thing? by UpnAtom · 2004-10-28 03:49 · Score: 1

Genocide doesn't need an ID card at all. The jews were much easier identified by the markings they had to wear.

Suggest you find about IBM and the Holocaust.

No need for an ID card. People in Darfur get killed in a Genocide without an ID card.

So you don't need a database to kill indiscriminately. You do need one to persecute distinct groups. Can you believe that the government are already considering putting everyone's ethnicity in their database?

My point is that using this argument goes against what you like to achieve, because people stop taking you seriously then. You have an ID card anyway which is your passport (or driver's license). What if the government just declares that everybody has to carry their passport from now on? Same effect without the new ID card.

You obviously have little idea of what the government is proposing. I wish you were unique in that regard but most people are clueless.

Currently, government plans are that the card need not be carried.

Until recently, access to this database was restricted to government employees, their friends, their friends' neighbours etc. The only real concession Blunkett has made to the damning criticism is allowing you to find out (all of?) what they've stored about you.

The database will also publish a unique number for you, which banks & flight companies will obviously use, hence allowing any future government to discriminate against you based on your finances and travel.

Once you and your unique ID number are interchangeable, it will be used in every single database logging your activities (currently including internet access, phone records, store cards & congestion charging).

Of course, by the time any really dangerous government gets in, this database will also hold your medical records, DNA & movements tracked by CCTV.

You better hope that government likes what it finds.

Re:Privacy: West versus East by superpulpsicle · 2004-10-27 18:58 · Score: 1

Americans naturally have more privacy because they are more spread out.

Population in Hong Kong is jam packed, which allows 1 camera spying on 1 spot and watch 400 people.

You have a license to drive by Moderation+abuser · 2004-10-27 19:03 · Score: 1

You think you should need a license simply to be alive as well?

--
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.

Re:You have a license to drive by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-28 03:29 · Score: 0

With 6 billion (with a B) people on the planet, it might not be a bad idea.
You know ... if you're concerned about the enviroment.

Query optimisation by Slashamatic · 2004-10-27 19:06 · Score: 1

When you have a WHERE clause of

marital status = 'divorced'

isn't the clause

age >= 16

a little redundant (unless you live in certain southern states)?

Re:Query optimisation by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-27 20:20 · Score: 0

Not entirely - if you think about it you might be missing out on some easy meat there.
Re:Query optimisation by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-28 01:49 · Score: 0

SELECT * FROM the_people WHERE sex = 'female' AND marital_status = 'divorced' AND divorce_date >= date_sub(now(), interval 2 month) AND age >= 16 AND age ...

Actually, you would be better off selecting marital status first, then divorce rate, age and finally sex.

Re:Privacy: West versus East by WIAKywbfatw · 2004-10-27 19:07 · Score: 1

Your post might have some merit if it weren't for the fact that it's entirely inaccurate. There are plenty of countries in the West that have national ID cards and plenty in the East that don't.

And are you really suggesting that Hong Kong is a failed society? Really? I bet that the average Hong Kong resident has received a better education and has access to better healthcare than the average American.

You come out with this sort of "them and us" bullshit and then you wonder why not everyone everywhere loves America.

--

"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg

Re:ID cards = bad idea by tarunthegreat2 · 2004-10-27 19:07 · Score: 1, Funny

ID Cars eh? You have a flash a Merc at the door of club before they allow you to get in? That doesn't happen anywhere els...oh wait....

--
My Favourite Meme

Re:Privacy: West versus East by tfoudray · 2004-10-27 19:08 · Score: 1

While the parent post IS a troll, it does bring up a semi-common misconception. I currently live in South Korea, and was raised in America. While there are fundamental differences in the social fabric of South Korean life, it does not, by any means, mean they "embrace invasion of privacy."

In particular, The Korean (and other eastern cultures) people have a more group centered attitude than the ultra-individualistic attitudes prevelant in the west (specifically in America). Firstly, the western-centric 'My view is right' attitude is kind of annoying, but for the benefit of those who actually want to think about the implications of this kind of difference rather than just brand 'different' as 'bad', I'll expand on this idea, and what it means in terms of privacy.

Speaking and acting as a group is not an invasion of personal privacy. It is an embrace of social interaction. Humans, as a race (slashdot geeks being a notable exception..) are social. While westerners beleive more or less in the value of the individual, South Koreans in particular are more interested in the value of the group. I, as an outsider, have never felt that my privacy has been invaded or compromised. All I have noticed is that people are just plain nicer and less interested in backstabbing and personal profit than those I've seen in america, as a general rule (although there are certainly abberations in both America and south Korea).

I hope this clears up the parents' and anyone else's confusion on this matter.

You'll still be carrying multiple IDs by Moderation+abuser · 2004-10-27 19:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

You think that because you are issued an ID card that you won't also have to carry your driving license, your credit cards, your library card, your Rotary Club card?

No, it's an *additional* ID that you will have to carry.

Not only that. To be remotely effective it is an ID which it must be compulsory to carry, that means fines and jail time if you don't. The UK ID scheme requires that an individual register with the state *and tell it where you live*. You move house and forget to tell the government, you get fined. You don't tell them you also live at your girlfriends? That's an offense.

--
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.

Re:You'll still be carrying multiple IDs by tigress · 2004-10-27 21:16 · Score: 1

In Denmark, ID-cards (of which a drivers license is one type) will also work as a library card, medical insurance card and so on. There's been trials with combining credit cards and ID-cards (basically, a credit card with the same information as a valid ID-card printed on it).

This reduces the amount of cards that you're required to carry significantly. Now, it's still possible to get any of those cards separately if you wish, however most people chose the convenience of having it all on one card.

Oh, and by the way, it's not compulsory to carry an ID-card in Denmark. There are no fines, nor jail-time if you don't.

Still, it's extremely effective because most people don't mind the convenience with the system. And, the regulations specifying the use of databases that contains personal information protects your privacy.
Re:You'll still be carrying multiple IDs by pjt33 · 2004-10-27 21:43 · Score: 1

The UK ID scheme requires that an individual register with the state *and tell it where you live*. You move house and forget to tell the government, you get fined.
It's already the case that if you have a UK driving licence and you don't tell the DVLA when you move, you can be hit with a thousand pound fine.
You don't tell them you also live at your girlfriends? That's an offense.
My emphasis. I don't recall seeing anything about that when I read the draft Bill. Do you have a reference for that claim?
Re:You'll still be carrying multiple IDs by lukesky · 2004-10-27 22:08 · Score: 0

I live in Denmark, and to elaborate a little on how a working ID-card system is functioning.

In 1968 everybody in Denmark got a number, and since that day every person that have been born in Denmark have also got such a number.

And YES, this means that the government can track you and that you will have to tell the government where you live.

But it also means that many things become much easier for the individual person in Denmark, and that it very difficult to cheat the government.

To avoid abuse of this system, very strict laws prohibit that many different government databases are linked together.

This system have been working very well for more than 35 years, and most danes are happy about it.

--
-- look sir droids...

Misleading title of article. by flokemon · 2004-10-27 19:13 · Score: 2, Informative

Blunkett is not backing down on the idea of an ID card. There just won't be combined cards (ie passport + driving license + ID card) but a standalone ID card instead.
And it will still cost £35 and contain I don't know how much biometric data.

Re:Misleading title of article. by Hogwash+McFly · 2004-10-27 23:19 · Score: 1

I don't know how much biometric data

I hear you need to give them semen, urine and stool samples. Your underpants will do just fine :P

--
Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?

Mod parent down by tarunthegreat2 · 2004-10-27 19:18 · Score: 1

This guy's a known baiter. Check his previous posts. He seems to be some idiot Japanese/American with a very bigoted view. Thank God not all Americans think like this fudgepacker.

--
My Favourite Meme

ID cards are great, because... by j.leidner · 2004-10-27 19:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

...they contain the same information as your passport, except for the vista stamps, just in a compact form that makes it easier to always carry it in your wallet. No need to remeber it anymore when you drive to the airport.

And if you're having a small car accident somewhere and both parties don't want to bother calling the police you can quickly exchage your (authenticated!) name.

In effect, the ID card is a downsized version of the ID card that is already part of EU passports (the plastic, machine-readable part). And there's no secret information stored on it either, because you can tell how the information is encoded in the two machine-readable lines of text:

The lead string "ID" to calibrate the card readers.
Surname
First mame
Number of the ID card
Country issued
Date issued
Expiration date
Checksum

Say Cowboy Neal was born in Britain on 1 January 1977 and had an ID card that expired on the UNIX epoch (just making this up), then his entry could read (assuming the British card follows the European model):

IDGB<NEAL<<<<<COWBOY<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< 7101245447G B<<770101X<380119Y<<<<<<<Z

(X, Y, Z being check digits I can't be bothered to compute right this morning, and the spurious blank is inserted by ./ somehow...)

So it's very simple and transparent, no Orwellian tech built in. That's why I love my (German) ID card and always carry it (even in Britain) to give evident that I'm me (and not Elvis), fly around without having to remember did I forget my passport, and yet nobody can easily abuse the system.
A biometric passport, on the other hand, would be a completely different matter...

--
Try Nuggets , the first UK SMS search engine. Answer your questions via simple text messages, all across the UK.

Re:ID cards are great, because... by j.leidner · 2004-10-27 19:23 · Score: 1

Of course I meant 'end of' UNIX epoch and ./, not /. ;)
Re:ID cards are great, because... by gsslay · 2004-10-27 21:50 · Score: 1

Hi. I'm a criminal. I have copied/forged your ID card. Now I am you and what's more I can prove it.
Your bank knows that I am you. Four other banks I have since opened accounts with know I am you. The police know I am you. That guy I had the small car accident with yesterday knows I am you.
But hang on, I didn't just forge your card, I stole it first. You have no card. Who are you? Prove it. You are no-one. Your card confirmed your rights as a citizen. Therefore you have no rights.
Got nothing to hide? Great. Unfortunately I do. Be prepared to be treated as me, because remember; I am you.
But I'm really a nice guy. Here, have your card back. Sorry about the mess I've made of your records in the national database. That CRIMINAL flag might be prove to be awkward for you. But I'm sure you'll have no problems at all sorting it out. No red-tape involved in dealing with large governmental organisations, are there? Nope, no chances of any screw ups.
I'm a criminal and I think national ID cards are a great idea. They're your convenient one-stop shop for identity theft!
Re:ID cards are great, because... by pjt33 · 2004-10-27 21:52 · Score: 0

And if you're having a small car accident somewhere and both parties don't want to bother calling the police you can quickly exchage your (authenticated!) name.
It's against UK law to fail to notify the police of an accident. And the card Blunkett proposes isn't just the same data as the passport: he wants biometrics on it, because he thinks they're infallible, and he wants a centralised database which can be accessed by police, banks, etc.
Re:ID cards are great, because... by j.leidner · 2004-10-27 22:08 · Score: 1

Hi. I'm a criminal. I have copied/forged your ID card. Now I am you and what's more I can prove it.
Sorry, but this is a non-argument, for the following reason: _every_ authentification scheme can be circumvented, given enough criminal energy/resources, but that doesn't make all authentification useless: the fact that I could torture you to obtain your UNIX root password (God forbid) doesn't imply we should get rid of passwords in general, because having passwords, and authentification in general, raises the bar. It's the usual technology arms race.
Insisting ID cards don't make sense because they can be forged amounts to rejecting banknotes because you can fake them. You simply have to make the system as hard to break as possible, and try to catch those who still succeed (that's why there are anti-fraud police units).
Re:ID cards are great, because... by Inda · 2004-10-28 01:02 · Score: 1

Wrong. So so wrong.

