Slashdot Mirror
UK anti-ID card campaign Gains Momentum
Jack writes "The British No2ID campaign, which opposes the creation of a National Identity Database to hold biometric data on all UK citizens, has created an online pledge as part of an effort to publicise their cause. The three-day old pledge has recently gained the attention of the blogging community, with bloggers bringing a thousand new signatories to the pledge today alone. Readers in the UK are invited to look at the No2ID FAQ on the plans for mandatory ID cards - some of it makes for scary reading." Update: 06/14 17:13 GMT by T : Side note: Tom Steinberg, director of MySociety.org (organizers of this petition) writes "The ID pledge is cool in that it is so big and successful, but it is a very small insight into what pledgebank.com can do." It's actually a much more general organizing tool.
So those who do NOT want a national ID are going to register their ID's in a centralized database...
hmmm...
Seriously, go get 'em guys.
I think its pathetic that the intelligence community which failed abysmally to thwart 9/11 and then come up with crap schemes like this to trace and identify possible terrorists. I'm sorry but they should be looking at schemes to find terrorists that don't involve abusing a cictizen's right to privacy.
I equate my right to privacy with my right to personal freedom so eat that you "freedom"-loving police-state-loving psychos.
So, here's the question:
When the government decided it was going to do this, did the media* actually tell the public that this had happened?
* Slashdot is not "the media". "The media" means only things people have heard of.
Since the EU is just about to pass legislation that will force ISP's to Telecommunication firms to hold data on time/location/recipient of phone calls and what IP you have used. I really dont think these ID cards are that bad. BUT... I do not see why I should have to pay something like £90 when (as a studnet) the governments olny gives me £3000 to live off for a whole year!
All spelling mistakes are due to solar flares...honest
There is a lot to be said against ID cards, but let's be honest. When I stayed in the UK I went to vote TWICE for a european election, just to show I could get away with it. When I opened a bank account, they asked me to bring a letter adressed to myself as proof of ID. If you know a mans mothers maiden name, it is as good as the PIN code to his credit card. There are a lot of good uses for near-unbreakable ID. The question is not the cards, the question is the database: who will keep it, and who will be allowed to read it. Please note you can also keep a database without issuing the cards...
10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then
13 of the 19 september 11 hijackers had valid ID
If this is the case I might try cutting an artery and running around the hospital foyer spraying projectile blood and taunting the doctors because they can't treat me, as I won't have registered for an ID card.
My 3D Texturing Skinning work (under construction)
Sweden has had a system like this since 1960 or so. Whenever I do anything I give them my social security number (equivalent) and that's all I need. You cannot do anything in Sweden without one, unless you're all cash.
If I pay with a credit card I have to show ID. Identity theft is extremly rare here, I never even consider it. Very little personal business involving identity is done without showing for instance a drivers license (which also contains the Personal Identity Number).
The UK system of showing a gas bill or alike is just weird for someone like me.
For years the media were just talking about the ID cards, and never mentioned the database. Either because they wanted to distract from this fact (conspiracy theory... ?) or they were just too stupid to see the actual problem (Journalists, eh..). In my eyes the database is the actual problem! This is why you are not required to carry your card with you: The police can x-check you against the database at any time anyway and this way can always find out who you are, even if you don't have your card on you! The UK government keeps saying 'Other countries had this for years', and THEY HAVE NOT! They had cards, but NO CENTRAL DATABASE!!
Timo's Audio Software http://www.esseraudio.com
I don't live in the U.K., but this makes sense to me.
I don't care if the government or whoever knows who I am and where I live. They already know that, because I pay taxes. So now because of opposition to this national ID thing, my name's in a database somewhere. Well, God forbid anyone would put me in a database besides the oh-so-trustworthy twenty to a hundred direct marketing firms who are sending me catalogs all the time.
But: The fact that my name is in the hands of this random anti-ID petition site whereever does not put me at risk that in a year, I'll go to sign up for a Barnes and Noble discount card or something, and they'll demand to see a copy of my signature on this anti-ID petition before they will give it to me. Or that someone-- maybe the clerk at Barnes and Noble-- will get hold of the SQL ID for my signature on the anti-ID petition website, and use that, since it is valid proof of my identity, to go sign up for two or three credit cards in my name.
A national I.D. card of the sort that's being proposed here, however, does neatly create these problems and a number more like them. The problem here isn't the mere act of being identified, it's everything that happens after that. So I don't really see being identified by some random website somewhere in order to prevent or just protest a problematic ID card program as being a problem.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
When Blair (or insert future Labour leader here) is in times of trouble, and it looks like he'll lose the election, he can just use the identity card scheme to eliminate his opponents. It's proven that a leader who stays in for a great number of years goes completely whacko (Mugabe and any other central Asian state are examples). Then we can can finally make Britian a one party state, and the Labour Party will be called 'The Party'
Why does the government need these identity cards anyway? If they're invoking the terrorism issue (fear!), then they are the social group that are most likely to be in the country for less than the time required to get an ID card, and they will have access to loads of fake ID cards. The ID card system won't work!
The biometric aspect can (and should be) discussed, but I still don't see why the paper ID card is worse than a passport or a driver license regarding privacy ?
#include "coucou.h"
I'm quite impressed at how the anglosaxon world reacts to ID cards. They are present in most countries, and are a far cry from a fascist tool.
As far as my experience goes, in Italy you can get fined for loitering if you are found without "papers" and you are over 18. Yet nobody ever asked me papers without a good reason (airport, electoral office, and such things). Never seen an evil use of that, and can hardly conceive one.