If you call the police for a minor accident they may caution you for wasting their time. I've been there, done that... Not made the call, mind you. The other party did that.

The only time you need to inform the police is when someone is injured or an animal (domestic) is injured. The rest of the time you should only inform your insurance company.

--
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
Re:ID cards are great, because... by JimBobJoe · 2004-10-28 01:39 · Score: 1

then his entry could read (assuming the British card follows the European model)

It seems that the trend for identification documents is moving away from machine readability that is simultaneously human readable. I would imagine that the new card would be more likely to have a PDF-417 barcode than the human readabile machine text.
Re:ID cards are great, because... by ahillen · 2004-10-28 02:12 · Score: 1

Well, you seem a bit paranoid by thinking that your identity is somehow magically transfered to a piece of paper/plastic. Here's the good news: it isn't. People can always claim to be you. It's easy if you don't have to show an ID, it's more difficult if you have to identify yourself with some document (because you have to forge that first). But if somebody causes an accident and claims he is you, it doesn't make you responsible for it. That's what courts are for, you know. Same goes with the bank account. They don't require ID to open one where you live? Fine, that should make it quite easy to open one in your name. Oh, they require one? OK, then the criminal would have to forge one commonly accepted document. Does it matter if it is a national ID card or adriving licence? I think not.

Oh, and I was especially frightened by the prospect of being noone when losing my ID. It must be rather rare that somebody loses it or it gets stolen or whatever. Otherwise I would be surrounded by rightless zombies. In fact, mine got stolen a couple of years ago. And my new one - yes, I got a new identity (well, actually it is more less the same because my name didn't change :) ) - my new one expired a couple of weeks ago. I guess I better brace myself... I just wonder: if I'm no one if I lose my ID, how can I be someone if I never get one? :)
Re:ID cards are great, because... by UpnAtom · 2004-10-28 05:43 · Score: 1

And there's no secret information stored on it either
Why would they store information on the card where everyone can see it?

Your card only needs a unique number. Connecting to the central database, this number can then be used to download your photograph, name, date & place of birth and international travel details.

I'd have thought /.ers would have figured this out.

One problem comes when that unique number indexes every single database storing information about you: bank, credit card, store cards, phone, internet, medical etc etc.

I've posted about this at length today and don't wish to repeat myself.
Re:ID cards are great, because... by gsslay · 2004-10-29 00:02 · Score: 1

Yes, people can always claim to be you. But until the introduction of an ID card they would have had to proved it in a number of ways that are readily understood to be open to abuse.
The difference is that the ID claims to be above this and may even surplant the existing means of proving your identity. This is what makes it dangerous. It's a single point of failure in the system that is being sold to the public as being fail-proof and the answer to everything. It isn't anything of the sort.
Any example of what happened when you lost your current ID are irrelevant. The point is that no currently available ID claims to be (or, more importantly, is believed to be) what Blunkett's ID card is. Currently you are losing your basket when there's only one egg in it. It's a whole different scenario when all your eggs are put there.
Re:ID cards are great, because... by gsslay · 2004-10-29 00:10 · Score: 1

How often do you use your UNIX root password? Carry it around with you much? Depend on it as your only access into your system? The ID card is being sold as the solution to a whole raft of problems. The single unified solution to proving who you are for all purposes. As such it is a single point of failure. Once it fails you're shafted. If you use your root password as the everyday solution for all purposes you deserve disaster when it strikes. And if I ever get a fake banknote I'm only inconvenienced up to the value of that note. It does not stop me using other banknotes. My identity is a little different.

Freedom with no boundaries is no freedom at all by October_30th · 2004-10-27 19:20 · Score: 2, Interesting

but there is one main reason to keep freedom and that is freedom.

So, ID cards take away the freedom? That's news to me. I've got a unique social security number on an ID card. It's required when I use public services such as health care, when I vote, to show that I am permitted to drive a car or that I am the owner of the bank/credit card when I'm making a significant purchase. And you know what? I like it. I like to know that requiring positive identification reduces health care fraud, that it's hard for someone to vote in my place or that it's risky for a thief to use my bank/credit card. No, an ID card is not the perfect solution, but it will do a lot of good.

This talk about people losing their freedoms if ID cards are issued is just a lot of hot air and a non-issue. It's an extremist, all-or-nothing attitude that's bordering on religious fervor and hysteria. Such ideals are hardly ever practical or even beneficial in real life.

There is no such thing as too much liberty ... it would be like saying that science is too rational.

Well, as a scientist I don't think a purely rational approach to problems would work as well as the present intuitive/rational-combination.

Saying that there can not be too much liberty is nonsense. Freedom is essentially defined by the few boundaries we set to it. No boundaries, no freedom.

--
The owls are not what they seem

The ID card system would have to be huge by Moderation+abuser · 2004-10-27 19:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

Seriously *HUGE*. Banks, Post Offices, Hospitals, Doctors, DWP offices, Police Offices would all need access and specialised biometric kit to demonstrate that the cards are valid.

An ID card system would be far far larger and more complex than the NHS IT system. The estimated 3 billion cost is a joke. A white elephant doesn't begin to describe it, a white Mammoth might.

--
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.

Re:The ID card system would have to be huge by rpjs · 2004-10-27 21:17 · Score: 3, Insightful

And interestingly, the Home Office haven't even begun to cost for all the biometric readers in all those places that will be necessary for the Blunkettcard to work. I suspect that if they do, the Treasury will squash the whole thing dead in an instant. They'll probably try to hold off revealing the full cost until enough money has been spent already that it would be more economic to carry on.
Re:The ID card system would have to be huge by mikerich · 2004-10-28 02:05 · Score: 1

And interestingly, the Home Office haven't even begun to cost for all the biometric readers in all those places that will be necessary for the Blunkettcard to work. I suspect that if they do, the Treasury will squash the whole thing dead in an instant. They'll probably try to hold off revealing the full cost until enough money has been spent already that it would be more economic to carry on.
Agreed. The Treasury has already said the system must be self-funding - hence the ever-spiralling estimates of what a passport is going to cost us.
But I guess when the IT companies really start screwing up a miraculous tax-payers' bail-out will materialise and not one of the people behind the scheme will have to resign.
Best wishes,
Mike.

Labour will win anyway by Moderation+abuser · 2004-10-27 19:30 · Score: 1

They already know that.

The election system is first past the post. That means that voting for anything but the 2 largest parties is a waste of time, and currently the Conservative vote is split between the Conservatives and the UK Independance party. This means that the Conservatives can't win. The Liberal party aren't large enough to win.

HTH

--
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.

Re:Labour will win anyway by vrai · 2004-10-27 20:36 · Score: 1

It's unlikely that many of the people who voted for the UKIP in the Euro/local elections are going to vote for them in the general. The first step to getting the UK out of the EU (and back in the EEA/EFTA) is getting rid of New Labour, UKIP voters know this.
Oh, and the Liberal party is a completely different entity to the Liberal Democrats. The Liberals are actually liberal (the inheritors of the old Liberal party beliefs), the LibDems are European style Social Democrats.
Re:Labour will win anyway by Moderation+abuser · 2004-10-27 20:41 · Score: 1

Mark my words. The UK independance party are a conservative spoiler party. They have been and will continue to suck away enough votes from the conservatives that they can't win. There is no chance of anyone but Labour winning the next election, despite the Iraq war.

--
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
Re:Labour will win anyway by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-27 20:44 · Score: 1, Interesting

First past the post doesn't automatically make the UK system ineffective. Labour will win, but they will not have anything like the majority they currently have. The Tories are a total joke who'll scrape up their usual safe seats and probably mantain the same number of seats as they currently do. UKIP is a joke on par with the BNP; don't believe everything that buffon Kilroy-Silk tells the press. I'd expect the Lib Dems to make the biggest gains at the expense of unsafe Labour seats.

The Tory and Lib Dems will almost certainly outwheigh Labour by enough to form an effective opposition in Parliament, so things will be a lot tougher for 'Tone and his Cronies in 2005.
Re:Labour will win anyway by SenseiLeNoir · 2004-10-27 21:56 · Score: 1

NEVER underestimate the power of Tactical voting.

Tony Blair should be well reminded that New Labour got into power in 1997 not nessasarily because everyone who voted them WANTED a New Labour government, but also because many crucial labour voters wanted the Tories OUT.

However, the tides CAN turn, and if Tony pisses off enough floating UK voters, they will tactically vote HIM out too.

--
Have a nice day!
Re:Labour will win anyway by jimicus · 2004-10-27 22:07 · Score: 1

The election system is first past the post. That means that voting for anything but the 2 largest parties is a waste of time,

Bullshit. If enough people take the approach "I might as well vote for Labour, they're going to get in anyway", you wind up with a party in charge which was elected not because they're popular, but because they're already powerful. Surely the whole point of an election is to put the party the people want in power rather than confirm who's already there?
Re:Labour will win anyway by 16K+Ram+Pack · 2004-10-27 22:21 · Score: 1

The big problem for labour will be the unravelling of the Lib Dem tactical vote.
Seat predictions show Labour winning the next election, but work too simply. They work as a straight line prediction, where the maths are more complicated.
A lot of LD voters will not give tactical support to Labour again, and there's a heck of a lot of Labour seats with quite small majorities.
I think they will still win, but it could be much closer than people think.
If Iraq gets a lot worse, I think that the figures will really change.
Re:Labour will win anyway by Hogwash+McFly · 2004-10-27 23:10 · Score: 1

If you're a gambling man...

Give it a spin

Ok the odds aren't that great at eight to one on but if you think it's a sure thing...

--
Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
Re:Labour will win anyway by goatan · 2004-10-28 21:44 · Score: 1

Mark my words. The UK independance party are a conservative spoiler party.
In the Loacls yes but very few people are dumb enough to vote for UKIP in a general election Especially if Kilroy Silk becomes leader UKIP will bomb.

--
Saying Apple is better than MS is like saying Botulism is better than rabies.

You want a fake card? by Moderation+abuser · 2004-10-27 19:40 · Score: 1

Cos I can get you one. It isn't difficult. Then you could prove you are anyone you want to be.

--
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.

Re:Bringing this back to the America's topic by jcr · 2004-10-27 19:40 · Score: 1

Were the Founder 'Parents' for or against big government?

I'd have to say that the answer to that is abundantly clear to anyone who's ever read the Declaration of Independence:

"He has erected a multitude of officers, and sent them forth to harass our people and eat out their substance".

-jcr

--
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."

The UK by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-27 19:50 · Score: 0

As an inebriated American, I like the UK. Never been, but from what I hear it's nice. Granted, it seems your government is a little more iron-fisted than mine (at least regarding its own citizens), but that is bound to change following this next election. Us Americans will then join you UK(ians?) under the All-Knowing rule of some sort of Bilderberger/Bush/Rockefeller/Other-Family-Name plot. Hey European brothers (and sisters, of course), here we come!

Re:Bringing this back to the America's topic by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-27 19:50 · Score: 1, Interesting

You can turn the question around and ask if the lack of an official identification is a harm to your civil rights.
US is experiencing a lot of difficulties these days about registration of voters and there are used big resources to get voters to register as well as preventing them from voting by questioning their registrations.
I live in a country with a governmental register of all people in the country - and this has be running without any problems since the sixties. We all have a CPR number (Central Person Register number) that is assigned at birth (or at immigration) and will follow us till we die. We have no ID card as such but the number is used in all contact with the government, municipal, etc.
But the best thing is that voters cards are just printed out before any election, countrywide or local. These cards are presented when you want to vote and by such identifies the voter and prevents any voter for casting more than one vote.
This is a rather simple approach and is probably why we can maintain above 80% in vote rate at the elections for the parliament. And just as a side note: The system has been a great success and has been exported to many other countries throughout the world. Maybe US should show some interest in it ;-)

The real reason... by skinfitz · 2004-10-27 19:53 · Score: 3, Insightful

Is it the beginning of the end of a bad idea, or just more spin to dodge the remaining concerns?

No silly - there is an election coming up.

No he's not! by Builder · 2004-10-27 20:05 · Score: 3, Informative

He's not backing down on ID cards - in reality, we're moving away from voluntary and towards compulsory!

He's backing down on the idea of a combined card to serve as a drivers licence, ID card, etc. Instead, we will have to carry separate cards for each of these functions.

And the clever thing is the way that he is forcing them on us. When you renew your passport you will be forced to get an ID card as well. And you will have to pay GBP35 for the privilege! If you don't want an ID card, the only way to avoid it is to not get a passport - this is a problem for many of us who have to travel on business.

Re:No he's not! by tigress · 2004-10-27 20:15 · Score: 1

So, standardize the information. Make it so that the information on the card is the same regardless of wether you have a passport, ID-card or drivers license, like the way it's over here.

That way, you would only need EITHER a passport, ID-card or drivers license to identify yourself.
Re:No he's not! by Builder · 2004-10-28 08:22 · Score: 1

Surely you'd never get away with a card as a passport - this wouldn't work for most other goverments and it would be a huge problem for anywhere that needs a visa.

I'm used to travelling on a South African passport. You need a visa for EVERYWHERE pretty much, and all of them are designed for book style passports. I'm not sure anywhere could cope with a card for issuing visas.

Amen to that by tgma · 2004-10-27 20:16 · Score: 2, Interesting

I live in Russia, but have spent most of my adult life in the UK. When I go back to the UK, it is such a weight off my shoulders knowing that as I leave the house, I do not have to worry about whether I have all my documents with me. At the moment, this includes: passport, visa, immigration card and work permit. In theory, I am in breach of the law, because my registration stamp is in my passport, and not on my immigration card. Of course, if the stamp were on my immigration card, there would be questions about why it is not in my passport.

Of course, foreigners have to register in the UK as well. But it's a lot easier to get the requisite stamps, and there is no requirement to present these documents to any policeman on demand. Whereas in Russia, policemen gather outside bars frequented by foreigners, in order to check their documents and extract a little late-night "foreigner tax". It's all about implementation - without safeguards, the system will certainly be abused. But better not to have the system in the first place.

Re:Amen to that by Reziac · 2004-10-28 04:49 · Score: 1

Interesting to hear from someone with experience on both sides of the issue. Now, I'm curious -- is there anyone who has lived in a state that requires people to carry their papers, who is actually in favour of such a scheme??

--
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?

An ID card allows people stopped at roadblocks by Moderation+abuser · 2004-10-27 20:16 · Score: 1

To be identified as undesirable and butchered. By complete strangers who otherwise know nothing about them. You might think it's far fetched, well it would be if it hadn't already happened.

e.g.
http://www.preventgenocide.org/edu/pastgen ocides/r wanda/indangamuntu.htm

I have no intention of giving that kind of power to the people in charge.

ID cards are tools of discrimination, they make it *easy*, they make it attractive. You might well be discriminated against for being Lesbian by people who know you or have seen you. Imagine it recorded in your ID database record for banks and employers.

--
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.

Re:An ID card allows people stopped at roadblocks by tigress · 2004-10-27 21:04 · Score: 1

How many of these have national IDs?

Now, I don't doubt that many of them are terrorists and criminals. However, most of the prisoners in Guantanamo bay have not been charged with a crime, they're just being held indefinitely. And, there ARE people who are just being held there because of mistaken identity, that they shared a name with a terrorist, or are related to a terrorist and so on.

How does the lack of a national ID help them? How would the EXISTANCE of a national ID help them? The issue is not national IDs or not, it's about how the data that exists in various databases is used. A national ID will make it easier to reference the RIGHT person. It has no effect on wether you will get stopped at roadblocks or not though.

You may think this is unreasonable. Well, how about the recording of party sympathies that plauged the US during the 50s and 60s. Did you know that the FBI kept records of people who had attended communist party meetings? Did the lack of a national ID stop them from doing that?

You WILL be discriminated against regardless of a national ID or not, as long as people have a reason for discriminating against you. What you should be fighting isn't a national ID, but the abuse of databases that record personal information. Such as the ones used to single out Japanese citizens (US, World War II), communists (US, 50s, 60s) or muslims (US, 2001-current).
Re:An ID card allows people stopped at roadblocks by UpnAtom · 2004-10-28 04:25 · Score: 1

You WILL be discriminated against regardless of a national ID or not, as long as people have a reason for discriminating against you.

You're right that few need an ID card to tell that you are Asian.However, if your government wanted to eliminate ALL Asians, they wouldn't get far without cataloguing them all.

Religions are equally likely to be discriminated against and aren't as obvious.

What you should be fighting isn't a national ID, but the abuse of databases that record personal information. Such as the ones used to single out Japanese citizens (US, World War II), communists (US, 50s, 60s) or muslims (US, 2001-current).

A very good point. But how DOES one restrict access to such a database to people who will never allow anyone to abuse it?

For what it's worth, Putin has endorsed Bush by tgma · 2004-10-27 20:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

And he is probably number one in the world in terms of rolling back civil liberties. Note that I say rolling back - there are a lot of places worse than Russia, but they have been that way from a long time. Russia is actively moving back towards totalitarianism.

Re:For what it's worth, Putin has endorsed Bush by mi · 2004-10-28 01:56 · Score: 1

Gee, you forgot to mention Iran's (mock) endorsement. That said, just seeing these people blast Bush seals the question for me...

--
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.

But I already carry my eyes and fingerprints by Andy_R · 2004-10-27 20:24 · Score: 3, Insightful

I've said this several times before in slashdot id card discussions, but I've yet to have a sensible explanation for it.

Why do I need to carry biometric data about my eyes and fingerprints with me, when I'm already taking my actual eyes and fingerprints?

If we are going to be identified by biometric data, how can looking at a forgable, breakable, swappable, stealable card be more reliable than looking at the actual evidence?

--
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a

Re:But I already carry my eyes and fingerprints by Mr+Syd · 2004-10-27 22:32 · Score: 3, Informative

Because the biometric tech is only good enough to validate that you are the same as the person identified on the card.

The technology is not capable of matching your biometric data (eg your retina scan) with a unique individual on the database - your retina would match you + several other people, so the system wouldn't know whether the person standing there was John Smith or Osama Bin Laden, who (from the system's point of view) have identical retinas.

--
Que voy a hacerle yo
Si me gusta el whisky sin soda
Re:But I already carry my eyes and fingerprints by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-27 23:24 · Score: 0

If you had a finger print taken everytime you wanted to get benifit, submit a tax return or see your GP, then the threat to your freedom and state oppresion would be pretty apparent. It wouldn't last very long at all.

The public would realise that they were all being treated like crims, and wouldn't take to kindly to it.

However, if you just read finger prints once then the whole issue gets swept under the carpet - after all its just a card thats being swiped, and whilst the same process goes on it doesn't seem as obtrusive.

And its easily justified - a few bogus security alerts at major airports, then maybe getting some pro-gov paper to smuggle pretend "bombs" into airports, and better still, manage to create a security scare by getting a job as a chef and holding marizipan near lapdog blairs no 1 rival ( I can't believe that made the papers ).

Scare the electorate into submission...

We didn't need ID cards to fight the IRA so I don't understand why we need them to fight the current overhyped justification for the new american century.

I can't get away from my belief that Tony invents these ridiculous projects which ineviatably seem to overrun as a way of legally providing government subsidy to the software industry.
Re:But I already carry my eyes and fingerprints by tangent3 · 2004-10-28 00:29 · Score: 1

The biometric data on the card identifies that you are the rightful owner of the card, of course. Whoever wants to look at your card to verify who you are will not be looking for the biometric data, but things like your name and age and if they want to. The biometric data is there as a check that you are the rightful owner of the card when you claim that you are who the card says you are.
Re:But I already carry my eyes and fingerprints by poot_rootbeer · 2004-10-28 04:31 · Score: 1

Why do I need to carry biometric data about my eyes and fingerprints with me, when I'm already taking my actual eyes and fingerprints?

Redundancy checking.

Just like how stores are supposed to check the signature on the back of your credit card against the one on the receipt to make sure they match, people using biometric cards as ID would have the stored data matched against fingerprints and/or retinal scans done right then and there.

Identity theft by Moderation+abuser · 2004-10-27 20:25 · Score: 2

An ID card is a single piece of identification which makes identity theft simpler, not more difficult.

In terms of civil liberties you are lucky and a little naive, just 60 years ago fairly near where you live, millions of people were being gassed because they could be easily identified as Jewish.

And there will be one true database, the legislation is already in place, there will also be lots of very useful databases which can be trivially indexed onto the primary one using the ID number.

--
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.

Re:Identity theft by tigress · 2004-10-27 20:42 · Score: 1

Forging ID-cards is trivial regardless of wether you use a single ID-card or not. In the US, many places take social security cards as IDs. Tell me, how is it more difficult to forge a social security card than a single ID-card? What about the fact that different ID-cards have different information? I can always claim that my (unknown) card is a valid ID-card in my [state|country].

"In terms of civil liberties you are lucky and a little naive, just 60 years ago fairly near where you live..."

Oh, and by the way, I'm asian. Anyone that looks at me will be able to tell that I'm asian. You don't need an ID-card to lock up people who happens to be of a certain ethnicity. I actually happen to know this for a fact.

Just look at the US, for instance. Do google for "February 19, 1942", "Executive Order 9066" or maybe even "american concentration camps".