In Norway, in order to do many things you have to be registered at the Forlkeregister. For instance, to open a bank account, have a job and the such. Banks and employers must in turn report on your savings and earnings to the tax office, so that your tax papers come into your mailbox already filled in, and you have to worry only about minor adjustments. If anyone accesses these data on a non-routine basis, you are automatically sent a letter notifying you of who asked (usually they need your permission).
Finally, it baffles me how people are so nervous about a stupid piece of paper or plastic. On the No2ID site I read taurinities like it would cause racial discrimination, fingerprint people like criminals (I have been taken fingerprints only once in my life, at the military draft visit), and will be useless against crime. Never mind there are heaps of experience in continental Europe of criminals caught because they provided a not-good-enough fake ID (one I remember was mafia boss Madonia). The claim that identity theft would not be affected is simply ludicrous: the very term "identity theft" is exclusive to the anglosaxon world, as identity theft is impossible with an ID-card system; in continental Europe, we don't even talk of it.
And last but not least, how can be that people are worried about ID cards when living in countries where the government has been given insane powers to detain people without trial and rights, like in Guantanamo?
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
I find it amazing that a Labour government is the one proposing such a scheme, had this been proposed under the conservatives it would have died on it's feet.
I think the reason they are proposing it is firstly so they can pretend they are taking serious steps to address terrorism, illegal immigration and benefit fraud and secondly because all the companies who may well be involved in providing an ID card system are telling them what a great idea it is.
Worryingly a lot of random people I talk to about this are in favour of a scheme which does all the things the ID cards will supposedly accomplish and so are broadly in favour of the scheme in general. However as soon as they think about the actual practicalities of the scheme, especially the bit where they end up having to pay for it, they begin to change there minds.
The trouble is that this ID card scheme is badly thought out with very few clear achievable goals and hugely expensive, the bottom line is that the money could be spent on more effective and more practical measures which do not end up in a giant IT fiasco and attempts to create all knowning databases on all of us.
Is there a Silly Organised Crime Agency?
Task Mangler
See the difference?
Not being a UK Subject, I probably shouldn't buy the TShirt, but here in the US we've got our own problems with the RealID act giving us a real national ID card real soon unless we stop it.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
the government already knows who you are. you pay taxes dont you ? if you pay taxes the government knows who you are, how much you money you make, how much you spend, if you leave the country they know, when you return the customs records your entry in the country...
an ID card can be very usefull. we have them in brasil since... well, my grandmother still had hers RG (Registro Geral = general registry) from 1946...
when someone have an accident here, the first thing paramedics do is check if the person is carying an RG card to know who he/she is, makes identification in case of death easier, proves that you are who you say you are when using a credit card or check.
a government issued ID only adds to convenience, IMHO.
What ? Me, worry ?
Afganistan was only periferally related
The september 11 hijackings were coordinated, funded and carried out by members of an international nonstate entity called "Al Qaeda". Not only can Al Qaeda and its support network be considered responsible for the attack, this demonstrated that the Al Qaeda support network was capable of producing the resources for further, similar attacks. Crucial portions of Al Qaeda's infrastructure, including the central leadership and training camps on a very large scale, were being purposefully offered shelter in Afghanistan by Afghanistan's state. Upon the United States demanding that Afghanistan either bring Al Qaeda accountable for this or be held accountable themselves, the state leaders in Afghanistan refused to open direct diplomatic contact with the U.S., demonstrated indifference to their complicity in hosting this group, and made passing, vague pronouncements as if trying to negotiate some kind of minor response on their part to these acts-- acts which, had those acts been committed by their own agents rather than those of Al Qaeda, would have been literally an act of war. The U.S. national leaders chose to respond accordingly. This all makes perfect sense and seems rather direct to me. Also, you have misspelled "Afghanistan" and "peripherally".
Other than this one sentence I have no objections to your post.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
It's funny how the UK government changed the main incentive for the cards when the original reason, "to stop terrorism" (when the only people who wouldn't have cards would be terrorists) did not gain support.
They are now apparently to stop identity fraud, and terrorism is just a plus to that. I'm not liking it one bit, I'll have my civil rights back, please.
Business Voyeur
Theres a drama called Last Rights on Ch4 at the moment set in 2009 after a low election turnout brings a new radical party to power. They enforce curfews and shut down ISPs. All the police were carrying little PDAs with cameras and would go up to kids and point it in their eye to scan them and see if they should have been indoors, I thought that gadget was absolutely spot on - if we start having databases like this there won't be any need to carry an ID card - you'll have this crap pointed in your face for just about everything you do and if you're iris isn't on the database you're gonna be treated like the worst of the worst.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
I live in Belgium and I have had an identity card since the age of 12. You are obliged to carry it at all times. Not a single person has ever made a fuss about it, and I don't see what all the fuss is about in the UK at the moment.
Last night I was watching a programme on the BBC where a young man was giving false id information to the police - that kind of business could easily be halted by just presenting an id card.
Coca-Cola, sometimes War.
-.sig sauer-
And that's where the real problems start!
Timo's Audio Software http://www.esseraudio.com
The problem is the central ID database, not the piece of plastic! Surely you haven't got one of those in Belgium!
Timo's Audio Software http://www.esseraudio.com
This is one, of the many, factors that has led to my decision to leave the UK.
I've had enough of the UK following the US into wars, the new laws that have nothing to do with terrorism and more to do with monitoring citizens - and stupid expensive schemes like the ID cards. These are a couple of the tin foil reasons, a lot more is about the way the society in the UK is going; I don't want my daughter brought up here.