You might get hits about things dated in 2002, disregard them, they've obviously got nothing to do with civil liberties and has nothing to do with ethnicity.
Re:Identity theft by Moderation+abuser · 2004-10-27 20:56 · Score: 1

"Forging ID-cards is trivial regardless of wether you use a single ID-card or not."

Indeed. The difference? An ID card is taken as gospel. If you have a plausible ID card then you *are* that person for all intents and purposes. The card defines the person, not the otherway round. If someone gets hold of your ID number? They become you.

"Oh, and by the way, I'm asian. You don't need an ID-card to lock up people who happens to be of a certain ethnicity."

No, but it does make a bloody good excuse to stop and search, doesn't it. For an ID card to be effective it has to be compulsory. If it's compulsory the police have to be given at least stop and check powers over and above what they have now. Expect to be stopped on a daily or weekly basis and be asked to identify yourself. I obviously won't be stopped because I'm a white male. ID cards are enablers for racism.

--
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
Re:Identity theft by tigress · 2004-10-27 21:08 · Score: 1

No, but it does make a bloody good excuse to stop and search, doesn't it. For an ID card to be effective it has to be compulsory. If it's compulsory the police have to be given at least stop and check powers over and above what they have now. Expect to be stopped on a daily or weekly basis and be asked to identify yourself. I obviously won't be stopped because I'm a white male. ID cards are enablers for racism.

Police in the US regularly stop black youths for no reason whatsoever other than that they happen to be in their own neighbourhoods. Many of them don't have IDs, but they get stopped and asked to identify themselves anyway.

Me, on the other hand, an asian in a country where ethnic diversity is far less than in the US, where national IDs are a fact (although not compulsory), have NEVER been stopped and asked to identify myself.

It's not about the IDs.
Re:Identity theft by ahillen · 2004-10-27 22:41 · Score: 1

An ID card is a single piece of identification which makes identity theft simpler, not more difficult.

This is something I also don't believe (like tigress). I think having one standard ID makes forging more difficult, since everybody (at least everybody who has to check IDs regularly) knows how they are supposed to look like. It gets more and more difficult the more different formats you have. (Of course the difficulty also depends on the complexity of the document itself). Sure it can not be 100% reliable, but without a standard I'd say identity theft is simpler.

In terms of civil liberties you are lucky and a little naive, just 60 years ago fairly near where you live, millions of people were being gassed because they could be easily identified as Jewish.

True, but AFAIK that has nothing to do with ID cards or passports, because the ID documents didn't say whether you are Jewish or not. They made stamps in the passports later on and forced Jewish people to wear yellow stars to be easily identified on the streets. Millions of people (everybody working for the state, lawyers, pupils on higher schools etc.) had to prove their "right" ethnic background by providing a report containing documents about the birth and marriage of the parents and grandparents. If Jews could have been easily identified by just looking at some document, like you say, then why did the Nazis bother with such a major bureaucratic effort?

Cannot critisize David Blunket by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-27 20:39 · Score: 0

David Blunket as thick skinned a politician as they come. And because he is blind it is politically incorrect to tell him to his face that he is thickskinned, obnoxious, blundering and stupid. Got nothing against blind people, but in my experience their attention span is difernt to seeing people. How long would you be able to concentrate on something that you cannot see? Blunket keeps on moving from the one attention seeking issue to the next, never finishing anything, and all the time ending up with his favourite issue - guarenteed to get the headlines everytime. Disabled people should be able to receive and accept criticism like the rest of us. Time he and Labour with him is voted out for a few years again. Let the UK wheel of power rotate again, its been standing still for too long now.

Re:Cannot critisize David Blunket by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-27 20:56 · Score: 1, Insightful

You forgat to add - his typical tactic on new laws is to set the bar too high, wait for the initial balking to die down, and then reset the bar a little lower and generally gets the law passed with a little grumbling. That is a dishonest abuse of process and highlights the low class of characters that are in office in the UK. This is true of most politicians in western democracies at the moment.
We could see all this as one big soap opera, if it wasn't for the fact that it affects real lives.
Re:Cannot critisize David Blunket by steve_l · 2004-10-27 21:11 · Score: 1

yeah, he is more than many in the conservative party were -and gets away with it.

The scary thing is: I think this is because a lot of people agree with him. They think that asylum seekers are a real problem, and that ID cards will fix it. Or that ID cards will somehow prevent terrorism. It will do neither, but we will end up paying for an oppressive state.

national ID != national database by geg81 · 2004-10-27 20:39 · Score: 1

Having a high quality national ID card, with or without biometrics, is a good thing: it lets you prove more reliably who you are when you choose to.

What's a bad thing is to make carrying and showing a national ID mandatory. What's also bad is storing the biometric identifiers or other new information contained on it in a national database (the other information on it is in numerous national databases already anyway).

Re:In France the ID card is NOT compulsory ! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-27 20:47 · Score: 0

You must confuse with some other country. In France, the ID card is not compulsory, you don't need to apply for it (even if it simplifies things a lot, when paying by check for example).

It's not just the govenment. by clare-ents · 2004-10-27 21:01 · Score: 4, Interesting

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/3 951945.stm

A man who worked for the driving licence authority misused his access to their database to pass details to Animal Rights protestors about people who may be involved with Chris Hall - a breeder of guinea pigs for medical testing.

The details of 13 people were handed out and a variety of offences of criminal damage were conducted against them, including smashed windows and pushing a hosepipe through the front door to fill the house with water.

It's not just the government who'll have access to the database, it's every employee too.

--
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. (Einstein)

Re:It's not just the govenment. by jimicus · 2004-10-27 22:22 · Score: 2, Informative

It's not just the government who'll have access to the database, it's every employee too.

Well, it is just the government who'll have access to the database. But you have to understand what the government is in the context of "who requires access to this system?"

It's not Tony Blair.

It's not the Labour Party.

It's every single government agency. That's driving licenses, social security, healthcare, local councils, law enforcement and education just off the top of my head.

Does the person who thinks they have nothing to hide expect me to believe that there's not a single corruptible person employed by any of those organisations?

``... gone for good'' by R.Caley · 2004-10-27 21:04 · Score: 1

removed from the initial bill is not `gone for good'.

Like universallity and enforced carrying of the cards it can and will be introduced as an incremental change later.

I mean, if you have an ID card and a passport and a driving licence, why should you have to remember where they all are? Let the nic egovernment make your life simpler by combining them...

--
_O_ .|< The named which can be named is not the true named

so become a citizen of another EU country by steve_l · 2004-10-27 21:06 · Score: 1

I think I qualify for an irish passport on account of a grandparent. So I can get that and let my uk one lapse.

Re:so become a citizen of another EU country by pjt33 · 2004-10-27 21:54 · Score: 1

I've just sent off for a new passport, so I'll be fine for five years, but I must say I'm also considering trying to get together the data to prove entitlement to an Irish passport. Have to hope they don't follow Blunkett.
Re:so become a citizen of another EU country by cowbutt · 2004-10-27 22:02 · Score: 1

I think I qualify for an irish passport on account of a grandparent. So I can get that and let my uk one lapse.
Only if the parent through whom you (wish to) derive your Irish citizenship was entered on the Irish 'Foreign Births Register' before you were born. See for more details.
--
Re:so become a citizen of another EU country by steve_l · 2004-10-28 10:40 · Score: 1

oh, that's complex.

1. My grandfather was born in Portadown, co. Armagh, in pre-partition ireland.

2. my father was born in Portadown too. so could also qualify. he actually lives in france now, for extra complexity.

I think this means that I qualify, but my two year old child doesn't. As he was born in the US, he already has dual nationality, and so gets to go through the fast passport queue.

I have bookmarked the site and may start with the process, which looks like it will take a while.

This headline is all wrong! by lga · 2004-10-27 21:19 · Score: 4, Informative

David Blunkett is not backing down on ID cards.

The headline is misleading. The change that the BBC is referring to is that the the government will not make the ID card the same item as the passport and the driving license like the government was originally planning.

What has not changed is that anyone applying for a passport will still have to submit to biometric data collection, pay an extra fee for a new card, and be issued an ID card. The Register is more informative on the subject than the BBC in this case.

David Blunkett is still ignoring criticism of the scheme from the Home Office Affairs Committee, the public consultation, and thousands of people writing in to object. Not only that, but he knows that most of the members of parliment object as well so he has lied constantly about what the card will be and do in order to get parliment to accept it. It started out as an imigrants entitlement card, then an NHS card, then a voluntary ID card, and now it's to be compulsory to be issued a card but not to carry it. Expect that to change soon after everyone has one.

--
A latent existence

For those of you who don't like ID cards... by Catullus · 2004-10-27 21:23 · Score: 3, Informative

There are a few organisations in the UK whom you may be interested in.

Also, I should point out the the Liberal Democrat party is the only major UK political party that's against ID cards.

The database is the problem, just not now by mulhall · 2004-10-27 21:30 · Score: 1

The database is the problem, but for more complicated reasons.

Our current government is relatively liberal, and when I say relative, I mean relative to the fascist European governments of 20th century history.

In current society it is easy to see the benefits of being able to identify suspects immediately.

At *some point* in the future it is easy to imagine that our country will be governed by fascists. We have to be sure that when this happens, tools such as a National biometric/genetic database is NOT available for their use to persecute the populace.

ALSO.

No database is secure from theft. Ask anyone working in IT security.
Put all this info in one place and it *will* be stolen and abused.

I have written to my MP to no avail.

Useful in some cases by KontinMonet · 2004-10-27 21:43 · Score: 3, Informative

I recently returned to the UK from the continent after nearly a decade in France, Holland, Germany and Switzerland.

Mostly in Germany and Switzerland, nothing happens without your ID but it makes life easy getting an apartment, opening bank accounts, getting mobile phone contracts and so on. In the UK, in the absence of an ID card, opening a bank account was a complete pain.

I am British, with a passport and NI number. But these are no good for opening a bank account in the UK (unless you already have a UK bank account...). The rules are that you have to show a recent utility bill (or equivalent) with your name and current address plus other forms of identification. Of course, to get such a utility bill, I had to get an apartment but a lot of landlords want your bank account so that they can be assured of regular and timely payment. A vicious circle which proved frustrating to break.

The banks do offer to write to your foreign bank but the British, being such insular little islanders expect everything to be conducted in English, even if you have only just arrived from a small island off Japan. They will not attempt to communicate even in another major European language. In contrast, European banks often conduct their operations in several major languages.

To survive, I had to use the services of a friend's bank account (gotta be someone you can trust implicitly) until after several months, I was able to get an apartment and then, after having a utility bill, open my own account.

I've spoken to other foreigners (Swedish, Spanish, Bulgarian etc.) who all had to go through the same farcical process. All come from places where ID cards are the norm and wonder why the UK has to make life so difficult.

I note that 'Blind Man' Blunkett (the current and, one fervently hopes only temporary, Home Secretary) is possibly rejecting the notion of an ID card, not because it might make things easier for ordinary citizens but because there might be workarounds for crooks and terrorists. This is typical of the horrendously authoritarian Blunkett, nothing he does is for Joe Soap but only to simplify (to make more 'efficient') police powers and processes. See, for example the US-UK Extradition Treaty 2003

--
Did he inhale?

Re:Useful in some cases by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-28 00:37 · Score: 0

Why do you think that having an ID card will make life any easier?

To get one, you'll have to go through a process at least as difficult as getting a passport. That means you'll have to find a doctor or lawyer who will swear to having known you personally for the last 5 years. Not so easy if you've been in another country. Then you'll have to travel to wherever the fingerprinting and iris scanning is being done. Any you'll have to pay for it.

And then the bank will want to see your ID card *AND* the utility bill. They are not going to stop doing a check that is working OK at the moment, are they? Oh, and you can't open the account at your local branch any more. You have to go to somewhere where they have installed the iris scanner.
Re:Useful in some cases by KontinMonet · 2004-10-28 02:23 · Score: 1

First, getting an ID card should not take months (whereas getting an apartment and the subsequent utility bill and having to transfer deposit monies without having a bank account, does). Second, once I have an ID card, like other European countries, I can get a bank account without the need for a utility bill.

--
Did he inhale?
Re:Useful in some cases by blackest_k · 2004-10-28 15:32 · Score: 1

it's not just in Britain Ireland too has these difficulties

its not the banks which are being difficult but european anti money laundering laws.

with countrys with an id card it may not be so difficult to prove who you are although a passport is a pretty reliable indicator. The difficulty is that you have to provide proof of an address.

Does your id card maintain a record of where you live certainly i doubt your address is updated once you leave the country.

in ireland faced with the same problem i found my employer was able to write a letter to the bank to allow me to open a bank account so i could be paid

the problem comes when your presence in a country isnt for legitimate employment
maybe some companys might find reasons to write a letter for you but do you really want to work for such a company.

In all likelyhood the only reason not to is as an excuse not to employ you.
If on the other hand money laundering is your aim you may well find that these restrictions in bank accounts being opened might well be a hindrence and is the reason these europe wide laws were put in place.

finally can i ask how an id card from one country helps open a bank account in another if it doesnt have your current address.

whatever happens changing country even where they have Id cards will involve some delay and problems with opening a bank account. I don't see how the id card helps you initially as this will not be issued imediately on entry. perhaps as long as three months to process.

where the id card could help is to obtain access to services open to residents and tax payers allowing checks to be minimised as the id card provides enough evidence by its existence and issue date to avoid people repeatedly providing the same evidence to different authoritys.

having an id card which is basically saying the goverment accepts you to be a real identifiable person could be useful.

There are two possible area's where violations can occur where the card contains information unrelated to your id. if it contains your credit history your education details your police record your voting patterns your political leanings how you shop and what you buy. your ethnic origin religion and sexual preference and partners then this card can violate your rights by allowing access to unrelated information.

second where your id card gives access to the whole of the record of who you are
instead of to seperate databases which grant access to appropriate records.

finally how about making it so that only your physical card can allow access to your records without an order from a judge and you have the right to view all information retrieved about you as it is being retrieved.

--
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants

Re:Privacy: West versus East by burdalane · 2004-10-27 21:49 · Score: 1

Is it any wonder that Hong Kong, now under the control of China, a totalitarian country, has national ID cards? I live in America, and I don't want any more ID cards, especially not required ones.

In response to the person who believes that acting as a group for the good of the group embraces social interaction: I much prefer the ultra-invidividualistic Western philosophy. (I'm Chinese-American, by the way.) Social interaction is unnecessary and will soon be obsolete as technology improves and new super-diseases are discovered, not to mention that it's just plain boring. Most people say the same things anyway. Also, I don't see the point of supporting group interests over your own interests unless they happen to be very compatible.

Yes (Prime) Minister by mikewhittaker · 2004-10-27 21:54 · Score: 1

FYI - both series now out on DVD. Check out on Amazon etc.

Starring the late greats Paul Eddington (Good Life, a Prisoner episode ...), Nigel Hawthorne (Madness of King George and many others), among others.

Headline is *really* wrong this time by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-27 22:18 · Score: 0

Home Secretary David Blunkett announced, on Wednesday: "I will now bring forward legislation to bring in a compulsory, national ID card scheme." See here for details.

It takes a Slashdot editor to interpret that as "backing down". And all the comments about us plucky Brits not standing for it, "unpopular legislation" before elections, etc. are sooo way off-beam.

Even the sainted BBC
has not made so much as a token effort to resist the government's spin on this subject - that ID cards are massively popular, that they will radically reduce crime and terrorism, and (most importantly) that they will please the Americans.

No, really.

Re:Bringing this back to the America's topic by MeanSolutions · 2004-10-27 22:24 · Score: 0

Mod parent up. Valid points raised.

I am wondering what scandinavian country he/she is from. :-)

--
Swedish, but resident in the UK since 1996.

Re:It would be an offence not to carry your ID by Catullus · 2004-10-27 22:27 · Score: 1

Actually, with Blunkett's current plans it would not be mandatory to carry your ID card. However, who knows how the legislation could be changed in the future?

Biometrics by Catullus · 2004-10-27 22:31 · Score: 1

Erm, you are aware that the UK ID card will contain biometric information, that will also be stored on a central database?

To quote The Register: "fingerprints, a facial digital photograph, and an iris digital photograph" will probably be included.

Fact - you are effectively being branded by Garry+Anderson · 2004-10-27 22:34 · Score: 1

Blunkett has said the carrying of ID cards will not be compulsary - that is a red herring.

FACT: it will be very simple to identify you absolutely anywhere with a portable scanner.

Once data is transmitted to base - they can have your identity and details within seconds.

The ID Card itself is totally irrelevant - like stated - it is a red herring - 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 in UK.

Just like in 1942, when Nazi's began putting numbers on the left forearm of Auschwitz concentration camp prisoners.

Find anybody in authority to deny that you can be read like a unique barcode at the supermarket till.

They are treating us all like criminals - putting everybody's fingerprints and eye scans on file.

It is clear that Blunkett wants a surveillance society - this is not about stopping terrorists.

Re:Fact - you are effectively being branded by ifoxtrot · 2004-10-28 00:11 · Score: 1

Interesting FACT... You do realise that they've got close to 10% error (false positive/false negative) rate going on - and that's knowing who they're trying to match against.

You are assuming that biometrics are 100% effective. If you are trying to identify someone without an identity to match against, this stops everything dead. Making a simplified calculation (which is probably an incorrect inference but it'll serve our purposes) if you take the 10% error rate, you'll have 10% of the whole database of positive matches (on top of a 10% chance that you won't even be in the results!!!). In a database of 60 million, that's 6 million. Not exactly pinpoint accuracy is it! (Even if biometrics become 99.999% accurate you'll still get 60000 matches... not very good is it!!!)

The carrying of the card is VITAL if they want to even try to enforce this.

Re:Privacy: West versus East by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-27 23:00 · Score: 0

1, USA is a totalitarian country.
2, if social interaction becomes unnecessary.. does that not imply that interaction with databases become more and more important?
3, your name is John Woo and you make crappy films. Tagged you.

Hello? You already pay for your passport by cdavies · 2004-10-27 23:01 · Score: 1

Nobody calls the fee for getting a passport "a tax on leaving the country", yet you can't leave the country without one. Just pay your 35 quid, and you have an ID for 10 years, which is perfect for proving your age a pubs, clubs and off licenses. Sounds like a good deal to me. Now, if they only added a digital signing/encryption blackbox with unique key embedded it would be perfect.

Re:Hello? You already pay for your passport by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-27 23:13 · Score: 0

Yeeessss, but to leave the country *after* compulsory ID cards had been introduced you'd have to pay for both a passport *and* an ID card, and this is operating on the assumption that the Ultimate Database hasn't been fed incorrect data (e.g. you have a beard, you don't like Blair, you committed murder, etc).
The ID card is an immense waste of money and will gain us little to nothing in terms of personal or national security.
Re:Hello? You already pay for your passport by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-28 03:42 · Score: 0

I'm 56. I don't need to prove my age to anyone and I'm certainly not willing to pay 35 quid for the priviledge.
Re:Hello? You already pay for your passport by Ringlet_Bob · 2004-10-30 06:37 · Score: 1

Nobody calls the fee for getting a passport "a tax on leaving the country", yet you can't leave the country without one.

Not strictly true. The passport is a piece of paper issued by the government on behalf of the crown to ask permission of another country to let you enter. A passport does not guarantee you free passage anywhere (and remember, the right to leave the country can be recinded at any time, re football hooligans).
In principle any piece of paper, signed by the relevant crown officials may be used (John Simposon has a good story on this in one of his books). So it is possible to enter and leave the country without a passport.
I had to send mine off for a visa application when a business trip to London came up (I'm an expat). I turned up at the airport without a passport and persuaded the airline to call UK Immigration. After a 15 minute phone call, when I had to justify the fact I had no available passport, I was given entry to the UK. I wouldn't recommend trying this on a regular basis, but it shows that the passport is not the only means of making international travel.
RB

Not backing down, actually. by VdG · 2004-10-27 23:22 · Score: 1

Check out the coverage at the Register. The Beeb have got it wrong this time.

A real "nightmare scenario" might be different by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · 2004-10-27 23:23 · Score: 4, Informative

What you are proposing is doing without something now, that has benefits now, just in case of some nightmare future scenario that probably won't happen, where doing without the thing wont help you much anyway.

I submitted the article. One of the reasons I feel strongly about this issue myself is that I was once left hundreds of pounds short in my pay cheque after someone in a government tax office mistyped a National Insurance number (similar to a SSN, for those who have them instead) and entered mine instead. I've mentioned this here before, but here are a few scary details in summary.

The first I knew about it was on pay day, when my pay cheque was short. No-one from either the tax office or my employer's accountant had questioned the change or asked me to confirm it.
It took three months to clear up, luckily just in time for the end of the tax year or it would have been much more complicated.
When I rang the tax office to report the problem, they would not talk to me because I couldn't confirm my current details as seen on their computer system. They had no record or my current or past employers showing, nor of my current or previous addresses, because the error had mixed up my records with someone else's. Without that information, they stonewalled me.
It was only when I mentioned the change in my tax code, which first caused the problem, that they realised what might have happened and looked deeper. It turns out that the new code I had been given is used automatically in cases where someone has two jobs, and obviously it combined with my story to trigger a mental alarm bell in the person I was talking to at the time.
The accumulated records of all the tax offices I eventually had to deal with put me living in two places on opposite sides of the country, working two full-time jobs simultaneously, one at each place. The system hadn't noticed this, and didn't even flag it for their operators to investigate.

The problem with this sort of database isn't just malicious use for things like identity theft or government interference. Good old user error is just as big a danger, and probably a lot more likely.

--
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.