I've got my visa from my country of choice, I just need to sell up and move now.
BTW I've written to my MP, my MEP, about this issue and IP laws - have you other UK slashdotters?
Only UK? I think anyone entering UK might come under the database.
Why does yahoo do this
The grand-parent clearly just threw out his/her post to get some reactions and some karma.
We are against the idea of being forced to identify ourselves, being forced to carry id cards, and more commonly against the idea of spending vast amounts of public money for a system that clearly won't live up to expectations.
We are against a system that will be fragile and prone to abuse by having a single point of failure, and we are against the fact that it will not solve *ANY* of the problems that the Labour government claim it will:
* Fighting terrorism. Oh dear, it's the 'T' word. Compulsory id cards in Spain didn't stop the Madrid massacre. Those flying the planes on September the 11th entered the US with valid documents. It won't stop any sufficiently determined terrorist attack here either.
* Cracking down on illegal immigrants. Since most illegal immigrants tend to find work at the very edge of the law to begin with, ID cards won't make any difference. In fact, what happens if you suddenly deny everything to those who are already in the country? They'll probably turn to crime to survive.
* Identity theft. Won't be stopped by this scheme, for sure - anyone sufficiently determined will be able to get around this. Biometrics is not a mature technology, and has never been implemented on this kind of scale. Besides, most 'identity theft' is just credit card fraud anyway, which is a whole different matter.
* If you're innocent, you have nothing to fear. Well yes, we've heard this one before, and we know why it's a terrible argument. The best way to enslave the people is to do it slowly, etc.
Ive not read the No2ID article ( yet ) but heres a point of view from my Neighbour.
.. but its interesting how the security groups and organisations in this country are very much in favour of something that in reality gives no added benefit to their ability to stop crime.
My Neighbour, Detective Constable, is very much in favour of ID cards. On explanation though the reason is this:-
If youve nothing to fear then why worry. If your not commiting crime then why are you worried about what peple know about you. He goes on to point out that many people in the UK have given up privacy with Store Cards, Credit Cards, Switch Cards, Loyalty Cards, Fast pay cards and not to mention Driver Licenses, Passports, National Insurance etc etc etc.
What he has not convinced me of though is that in having a national ID that it will in any way reduce crime or stop terrorism or halt fraud.
Indeed he made it quite clear that criminals do not carry id or generally assist in identification if they can avoid it.
It seems to me that a criminal is already beyond caring about legality and its very unlikely that they will carry any legitimate identifaction.
Ive heard it expressed quite well by a comedian who posed the question "What freedoms am i restricting other people to have by owning a ID card"
As I pointed out to my neighbour the money spent on this scheme and the on going resources and expense in deliveriing it might be better spent in equipping him and other support organisations ( Hospitals or Fire ) with more people and better training.
In the town where I live the paper seems to be reporting every week about a violent attack or robbery on local citizens by various "youths" will these attackers be showing their ID cards before robbing their victims ?
So now im off to rtfa
And thats why Firecrackers and kittens don't mix.
I still can't see why any country other than a dictatorship would need biometric data on all of their citizens.
I would rather be a bit more affraid of terrorists than loosing all my rights as a citizen - because in that case my country would have turned into something I call terror.
Its compulsory for any body the secretary of state wishes to have a card. Obvious applications are immigrants/asylum seekers that are known. Other applications include the entire population - at the complete discretion of the government without further recourse to parliament or need to pass extra laws. It will be required for almost all citizen-state interactions, so effectively is compulsory. Though you can't be forced to have a card, you can now be forced to be fingerprinted, attend hearings etc.
I'm British - and while I agree with all the statements, I am dissuaded from signing the petition because they won't let me sign without also signing up for a newsletter.
I DO NOT WANT YOUR NEWSLETTER! DO NOT SPAM ME! I BELIEVE IN THE PETITION BUT I DON'T WANT JUNK POST OR JUNK EMAIL. I AM "SIGNING" A WEB FORM I CAN LOOK AT YOUR WEBSITE IF I WANT MORE INFORMATION!!!
Until recently I've been undecided about the whole identity card debate. I can see that it would be extremely useful to make something equivalent to the British Passport compulsory for British citizens - though I never fail to be amazed at the gross incompetence surrounding even that system. I was always deeply sceptical that the government could successfully pull off a project on the scale of national IDS - their track record is abysmal. Recently my opinions have crystallised by the most recent decision to track every motorist by satellite and charge by the mile - this proposal is, in my opinion clear evidence of dishonesty, cretinism - or possibly both. Given that the UK public transport system is, in all practical senses, unusable this proposal would give unprecedented levels of information on the movements of almost every member of society. While I once saw the purpose of being able to definitively identify those born in Britain I can only find underhand motives for these policies.
I'm yet to vote (having chosen to abstain in 3 general elections) - I would now seriously consider voting for a candidate who demonstrably opposes these malicious proposals.
Also check out the NO2ID forum - they are arguing about the number 666 being used in bar codes, and MPs being part of the Illuminati and Fabian Society. Good luck NO2ID!
I'm leaving too: for Canada (yes, I know they have their own issues too). But I found that trying to explain why I don't want to be in the UK any more gets odd looks from people in the UK.
I say "it's the pervasive atmosphere of oppression: not being allowed to wear hooded clothes, the dark looks you get if you smile back at a child who smiles at you, the banning of penknives, deploying armed police for kids playing with cap guns, issuing an ASBO banning being sarcastic".
I get these dead-eyed faces looking at me and there's an awkward silence.