Re:A real "nightmare scenario" might be different by BasilBrush · 2004-10-28 00:44 · Score: 1

Indeed I've also had an experience of being put on the emergency tax code. It happened nearly 20 years ago. The problem was not the computer, it was that the person entering the data read the first 2 letters of my N.I. number as NH when I'd written NM. A human error, not a computer one. An error like that actually becomes easier to sort out if an ID card holds your NI number. You could visit your nearest tax office, hand over your biometric ID card and they have evidence that you are who you say you are. Then you can get it sorted out.
Your anecdote is an argument for ID cards more than against them.
Re:A real "nightmare scenario" might be different by Spolster · 2004-10-28 02:56 · Score: 1

Your anecdote is an argument for ID cards more than against them.

His exact situation may be an argument for ID cards, but I believe his point was that human error can be a big danger when everything is stored in a single big database.

For example, someone with the same name and date-of-birth as you dies, but an operator accidentally updates your record rather than the correct one. As far as the government is now concerned you're dead. This means you can no longer claim benefits or get a job since your NI number will be marked as deceased as well as a whole range of other problems.

This sort of thing has happened before and as everyone starts using a single big database a simple mis-typing or mis-reading of a single digit will cause even more problems than before.
Re:A real "nightmare scenario" might be different by BasilBrush · 2004-10-28 03:18 · Score: 2, Informative

Database theory says you are wrong. The more times the same information is stored in the same or different databases the more errors there will be.* For example, when you move house, with multiple computers holding your adress like now, the chances are you will forget to inform some of them, or at least one of the typists will get it wrong. With a single database, a single change is very much harder to forget to do, and the odds of there being a mistake in typing are much reduced, because so are the keystrokes. And of course it is much easier for you to check that one address is correct.
If someone incorrectly marks you as dead, one visit to a government office with your biometric ID card in hand will be quite enough to make clear their error. And once that error has been corrected once, there is no fear that there is some government computer somewhere that has the old wrong data.
*(Not to be confused with backups or error correcting redundancy like RAID).
Re:A real "nightmare scenario" might be different by bobbis.u · 2004-10-28 03:23 · Score: 1

THANK YOU - someone that actually understands the issue of errors in databases
It is shame this discussion is effectively dead now. That is what is so annoying about Slashdot - by the time genuinely insightful comments are made, the article is too far down the page for anyone to bother reading/moderating it.
Re:A real "nightmare scenario" might be different by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · 2004-10-28 10:30 · Score: 1

Database theory says you are wrong. The more times the same information is stored in the same or different databases the more errors there will be.*

*(Not to be confused with backups or error correcting redundancy like RAID).

The thing is, problems in practice such as the scenario I described are much more like the situations that require backups and so on. What you're describing is the scope for errors due to different parts of the database becoming out of sync, which is a fair point (except that the national ID card isn't going to replace all the other systems, at least not yet) but not the concern I'm highlighting.

My big concern here is that in the real world, mistakes happen, and the consequences of a mistaken change (or, for that matter, a malicious deliberate change) in the One True Database are far more serious than those in one minor database. If there are multiple, independent records, then the fact that the one you're complaining about is out of sync with all the other official data is good evidence that what you're saying is true, and only one thing is broken while you fix the error. If there's nothing to support your claim except a card in your hand, it's going to be much harder to fix mistakes when, inevitably, they do happen, and until you do, nothing works because it's all tied in together. At the very least, with a single source it's going to take personal visits to present the card (possibly halfway across the country) when a phone call would have done before.

--
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Re:A real "nightmare scenario" might be different by BasilBrush · 2004-10-28 12:02 · Score: 1

I hear what you are saying. But I think you are being simplistic. Say that there are 10 government databases that have you on them. As a first approximation you might think that there is 10 times more chance of there being an error stored about you. But it's worse than that. Because you don't remember to update all the databases when your circumstances change, there are likely to always be erros about you.

With a single database, whenever you have a dealing with any government department there is an opportunity to correct any mistakes. Any corrections will be made for all departments at once. It's been many years since my CS degree, but I've got a feeling that the theory is that you square the number of errors for each copy of the same data in a databse. So in this case there are likely to be 100 times more errors in the 10 databases than in the one database.

On the question of errors and how to correct them, the answers are a signed change journal and rollback. No one is going to be allowed to make arbitrary changes to databases without any the system knowing who they are, when they did it and why. Just as now, when you have to fill out a form and sign it to get anything changed, and that form in theory can be dug out to find to check data, so an electronic path increasingly provides ever more evidence of what changed and why.

And of course, your ability to audit the data is much stronger with a single database. I mentioned 10 databases earlier, but actually I haven't a clue how many there are or what they're called. I have a data protection right to see what's written for a small fee. But that small fee gets big when there are maybe 10 databases involved. As things stand I have no way practical and easy of checking if the government has the correct information about me. With a single database, you just have to check once, for one fee, and you know you've got everything checked.

BTW, we're both aware that the ID card scheme and the concept of a single database are separate questions, right? Either one does not require the other. I happen to be in favour of both, but the government are only implementing ID cards.
Re:A real "nightmare scenario" might be different by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-30 11:51 · Score: 0

Don't worry, people read things :)

I noticed this thread whilst meta-moderating.
Re:A real "nightmare scenario" might be different by LiquidCoooled · 2004-10-30 11:55 · Score: 1

Go onto wikipedia and examine a single article.

The entire history of every modification is available, and changes and evolution can be seen.

This is the ideal way to handle database systems, and IMHO all databases should be designed in this manner.

--
liqbase :: faster than paper
Re:A real "nightmare scenario" might be different by BasilBrush · 2004-10-30 12:39 · Score: 1

Good example.

Legislation for US NAFTA National ID Card-backdoor by COredneck · 2004-10-27 23:25 · Score: 1

There is legislation in the US Congress under the Intelligence Reform & 9/11 Recommendation Implementation Act which would implement a National ID through our driver's license. Here are the points:

Within 3 years, no federal agency such as the TSA shall not accept a state ID/DL unless it conforms to certain federal requirements such as collecion of SS#'s

States will be required to participate in the new compact known as the Driver License Agreement. (more on that later)

The bills are in conference committee

Information on this ID can be found at No National ID blog site

On the Driver License Agreement (DLA), it is a compact which has been worked on by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA). It will facilitate the exchange of driving records between states which includes and requires points to be assessed against your driving record for an out of state offense including offenses in Mexico and Canada.Most states do this already but a few select states will take action for a Canadian ticket but no states that I know would take action for a ticket from Mexico. The work on the DLA started in 1994, around the same time that NAFTA passed. Also with the DLA, your driving record would be available to Canadian and Mexican authorities including your SS#. A corrupt Mexican cop could use your SS# to get access to your credit and can estimate your net worth and "charge" his la morida (bribe) accordingly.

The DLA is much more draconian than the current Driver License Compact (DLC) that most states operate under today. It is written in such a way that when you get a ticket in a different state, you will be punished at home even if your home state has no equivalent offense. That cannot under happen under the DLC. An example is as an Indiana driver you get a ticket in Michigan for Careless Driving. Under the DLC concept, Indiana will not assess points for the careless driving but under the DLA concept, you will get some kind of point penalty and Indiana could bump it to reckless driving.

However, there is little time to contact our "representatives" to express out objection to this.

[Off-topic] The Parliament Act and hunting by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · 2004-10-27 23:35 · Score: 1

Look at Hunting. They intend to use the Parliament act to force it through the Lords. Think about that for a moment. The Lords is a mechanism to prevent Parliament enacting bad law. The Parliament act is a way to overrule that check in an emergency - for example if the Lords is blocking a Finance act and so preventing the Govt doing anything. The hunting bill isn't an emergency. Regardless of it's merits either way, it's not an emergency. What it is, is politically necessary for Tony Blair to keep control of activists in his party. Not the same thing.

Sorry to continue the off-topic subthread, but I felt obliged to comment on this.

While I agree that the Parliament Act certainly should not be wielded as a blunt instrument according to the PM's will, I think this is a case that does justify it. The elected House of Commons overwhelmingly supports a ban. A ban was in the manifesto of the majority party when they were elected, and traditionally such measures are not opposed when they come up for legislation. In this case, the unelected House of Lords have repeatedly sought to block the measure, which given that many of them are in the very "elite" that hunts for sport makes their motives rather suspect.

This doesn't mean the arguments for and against hunting aren't more complicated than either side would like to admit. This doesn't mean the MPs have got it right; I'm not offering an opinion either way. But they have made a decision, and as a matter of principle, I think it is appropriate to invoke the Parliament Act in a case where there is a stand-off between the clear view of the elected house in support of a manifesto pledge and the view of the unelected and heavily biased second chamber.

[Confession: I haven't actually read that manifesto in its entirety; the above comments are based on multiple sources but all second-hand.]

Here's another point: what about the guy who just got jailed for providing information from the DVLA databases to terrorists?

Not as funny as the journalist who got a driving licence in David Blunkett's name. (For those who don't know, aside from being one of the most visible public figures in the UK, Mr Blunkett also happens to be blind.)

[Not using karma bonus as this is currently somewhat off-topic.]

--
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.

here here ! absolutely ! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-28 00:05 · Score: 0

at least we didn't get the 'stop these terrorists by carrying one of our cards' line.

Blunkett is not backing down, he's just pushing it out to people via the backdoor, by 'bundling' it with a passport.

my point is that its nobody's business but my own (and my family) where I am, what I'm doing etc.

WRONG by CBDSteve · 2004-10-28 00:23 · Score: 1

There certainly IS such a thing as a British Citizen:

Definition of British Citizen
Flow Chart
Home Office site

There are FAR biger issues at stake with this by shatteredsilicon · 2004-10-28 00:35 · Score: 1

Consider this: Everybody is forced to provide finger prints for the biometric database. You get a truly terrible vase for Christmass from someone. You hate it so much you take it down to a charity shop. You handled it, so your fingerprints are now on it. Somebody goes and buys it. They hit somebody over the head with it and kill them. Your fingerprints are still on the broken pieces of glass. How long will it be, with the growing pressure in terms of funding and manpower on the law enforcement agencies before this is considered sufficient proof to arrest the owner of the fingerprints? It is a major leap down the slippery slope toward presumption of guilt.

amazing by t_allardyce · 2004-10-28 00:39 · Score: 1

WTF!? Blunkett starts doing good things (kinda)!? the only other time was when he told Bush's Secret Service to go fuck themselves!

--
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.

Not this ID card by thinkstoomuch · 2004-10-28 00:46 · Score: 1

Do bear in mind that the proposed UK ID card would most likely contain not just a photo, but also fingerprint and iris scan data.

This particular ID card is a real problem for privacy, not just a distraction.

Re:Not this ID card by logicnazi · 2004-10-28 06:46 · Score: 1

Explain how an iris scan or a fingerprint is more of an invasion of privacy?

I don't know about you but I've never looked at my iris and it certainly doesn't seem deeply personal. Neither does my fingerprints.

At worst these just make identification more accurate. The cards don't do anything more than ones with just pictures on them, but they are harder to forge and people are less likely to mistakenly misidentify someone. How does this further reduce my privacy.