I've given up saying "Britain is getting oppressive" and now just say "I want to go somewhere with lots of space and nicer weather" and people smile and say "yes, what a lovely idea."
Funny thing is, when I've had "the conversation" with Americans they all nod vigorously and know exactly what I'm talking about.
K.
I can't blame the Police for wanting this so badly. It must seem to the uninformed, or technically optomistic as some sort of panacea.
This would be greate if biometric evidence couldn't be planted or national databases couldn't be hacked.
It would also be good if they could come up with a card that can 100% identify you as who you say you are. Douglas Adams had great fun with this concept in Mostly Harmless. I'm sure organized crime will have even more fun. If it is statically stored on a chip it can be read, unencrypted and faked. The more faith that is put in a system like this, the more it can and will be abused.
I just can't see any way that this can help the British public. I work for one of the large computer projects that they are citing as a failure in the article. The problem here is that we take our job, keeping private information private, very seriously. This means that what could normally be a very simple application is often a megalythic nightmare. This results in slow development time and high costs, and perceived inefficiency. This is all well and good if application is essential to reducing our already expensive beurocracy, I can't imagine what would happen when they're creating a system to actively increase the it.
Scared of flying, pointy things snce 1979!
No-one will want it, people will campaign against it , newspapers will argue against it and the government will stick their fingers in their ears, say "la la la I can't hear you" and implement it anyway.
Not that it means we shouldn't try and get Labour to see some sense, but given that they've been deeply unpopular for several years but still got voted in for another four years (on the basis that they might be bad, but the competition is even worse), they realise that they can get away with doing almost what they want with little recourse.
As such, I'm not holding out much of a hope on this one.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
Sorry, guys, but I want smartcard identification and biometric identifiers. I find it ridiculous that if my driver's license or credit card gets stolen, someone can trivially impersonate me, wreck my credit rating, and do other things to ruin me. Given the widespread availability of high quality scanners and printers, paper and plastic just won't do anymore.
Of course, we shouldn't kid ourselves: smartcards and biometric identifiers are not sufficient for improving security, and they will do little to stop terrorism. But, while not sufficient, they are a necessary component of any future system.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4590817.s tm
And none of the reasons the government has given for introducing them have stood up to any sort of scrutiny.
http://mrprecision.blogspot.com/2005/05/lets-sta rt-with-id-cards.html
A driving licence is a licence to drive a car. A passport is a document to allow you to go to another country. An ID card is a document to allow you to live. I already have that right thank you very much and I don't need the government to give me permission.
There are extremely good passport and driving license forgeries BTW.
Deleted
UK Governments have wanted ID cards for some time now for a variety of reasons. The reasons given now are security related, but previously tax, benefit fraud and immigration have been tapped as reasons.
I think those in power simply want more power. Is it not enough that the UK has the highest number of surveillance cameras per person? Unlike the US which emphasizes placing information in the public domain, UK legislation tends to emphasis privacy. (Freedom of Information vs. Data Protection.)
Probably the worst thing about the identity issue is the end goal of pulling together information from a variety of sources, all to be accessible by this unique identifier.
There's an interesting aside to all this. That is the ease in which we give away information about ourselves. A local supermarket may offer to discount your shopping if you use their loyalty card. But in exchange for a few pence, we readily allow the contents of our shopping basket to be recorded. We may complain about loss of privacy, but freely tell some marketing machine that we love lamb chops, but hate cheese, or we'll be away for Christmas.
So what's the big deal. We'll tell everyone about our purchasing habits for £10 per year, but complain because we have to coff up for a state system? No wonder politicians think we have the appetite for ID cards.
The implementation they're talking about has some flaws in it, but the concept of a compulsary ID card seems very reasonable to me.
James P. Barrett
Latest news suggests that support for the proposed ID card and database system is rapidly dropping:
0 ,,1505880,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/
It seems that, like Australia, the more people learn about the true costs and problems in the system the less they like it...
ID CARDS: The War on Error
As British MPs wake up to the likelihood that ID cards may be a multibillion pound failure thanks to poor biometric trial results and big predicted increases in costs, warnings from the United States don't bode well either.
When the White House office of management and budget investigated 33 homeland security initiatives involving many firms that are potential ID card contractors, it found that only four of the projects had been effective.
Of the ineffective ones, a scheme called US-Visit is particularly relevant to the ID card debate here in Britain. The 10-year, $10bn contract for a computer network to screen foreigners visiting or leaving the US, recording their details and checking them against terrorist suspect databases, was won by Accenture. It promised a futuristic system with "biometrc" face and fingerprint recognition, but as the US general accounting office (GAO) found, costs would be well above the $7.2bn estimate and this "very risky endeavor" would probably cost "in the tens of billions".
Even less encouraging was its conclusion that "it is uncertain that US-Visit will be able to measurably and appreciably achieve the Department of Homeland Security's stated goals for the program".
Guess what! Accenture is a likely bidder for ID card work in Britain; and Ian Watmore, head of "E Government" here, is a former Accenture chief executive and ID card enthusiast. When he was appointed last year he suggested he would lead the project. So that's all right, then.
OK, here's Standard Argument Against National ID Cards/Database #3 of 17,469,285. :-)
This system would be backed by a national identity database, holding amongst other things various biometric information on each individual in the country.
The police would have access to this database.
Having found something that might be matched biometrically at a crime scene, the police could therefore search the database for potential matches, and flag anyone in that category as a suspect.