Maybe I'm missing something but if so I would love to hear what additional social negatives iris scans and fingerprints bring about. I agree there is some concern with law enforcement having everyone's fingerprints and thus being able to determine who was protesting or who was doing something else. However, law enforcement officers are already building up such a database (here in the US kids get fingerprinted in case they are abducted) and this is where we should get concerned not when it is put on an ID card

--
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
Re:Not this ID card by thinkstoomuch · 2004-11-04 10:02 · Score: 1

Yes, primarily the fingerprint data - the way the UK ID card system is being setup, it will be a government database. A wide range of civil servants (including the spooks) and the police will have your fingerprint data. If you're under surveillance for any reason, it would be much easier for someone to identify you by taking prints (say from your car door, or a door handle anywhere).

I also am disturbed by the increase in police fingerprint data - recent laws here mean that your fingerprints go on file in a national database permanently if you're charged and later found innocent. That's just not right in my mind...

Also, because a compulsory card would cover the whole country, it's qualitatively different from the other cards you mention - they're optional. (it's rather impractical to avoid the UK SS id analog, National Insurance number - but it's possible and legal) None of the cards you mention are needed on a daily basis in the UK, although NIN will be on your employment records. Bear in mind too, that if you were to present the proposed UK ID card to anyone, they then have your fingerprints. Unpleasant if it becomes commonplace as a form of identification, because your fingerprints could so easily become part of corporate databases... Perhaps I'm more worried about the loss of anonymity, an important factor in preserving privacy.

Re:Bringing this back to the America's topic by elakazal · 2004-10-28 01:06 · Score: 1

We already have a national ID program in the US...it's just a horrible piecemeal mess. 50 states issuing drivers licenses (plus probably Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Guam, etc.) plus Social Security Cards, the single worst form of ID ever. Sure, you don't HAVE to have either of these things, but just try functioning without them. A national ID could fill all these functions and do it well.

The mess that this whole system, coupled with the farce that is voter registration, has made out of our democracy is just appalling.

I'm generally a big time "privacy advocate", but this one of the issues that I really don't get that group's stance on. Everything that could be done with a National ID card as far as intruding on people's privacy could be (and, in general, is) done now. Everything done legitimately with our variety of IDs now, could be done better with a National ID.

National IDs are the norm in many, many countries with speech at least as free as ours and democratic processes that function a whole lot better.

No, Nay, Never by ajs318 · 2004-10-28 01:16 · Score: 1

Let me state this publically now. I will never carry a general-purpose identity card of the type the British Government is proposing, and there is no penalty that would deter me from the crime of going anonymous.

Aside from the fact that it would be, from a security perspective, triple distilled extra virgin snake oil, there is the fact that the Government is supposed to work for me, not the other way around.

If I was forced to carry an identity card, then I would not really be any more free than if I was in prison. So I'm absolutely prepared to risk life imprisonment.

--
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!

Another problem by pdoucy · 2004-10-28 01:27 · Score: 2, Funny

is that people who are paid to issue ID cards may be total morons.
In France, we've had IDs for quite a long time and I really don't think they're so intrusive.

But I have this example : I recently renewed my ID so that I could travel to some EU country. I filled in the form, waited for three weeks, and finally had my ID... just to notice (myself) that my name was mispelled (my name is 5 letters long !). So I sent it back saying that that may pose a problem. After three more weeks, I had a new ID. My name was correctly spelled, everything was fine and my trip went pretty good.
Some time ago, for an unknown reason, I read what was actually written in my ID, just to discover that they made another mistake...in my gender.

What this means is that those people who are paid to make those IDs and are not even capable of rereading them, potentially gave me two brand new identities...
I thibnk that's a problem...

--
Cats are intended to teach us that not everything in nature has a function.

Re:Bringing this back to the America's topic by mi · 2004-10-28 01:52 · Score: 1

meaning a company cannot resell the data without the individual's consent so having some form of national ID is not such a problem over there as it doesn't open the door to big corporations tracking your every move...

Would you accept the national ID card here, if similar measures were introduced along with it?

I would not. It is not the corporations, that bother me, it is the government itself...

--
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.

Another FACT by Garry+Anderson · 2004-10-28 01:55 · Score: 1

You say, "You are assuming that You are assuming that biometrics are 100% effective".

Fact - biometrics will be 100% effective.

It is currently possible to match output on different printers of same model - this is far harder than matching biometrics.

Regarding your post on Panopticon September 03 - I have something in relation to this and ID cards at my site (on the Governments aim):

You may be interested in the psychology of this type of surveillance. Here is a piece, wrote by another who did a better job of explaining than I could:

Foucault focused on Bentham's prison model, or the Penopticon as Bentham called it - which literally means, that which sees all. The Penopticon prison, which was popular in the early nineteenth century, was designed to allow guards to see their prisons, but not allow prisoners to see guards. The building was circular, with prisoner's cells lining the outer diameter, and in the center of the circle was a large, central observational tower. At any given time, guards could be looking down into each prisoner's cells - and thereby monitor potentially unmoral behavior - but carefully-placed blinds prevented prisoners from seeing the guards, thereby leaving them to wonder if they were being monitored at any given moment. It was Bentham's belief that the "gaze" of the Panopticon would force prisoners to behave morally. Like the all-seeing eye of God, they would feel shame at their wicked ways. In effect, the coercive nature of the Panopticon was built into its very structure.

Re:Another FACT by ifoxtrot · 2004-10-29 02:20 · Score: 1

Thanks for your point about the panopticon - I must confess that I don't subscribe to that particular attitude about law enforcement.
I also want to point out that I'm opposed to a government introducing biometric ids. I don't care if they introduce non biometric ids, because I don't see that as particularly harmful.

I would still like, however, to dispute your claim that biometrics will be 100% effective.
My argument is based on the fact that unless they change their way of capturing your biometrics (as in store real copies of your dna, as opposed to structured snapshots) there will ALWAYS be uncertainty in any match. This is because biometric information is far too rich for a computer to process and therefore has to operate on a formal and restricted model of biometrics that is hoped/tested to be reasonably accurate. This restriction of the data set, together with imperfections of reading the biometric data (both at the initial enrollment, and at the subsequent checks) means that it WILL NOT be 100% effective.

How effective it can be is completely open to debate, and I'm saying that even if they achieve the 99.999% accuracy, this is *still* not enough for the purposes you describe. (This is one of the reasons why biometrics, as a means of identifying terrorists, is a specious argument).

In addition to this, biometric information in individuals can change. Fingerprints can be worn through labour or a nail file, you may injure your eye, or have laser treatment on your retina, and so on.

What will happen in the future is that these technologies will get more accurate, but I think it is highly debatable that in following their current principles they will get sufficiently accurate as to provide either benefits (as in identifying crooks - you never know ;-) ) or avoid inconvenience over a population of several million.

Finally my point was that in order for the authorities to absolutely determine your identity *in the absence of other identification* (such as you giving your name, your id card, them following you, etc.) the computational requirements and the limitations of biometrics as they are (and as I've argued will be) simply make this a costly, inaccurate and rather ineffective means of identifying you based solely on some reading of your biometric information. At the end of the day it's far simpler for them to follow you home...

Just watched GATTACA, how apropos by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-28 02:10 · Score: 0

Read 1984, watch GATTACA It's not about what's going to happen next week, or next year, it's about staying aware of what is happening in the world, and thinking about long-term consequences, something we humans are woefully bad at.

According to the Register it's just more spin by ManxStef · 2004-10-28 02:40 · Score: 1

See their coverage here, they've even appended the following paragraph to the end of the article:

Thank you, everybody, yes we know about the BBC story that says moving away from plans to combine passports, ID and driving licence is a change of plan in response to the Home Affairs Committee. In our opinion it has been clear for some time that a combined card was not going to ship, so we think the BBC is shooting at the wrong target here. In any event, if this was the story it would have been the story when Blunkett referred to a separate card shipping with passports at the Labour Party Conference last month. We expect the BBC will have some footage of this it could consult.

Make no mistake, the government are still hell-bent on introducing ID cards, they're just issuing the _alongside_ passorts so as to sneak them in. Compulsion will come soon after that, and it sure as hell won't be limited to just identification, being tied into a massive central database that'd make Big Brother proud (and access to that database will be way too broad -- wonder if the Food Standards Agency will get to use it?). My favourite part is the Reg's criticism of the "public consutation":

So the government is telling us something like, 'seven out of ten people who don't know what they're talking about think this is a good thing.'

Nice. And there was me thinking that the US was the current king of civil liberty erosion, looks the UK's pulling out in front on this one!

Not backing down just changing tack. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-28 03:36 · Score: 0

From the Beeb article:

Instead, passport applicants from 2007-2008 will get a new biometric passport and a separate ID card.

El Reg also has an article about this that points out how he has claimed public support for the scheme while at the same time admitting that people know little if anything about it.

Choice quotes:

The latest consultation itself has been deemed to cover the rollout process alone, and we are told: "The Government has already announced its intention to introduce a national identity cards scheme... The consultation was therefore on the terms of the legislation necessary to introduce identity cards." And the legislation itself was brought in on the basis of "public support" - right?

In today's announcement Blunkett turns the ratchet further, saying "I am pleased that the Home Affairs Committee accepted the clear and convincing case in favour of a national ID card scheme... I welcome the constructive suggestions the Home Affairs Committee and others have made, and the improvements to the scheme I am announcing today will make our planned scheme simpler, clearer and more effective. I will now bring forward legislation to bring in a compulsory, national ID card scheme."

The polling in particular appearing to indicate a general acceptance of ID cards as 'a good thing' on the part of a public that has scant knowledge of the ID card scheme, because it has not been told. For example: "Despite the low levels of knowledge regarding biometric information, the majority of UK respondents were in favour of providing all three types of biometric details (fingerprints, a facial digital photograph, and an iris digital photograph)".

Link here.

There's no backing off going on here.

Ah hah! For once I get to patronize the Europeans by DongleFondle · 2004-10-28 03:37 · Score: 1

Finally! After years of reading /. and being told by countless Europeans that they are glad they don't have to deal with the US's invasive gov't, the tables have finally turned!

So here goes . . .

Damn. Glad I don't live in the UK! If they tried to pull that crap in my country (United States) we'd have us a little ol' fashioned uprising!

Not that our gov't wouldn't try to pull that kind of crap if they thought they could get away with it.

Pilot scheme is a failure by blackest_k · 2004-10-28 03:39 · Score: 2, Interesting

when the EU was enlarged in May, working rights were granted to citizens of the new member states, however Mr Blunkett felt this was a perfect opportunity to trial his new ID card Scheme.

Each person has to register within a month paying a 50 pound fee sending their passport and a letter from their Employer.

This scheme has had problems mainly relating to the processing of applications, taking too long to return passports, failure to recognise that some workers are students and will work here in the summer only- much as students do all over the world.

however, there is a second process which has to be gone through too which is the issuing of a permanent National Insurance number.