The failure rate (false positive matches) of even the best of the biometric technologies they're contemplating using makes them unreliable for this kind of operation. (Incidentally, though not relevant to this particular argument, failure rates including false negatives are as bad as 1 in 3 in some of the worst technologies proposed according to some reports. These include the facial recognition technology that would be used at airports etc.)
Unlucky citizens are likely to be arrested, detained, tried and even convicted of crimes on the basis of nothing but a false positive biometric match. After all, if the evidence weren't reliable in court there'd be no point in having it, and since we've got a biometric match identifying you, why would need to show anything mundane like motive and opportunity?
This is likely to result in literally thousands of people being turned into not just suspects (though that's bad enough) but potentially also convicted criminals, for nothing more than unluckily having biometric information slightly too close to a sample that was found at a crime scene.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
The Government has also recently introduced proposals to track each motor vehicle journey using GPS as part of a "pay as you go" road pricing scheme to replace the annual Road Fund License and the duty on fuel. Each road user will be billed for the distance travelled, with prices varying according to the time of day and congestion levels. In parallel, the mapping of all of the UK's roads for Intelligent Speed Adaption (ISA) will be complete by the end of the year, creating a database of the speed limit of every piece of public road in the country. So, the aim is to know who you are, where you are going and how fast you are travelling.
In the UK at present, the usual standard of identification for something like opening a bank account is to provide two forms of ID from reasonably broad lists. One of these must show your photograph: a passport or photocard driving licence, for example. The other must show your current address and be dated within (IIRC) the past three months: a recent utility bill for your home or an electoral registration card would suffice.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Sweden is the place where there was forced sterilisation until quite recently? Oh yes, I can see how an ID card might be useful there. I bet it made the eugenics program run like clockwork.
Twit.
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
The problem with that is exemplified by the recent French vote on the European constitution, where the vast majority of government said they'd vote in favour, but in the actual referendum the motion was defeated by the majority of the people. In other words, sometimes if you ask the people what they want, you won't get the answer you want to hear. Do you really think Blair's control-freak regime is going to risk that fate for one of its favourite Draconian policies?
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
A very fair point, allow me to elaborate on the nature of the British political climate for all you Slashdotters across the pond on either side who maybe aren't quite up to speed;
Not that it means we shouldn't try and get Labour to see some sense, but given that they've been deeply unpopular for several years but still got voted in for another four years (on the basis that they might be bad, but the competition is even worse)
This is exactly the problem with British politics. For all the braying and neighing about US elections being a two-horse race, at least those across the pond have a large party they can vote for if the Republicans got *too* insane (yeah, yeah, they won again, but was pretty close, wasn't it? Any madder and they'd lose that 1% or 2% and the Democrats would be in in 2008)
Over here we don't have that. We have Labour, who are busy raping the country as it is now because they know they can get away with it, spending hundreds of millions assisting Bush's wars which very few people in the UK supported, agreeing to the EU constitution despite the concerns of a large majority of the British public, and everything else - one in three children leaving primary school cannot read or write properly, while Labour's idea of improving the education system is to get a 'celebrity chef' to tell school canteens to stock more vegetables.
Why do they get away with it? Because here's the competition:
The Conservatives: I voted for the Conservatives in the last election, but many people are put off by the fact they were led into that election by Michael Howard, who many people remember as the man responsible for ruining the country when he was Secretary of State for Employment and, later, Home Secretary in the last Conservative government, which left many people still bitter (admittedly they were awful, but the scare-stories get a little out of hand now - and Blair telling us not to vote Conservative 'for the sake of our children' 2 days before the election was taking it too far).
The Liberal Democrats: These guys know they'll never win an election and concentrated on taking over as the '2nd place party' from the Conservatives in the last election, failing miserably. They get very little publicity except in the footnotes and in the media-obsessed British culture this equates to almost 0 votes except from the diminishing party faithful and those few making a protest vote against the two main parties. Seen by many as too far left because of their stance towards open immigration, in my entire lifetime they have never been more than also-rans.
The British National Party: Party leader Nick Griffin has been arrested for Race Hate crimes, the party has purported links to the extremist group the National Front and the party's own policies site states they want to bring back corporal punishment for petty crimes. They have gained a few votes in areas surrounding cities such as Bradford and Birmingham due to the approaching ethnic majorities in the central areas of those cities, but otherwise stay off the actual voting radar (mostly due to the damning BBC investigation that led to Griffin's arrest).
Nobody wants to vote for either of these three, so they settle for the 'better the devil you know' option (the actual phrase used by at least three people I asked why they were voting Labour) and re-elect Blair, despite the fact almost all of his policies have been misguided, America-based or complete failures to the detriment of the British people. He knows that because of the nature of British politics, he essentially has a Job for Life unless he decides to step down, and so has licence to do whatever he damn well pleases safe in the knowledge that he has no real opposition.
Dealing with lawyers would be a lot less tedious if they all looked like Casey Novak.
Just to give some people some perspective on this issue. This is the same government that tried to pass a law that would have allowed a private company (Royal mail), the fire brigade and the food standards agency to legally intercept your e-mail without judicial oversight.
Now, can everyone understand why we're a little concerned ?
If you say that a movement is gaining momentum, or that a lot of people are into it, it will gain momentum even if it wasn't already. There's an example, where a public service ad campaign for preventing suicides pointed out the large number of teenagers who were committing suicide. Do you think this made suicide less frequent? Hell no, if everyone else is doing, then...! So, if you're an activist, then you always say that your movement is very popular or gaining momentum.
So come one, folks, let's try to come up with some! Instead of discussing the abstract here, let's put together some nice, simple scenarios which will show the possible consequences of ID cards, and illustrate the danger in no uncertain terms. (Or if we can't think of any at all, then maybe our fears aren't so justified?)
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
Why are tech people so paranoid? And, what is the blogging community going to do? Who cares about the blogging community? They seem more like middle-aged tools that most people could care less about so they rant about it on their little site. You people take too much stock in what people write on the internet.... did I mention paranoid?
-SaNo
I didn't even know how creepy the plans were that the British government is trying to push on its citizens until I read more about it. This is the stuff that really creeps you out. I am fully supporting the No2ID campaign and wish we had similarly outspoken advocates and campaigns here in the US were we urgently need better protection of our civil and constitutional rights.
The Bill sets out a number of purposes for the Card and the Register. Some are more open-ended than others. For example, the scheme is described as "a convenient method for such individuals to prove registrable facts about themselves to others". The Bill also says that the card scheme will allow "the provision of a secure and reliable method for registrable facts about such individuals to be ascertained or verified wherever that is necessary in the public interest." "Public Interest" has a number of dimensions. Clause 1(4) of the Bill defines it as being "in the interests of national security", "for the purposes of the prevention or detection of crime", "for the purposes of the enforcement of immigration controls", "for the purposes of the enforcement of prohibitions on unauthorised working or employment" and "for the purpose of securing the efficient and effective provision of public services." On the face of it, this definition would imply that the card and the register would be necessary to seek employment, to gain access to health, benefits and other services, and that it would be used by police, security and immigration officers in the course of their functions. However the words "for the purposes of the prevention or detection of crime" could be connected to financial control and money laundering regulations to provide a means by which the ID system can be used for an almost limitless range of purposes. The could include operating a bank account, using professional services such as a solicitor or accountant, applying for a permit or license, internal travel, buying property, stocks or shares, applying for credit or using large amounts of cash. It is likely that the card and register may ultimately be used to verify entitlement to most if not all public services while the Bill and the Regulatory Impact Assessment paves the way for widespread use by the private sector. The Assessment states that the government will "work closely with private sector organisations to ensure that the [ID card] scheme develops along lines which will meet their business requirements". This means that links and transactions within private sector records are likely to appear alongside the government-held registrable facts associated with an individual. The Home Office recently stated: "We are proposing to make online checks against the register the norm, except in those low risk/low value cases where a visual check is judged to be sufficient". Responding to a question of whether libraries and video rental shops might require the card the Home Secretary told the Home Affairs Committee: "Wherever someone is required to prove their identity and those operating that particular service have registered so they can use a reader then that would be fine".
I don't see what all the fuss is about. This would have been very helpful back in the day when they were burning women at the stake for being a witch.
any takers for 666???
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Stop crying you bunch of British pansies. (Same to you lot of American pansies)
.. hypocrit bitches.
Nothing wrong with an ID card, for starters, and for seconds: You lot are always on about how much immigrants are ruining your country -- your stuck up attitude is -- but when someone checks YOUR passport at the border you get all cranky
It's a loan
I'm thinking about leaving the US too. I'm afraid about what will happen when the propping up of our phoney dollar finally fails and I don't want to be the one paying the bill, because the people who ran up the debt will be on offshore yachts.
I look at the war on terroism as an excuse --because the only changes that have been made are targeted towards controlling citizens.
Our only chance right now is if the "Downing Street Memo" gets followed with some backbone in congress. If that has the impeachment it deservces, then maybe we can kick out the crooks running the voting machines. But doubting the voting machines that are run by secretive, private corporations who have given money to the resident president is somehow proof that I wear a tinfoil hat.
But if they don't get rid of this incompetent and ruthless bunch of crooks that we call a government --then I don't know where to go. That is really the topic that I want on Slashdot --good alternatives to the US. Good jobs and not a government controlled by corporations. Any suggestions?
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
The UK government seems to have a wealth of IT initiatives but a lack of ability to deliver and handle them well. From the catastrophic migration to renew IT systme in NHS to the crashdown of DWP IT system of pensions I'm extremely afraid the catastrophy UK government would make if they collect tons of biometric data. At that point there will be more rather than less identity thefts if they manage to lose the data.
I'm not really against a national ID card system, because I live under it in Hong Kong. It does make you life easier with a good way to identify yourself. Though anonymity would be somehow lost as you would have to carry this all the time, this is not my major concern. My major concern would be the size of the national database with tons of biometrics and the security of that. I once postulate a unified identity card system with all the data stored in a centralised database when I was younger, but I later scrap that idea out of my mind because I know that would be a hotspot of misuse from government or proxy agency alike.
Another problem is obviously the cost, £90 for a card? That's ridiculously expensive. The card should have been obviously laden with tons of security features and biometrics to add up the cost, but an initial cost of £90 per person is one of the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Normally governments offer a sweet pill for people to swallow this hard act by offering cheap or free first issuing of intenal identity documents, I'll just say Blair et al just try to grab for money obviously.
28481k
All us US citizens should keep a good eye on this report. The good old bush administration is attempting something very similar to this, with a similar reaction from the people. This type of law, no matter how small and insignifigant it may seem to you, very well may change the course the world takes in the near future. The question is however, at what cost? Our freedom?
The basic premise the parent poster is trying to make is that personal privacy trumps (or should) the government's right to know who you are. (I don't mean to provide flamebait here, but just exactly who the fuck are you and where did you come from? Can you prove it?)