Having provided the necessary evidence to the goverment once, to get the id card issued you would think that issuing a national insurance number should be automatic.
Nationality proven, identity proven, a legitimate job but no it seems the goverment doesn't trust its own ID card scheme and requires a second round of applications and interviews this time with the DWP department of work and pensions. they require passport, letter from employer .. basically the same information and evidence that was required for the workers registration scheme.

As was explained to me by the WRS Manager this scheme Establishes Nationality it doesn't establish Identity.

The scheme is improving however now they will check and return passports on reciept and record the recorded delivery number which is issued by the royal mail so now they will be able to know what they have done with peoples passports.

The issueing of permanent National Insurance Numbers is quite critical for non uk nationals,the employer in this country has the responsibility of ensuring someone he employees is legal and a number of employers are not prepared to take on someone without a permanent NI number, with the existence of a National database of legal non uk nationals being created it and the issue of the ID card it should make it easier for non uk nationals to find work but since the goverment will not recognise it as being proof of ID who will?

As a further example, where the Id card should make a difference is the provision of a general practioner (family Dr), as people employed in this country and paying taxes and national insurance the Id card could be used to establish that this person is entitled to treatment under the NHS.

currently there is complete confusion about how and when somebody is resident and eligible for treatment in the UK and no clear guidelines have been issued to GP's how to proceed.

(correction in one part of the country at least the NHS trust is looking to see if they can use the ID card as one simple proof of entitlement to NHS treatment. )

Now they are aware of its existence it could simplify an administrative nightmare for the NHS.

maybe soon there will be a positive side to the Id card scheme at least in one area. There are many other area's that could also benefit such as library services and provision of education to migrant workers children.
simply by simplifying the red tape.

I know some people might say why should britain provide its goverment provided services to migrant workers, well since these people pay uk taxes and pay UK National Insurance payments contributing to UK society why should they be excluded from the services they contribute to?

I started this post with a negative view of the Id card scheme, but if it can simplify the procedures to gain access to services or conversely be used to deny them to people wishing to abuse uk services then it may have a positive use.

The Id card doesnt in itself give anymore information than you are a legitimate member of uk society with rights given to uk residents.

sure there may well be a lot of data held about an individual all referenceable to the Id card but it doesnt mean that all your records will be available to any agency at random.

certainly the data protection act is in place to prevent abuses of this kind.

--
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants

Query query by mikewhittaker · 2004-10-28 04:01 · Score: 1

marital_status = 'divorced' ?

So what does 'marital_status' get set to if a divorced person marries - they're still 'divorced', but now 'married' ?

Maybe just 'marital_status' = 'single' would do - the 'divorce_date' clause would only be true if there had been a recent divorce.

Maybe I should get a life ...

It is not going to be universal by blackest_k · 2004-10-28 04:19 · Score: 1

I actually read the article and it said it would be brought in gradually with passport renewals

Which is interesting for me since I do not hold a uk passport I have an irish one (benefit of dual nationality) it seems the uk goverment can't make me have a card

--
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants

In my Country... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-28 04:23 · Score: 0

In my country Bahrain, the Government is planning
to make compulsory ID cards for citizens soon, and I
beleive we will be one of the first in the world.
What are the implications with regards to privacy of
this decision? can anyone point out some web resources?

what some think by Kwantus · 2004-10-28 04:23 · Score: 1

some think this, some think that

And maybe some, just a few, remember they'd had one in The War and it was abolished (1953) as unBritish, or "tends to make the public resentful of the acts of the police and inclines them to obstruct them rather than to assist them," or something...

Nazis & technology by UpnAtom · 2004-10-28 05:18 · Score: 1

>In terms of civil liberties you are lucky and a little naive, just 60 years ago fairly near where you
> live, millions of people were being gassed because they could be easily identified as Jewish.

If Jews could have been easily identified by just looking at some document, like you say, then why did the Nazis bother with such a major bureaucratic effort?

The bureaucracy was required because the document did not initially identify you as a Jew. That information was stored in on IBM punch cards somewhere. If the Nazis had even 300bd modems, I doubt any European Jews would have escaped the genocide.

Liberty without freedom of religious expression by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-28 05:51 · Score: 0

France is 'Free' but you cannot wear any open display of religious expression. Someone else wearing a cross, crescent moon, star of david, pentagram, a ring that says CTR, a turban, a yameca (sp?), the catholic nun's habit, the clerical suit that many reverends and priests wear, an 'Athiest get to sleep in' t-shirt, any form of fish sticker on a car, or an 80's throwback wearing a 'Stryper' t-shirt, does not in any way affect me or reduce my freedom and liberty, but France has decided that that form of expression should be stopped.

France is not a symbol of liberty to me, partly because of this law. I am concerned that legislating a ban like they have will only encourage religious discrimination in underhanded secretive ways, further dividing a population from protecting its freedoms.

Another thing to note is that many people of the Christian religion suspiciously view national ID due to the Bible's book of Revelations and the mark of the beast mentioned. To accept the mark of the beast meant you could never enter heaven. You put these people and any other religion that uses that text, in a sensitive mood telling them that national ID is for their own good. To force compulsory national ID is a violation of their religious rights in my opinion, and I feel we would have nothing worth gaining by forcing the issue.

Clarification by alex_tibbles · 2004-10-28 06:15 · Score: 1

"Combining ID cards with passports and driving licenses was the key way to force them on an often unwilling UK population, and seems to have gone for good"

The cards will not be combined with passports and driving licenses, but everyone applying for either a passport or a driving license will have to get an ID card too. I.e. very little has changed in the compulsory nature of the proposed cards.

--
Posters recognized by their sig,

Why do we really want mandatory ID? by amphibian · 2004-10-28 14:40 · Score: 1

When there was the big mess about Sangatte (refugee camp; many asylum seekers were coming from there to Britain via the chunnel), Blunkett promised to make Britain less attractive to asylum seekers, in exchange for the French closing Sangatte. One key plank of this was the introduction of mandatory ID cards. These would of course be required for access to public services, and used to check whether a suspicious (i.e. not native english) person was in fact a legal resident. Recently we heard that AIDS infected refugees were legally not allowed to be given "routine" drug treatment, just left to deteriorate until they became emergency cases (and then cost a lot more) - to prevent "health tourism". Fortunately many of the hospitals disobeyed the policy. It's not about terrorism. It's not about having one ID you can use for everything - if it were, they'd let it be combined with the passport or driving license. It's about persecuting asylum seekers, and regulating access to services. Arguably one solution would be for these services not to be free in the first place; I'm not trying to start a flame-war on whether we should have e.g. free healthcare. I'm simply pointing out what seems to have been the primary motive from the beginning.

Re:Privacy: West versus East by amphibian · 2004-10-28 15:12 · Score: 1

How do you get a passport if you don't have a driving license then? Surely there are other valid IDs for it.

Re:Privacy: West versus East by burdalane · 2004-11-02 21:12 · Score: 1

" 1, USA is a totalitarian country."
Really? I think the USA is still more or less a democracy.

"2, if social interaction becomes unnecessary.. does that not imply that interaction with databases become more and more important?"
Maybe, maybe not. It all depends on how society and the species turn out, and it still doesn't require national ID cards. Reducing social interaction without depending on databases has always been possible. I have much less social interaction than most people, but I don't interact with databases more than they do.

Re:Privacy: West versus East by burdalane · 2004-11-02 21:23 · Score: 1

" 1, USA is a totalitarian country. Really? I think the USA is still more or less a democracy." Actually, "representative republic" may be a more accurate term.

Re:Bringing this back to the America's topic by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-03 13:04 · Score: 0

I'd have to say that the answer to that is abundantly clear to anyone who's ever read the Declaration of Independence:

if everything was so clear we would not need a supreme court. the citizens and courts are always trying to interpret what the founding fathers intended on subjects from gun ownership to what 'cruel and unusual punishment' should mean. some people think that the ten commandments should be in all government buildings. others believe that the musket carrying founding fathers intended for every man woman and child to be able to buy machine guns. if only it was so easy...

The Identity Card Team's point of view by TechnicalFool · 2004-11-09 11:15 · Score: 1

Dear Sir or Madam,

Thank you for responding to the identity card consultation on 1 June.

This is further to our email of 4 June.

I should explain at the outset that the Government's decision to proceed with the introduction of a national identity cards scheme is based in part on the fact that we will have to introduce more secure personal identifiers (biometrics) into our passports and other existing documents in line with international requirements. Right across the world there is a drive to increase document security with biometrics. If our citizens are to continue to enjoy the benefits of international travel, as increasing numbers of them are doing we cannot be left behind. It is worth remembering that 21 of the 25 EU Member States (all apart from the UK, Ireland, Denmark and Latvia) have identity cards.

I must emphasise that we have never said that the identity cards scheme is intended to be the sole solution to identity fraud, illegal immigration and working, or terrorism. The scheme is therefore not being designed to be the primary method of combating these problems.

However, the Security Services have said that an ID card will help combat terrorism. Sir John Stevens says it will help. We trust the judgements of those people whose job it is to fight terrorists. A card scheme would disrupt the use of false identities by terrorist organisations, for example in the money laundering and organised crime. We know that at least one-third of terrorist suspects make use of false identities. The scheme would also be a useful tool in helping to monitor and disrupt the support activities of terrorist networks.

People's identities are incredibly valuable and too easily stolen - ID fraud is a growing crime, costing the country more than £1.3 billion per year. Multiple or false identities are used in more than a third of terrorist related activity and in organised crime and money laundering. Lack of clarity over someone's identity also presents risks to the public and private sectors when providing services. It is crucial we are able to confirm and verify our own and others' identities quickly and easily. (Consequently, we believe that there are further clear benefits to be gained from biometric identity cards.)

Certainly, it is expected that the cards scheme will be attractive to counterfeiters and fraudsters, just as current identity documents are. This is why we are looking at strengthened identity checking procedures, biometrics, an effective Register and improved physical security measures both for existing identity documents and for identity cards. The existence of a biometric and the fact that this will be checked should act as a major deterrent to criminals.

With regards to your concerns on cost, it is envisaged that most people will join the scheme when they apply for or renew their driving licence or passport for which charges are already levied. The minimum charge to obtain a 10-year passport from the UK Passport Service is £42 and the full cost of obtaining an initial 10-year driving licence from DVLA is £38. In practice the cost that many people currently pay for these documents is around £8-£10 higher when taking account of the cost of photographs and services that check that forms have been completed correctly and the right documentation enclosed. These costs would be included in a national identity cards scheme.

If the Government did not implement a scheme which covered everyone but concentrated purely on implementing more secure passports and driving licences including biometrics, initial estimates suggest that the 10 year cost of passports would rise to around £73 and driving licences to around £69. Under the national identity cards scheme, our best initial estimates are that the annual running costs of the UK Passport Service by 2008/9 are £415m; by introducing ID cards on top of already-planned passport enhancements an addition cost of £85m has been estimated; this would combine to an

--
09F9 1102 9D74 E35B D841 56C5 6356 88C0

Slashdot Mirror

Blunkett Backs Down on UK ID Cards

374 comments