You may (or may not) pay taxes to support your government, and the services that they provide to its citizens. No government nor the taxpayers it supports should be required to furnish services to illegal aliens. No government nor the citizens they represent should be obligated to permit illegal aliens representation in the government by granting them the right to vote.
An illegal alien is the equivalent of a burgler who breaks into your home, and then claims squatter's rights in order to remain there. The burgler/squatter is already a criminal in the eyes of the law (if not the homeowner) -- he/she is using your phone, electricity, water, etcetra and is now using your credit card to order pizza and flashy new clothes.
While identity theft is a mechanism criminals use to commit banking fraud, it is also a mechanism used to cloak the identity of illegal aliens. Persons who have already broken (numerous) laws to reside in this country will not hesitate to break additional laws in order to live in a fashion they have become accustomed to, including banking fraud.
The USA recently passed the RealID Act in order to address the large variance in documentation required by the 50 states to obtain drivers licenses, a primary form of identity here. Only one state, Arizona, has actually passed legislation that attempts to stike illegal aliens from the voter registration lists. In virtually every other state, illegal aliens who have established "good cover" have no difficulty in voting -- a right reserved to citizens alone. With that vote comes political power and a voicc in government that is drowning out the voices and concerns of genuine citizens.
The British (and the larger EU generally) are rejecting the EU Constitution in part over the issues of open borders and illegal immigration. These same issues will prove to be the major sticking point in the entry of Turkey, a NATO member, into the EU -- I suspect that it will never happen so long as Islamic fundamentalist fervor (and the terrorism it breeds) sweeps across the Middle East and Mediterranean.
A biometric National ID implimentation may have some flaws. Rather than take the ultimate libertarian/anarchist position of absolute opposition, why not provide some insight and positive feedback to make such an ID system better? As the world continues to shrink in size due to trade and travel, National IDs will become the norm everywhere. It can no more be stopped than the tides or globalization.
I don't see any so far, so here's a few quick, simple ones from the top and various other parts of my head:
1. Jack Cracker really doesn't like Dave Forker (Why? Maybe because Dave looks funny and wears smelly socks). So Jack breaks into the database and uses it against Dave. For example, he changes some of the data to garbage values. Now Dave can never identify himself with his iris or fingerprint, and just might be arrested for ID theft if he ever tries. Or, Jack registers for a credit card through the mail with Dave's personal info and Dave ends up with a humongous debt from out of nowhere.
2. Donald Trumpet is a rich, successful banker with millions in his various accounts. Joe Averagian is not, but he makes a solid 10000 pounds (euros, dollars, walnut shells, etc.) per year sweeping the floors at the local... wherever it is you would have to go to register for your ID card. If it's not a place, then wherever the computers for it are located. Fed up with his miserable existence and crappy pay, and having learned, in his spare time, perhaps in secret, how to patch the database to replace Don's fingerprints, iris scans, etc., use the encryption algorithm, and other various related tasks, he looks up Donald's info in the computers, makes a fake id with the proper data and his own biometrics which he "updated" Donald's info with, withdraws all or most of Donald's money from his various accounts with his new card (Don's favorite bank uses only, say, iris scans for ID along with the person's card, so Joe knew this was all he really had to change), and leaves the country before anyone has a clue. (Joe doesn't need to be the janitor. He could just be a cracker/hacker who gained root access to the database and found out the encryption algorithm.)
3. A cracker/hacker (perhaps Joe from scenario 2) gains entry into the database, copies all the info, and sells it to Royal Paynes, Inc. for ten cents a profile. Royal Paynes then uses the info in a humongous 'targeted advertising' campaign, or perhaps resells the data.
See? Just as insecure as photo-based IDs. These are pretty easy ones, but I'm sure one could elaborate, or come up with different ones. These do all involve breaking into the Big Database, with I think is an entirely possible scenario with a big, juicy database oozing with literally a kingdom's worth of personal info.
Just to clarify: since in fact no Afghan soldiers were involved, no "act of war" was in fact committed
Here's an idea: How about America privatize its army. Just spin it off into its own independent corporation.
After that, oh, what? It's invading other countries purely at random? Well, what they choose to do in their own time is their own business.
Pentagon Inc troops are marching on France? Paris in ruins, the government overthrown? The U.N. a little upset about this act of war? Oh now hold on a fucking second there. I'll not hear you slandering the U.S. like that. Since no American soldiers were involved, no "act of war" was in fact committed.
---
Every single goddamn thing in your post after the sentence I quoted above has not one thing whatsoever to do with the Afghanistan invasion. They are entirely, entirely separate issues.
The problem with the Bush administration is that they abandoned the "war on terror" after a few weeks blowing random things up in Afghanistan, ignored crucial issues with Pakistan, ignored crucial issues with Saudi Arabia, ignored root causes and in fact exacerbated root causes. The problem is not that in their brief, feeble attempts at combatting terrorism instead of just using Terrorism as an excuse for other things they want, they started with going after the groups in Afghanistan. The fact the Reagan clan helped the Taliban to power is extremely important, and the persons responsible (such as, for example, much of the current Bush Administration...) need to be held accountable, but this does not rob America of the right or need to react when groups which are literally a guest of the Taliban are launching attacks on the U.S.. And those of you who just plain denounce things the Republicans did because the Republicans did them are making things very difficult for those of us who are trying to get America to denounce the Republicans have been doing because they are wrong.
In the meantime, if you seriously think that substate entities can't commit acts of war, then you are in for some rude awakenings. States are effectively no longer able to wage war, at least not against the U.S.. Iraq proved that. This means that states are no longer going to try. That does not mean no one will. It just means it's nothing but privatized armies from here on out.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Why have there been no comments here about the one really big problem with this whole idea?
In a word... HACKED
Heard any good sigs lately?
The £100 (or even "£93" - the current official estimate) is a red herring.
If something costs money, it must be paid for, and whether than comes out of general taxation or a charge per card, everyone (apart from the criminally inclined) pays for it. Even if it is "free to everyone", you still pay.
1. Go to a crime seen
2. Collect biometric evidence
3. compare against the national database
4. Job done
I appreciate the irony, just want to explain why this is nonsense.
The law as proposed would prevent police from searching the database until all leads have been exhausted.
We're then talking about matching a criminal's partial fingerprint with the ~50 million on the database which only has a 81% positive match rate for a full print.
Well that should leave only 10+ million suspects to arrest.
The No2ID campaign is a fast moving campaign. We don't want people to feel that signing a petition along with a 9,999 others is enough to stop a government intent on creating a surveillance state.
The newsletter comes out once a month at most. It is an excellent newsletter and simply tells you what you might want to do to keep your privacy and freedom.
I didn't make the policy but I do agree with it.
As simply as I can put it its a another "invasion of privacy" scheme which does nothing more than distrub peoples right to privacy. I live in the US and I cant figure out how this helps in any way. For one thing in the US legal immigrants have to renew their ID's once every year. They have to give their finger prints every year and photos. Also there are other things such as SS or drivers License. For illegal immigrants, theres no need because they won't apply for one of these in the first place :-). So this system is pointless and also, redundent. It just disturbes peoples right to privacy for no apparent reason.
And look at the bill.
The bill is quite vague on everything. It says a lot of "at least" and "or more" or "as identified". The reason for the ID card is ID theft, immigration and terrorism prevention.
However, nothing in the scheme will help any of this. Or there are other methods that do not require the system in order to be useful.
E.g. you could tag any refugees in the UK and keep biometric information on them until such time as they become full UK ciizens. 120% as effective as their ID card scheme (which doesn't allow tagging). Make breaking the tag and/or going AWOL an ofense that makes you banned from the UK.
Terrorism can't be fixed by knowing who I am. You have to trust someone and that is where the weakness lies.
Fraud. Well, there's no need for govt to get in there. Make the CC companies liable for any losses.
So, given that the stated reasons do NOT explain why they need this scheme, why have it?
I'm quite impressed at how the anglosaxon world reacts to ID cards. They are present in most countries, and are a far cry from a fascist tool.
First off, this isn't about ID Cards. Sure, I'm not happy at the prospect of being bullied by police for exercising my freedom of speech (mostly against ID Cards), but we're having the world's biggest database built to spy on us.
Finally, it baffles me how people are so nervous about a stupid piece of paper or plastic.
See above.
On the No2ID site I read taurinities like it would cause racial discrimination,
See, the Government said it would be a scheme to combat illegal immigration. That can only happen if the police constantly pester ethnic minorities to prove their identity. So either the government was lying or it would cause racial discrimination.
fingerprint people like criminals (I have been taken fingerprints only once in my life, at the military draft visit)
Then you obviously know very little about what we're facing. We will be fingerprinted upon application for the card as well as every use of public services in the future.
and will be useless against crime. Never mind there are heaps of experience in continental Europe of criminals caught because they provided a not-good-enough fake ID (one I remember was mafia boss Madonia).
According to Time, he was caught by a phone tap.
The claim that identity theft would not be affected is simply ludicrous: the very term "identity theft" is exclusive to the anglosaxon world, as identity theft is impossible with an ID-card system; in continental Europe, we don't even talk of it.
Identity theft is a buzzword meaning transactions using someone else's financial identity - our Government has been talking about the £1.3 billion cost even though ID Cards can only prevent a mere £35 million of it.
And last but not least, how can be that people are worried about ID cards when living in countries where the government has been given insane powers to detain people without trial and rights, like in Guantanamo?
You can't be worried about 2 things at the same time? Most British people don't know about this Database, they don't know they can be locked up without trial and they don't know that the government can rewrite our entire set of laws at whim. The media seems reluctant to report these things.
I wrote to my MP twice about control orders. You have to realise that our democracy is non-existent and unless the media takes an interest, Blair can do whatever he wants. Even when the media took an interest for the last 9 years, Blair had nearly 2/3rds of the votes.
Any information that's not on the card will be repeatedly transmitted over various networks. Government entities seem to have really bad records when it comes to system security. It'll be short months before all of that data is in the hands of just about every identity thief willing to pay $.05 for each person's data (in bulk).
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
Biometric identifiers aren't keys--they don't have to be "revocable". Unlike a key, knowing the digital form of a biometric identifier does not let you authenticate.
* Fighting terrorism.
They admitted it wouldn't help with that about ten days ago.
* Cracking down on illegal immigrants.
They admitted it wouldn't help with that about ten weeks ago.
* Identity theft.
Still claiming this one. In fact, it's now (and always was, Winston) the primary purpose of this legislation.
* If you're innocent, you have nothing to fear.
Probably still claiming this one. But then fascists always do, and then go and redefine 'innocent' at some later stage. Yes I am calling Blair et al fascists.
Justin.
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
I could go on and on why this is bad. For instance just one tiny example is that this smacks of Revelations. Even if you don't believe in the Bible you should acknowledge that they were trying to tell us something in that story. Why would you sign up for something that a primitive civilization thought was an evil idea over 2000 years ago?
My question is this.
Is there a similar movement in the USA and where can I find it?
Thanks