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.
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
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
And If we caught the six that didn't, we probably could have stopped the attacks.
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.
So what your are saying is that we should give up important civil rights to catch some frauds? I'm sure europe would have been a better place if you were caught for voting twice. I'm sure real criminals will better their life if they realize can only do monetary transactions through cash. I'm sure biometric data at ATMs will finally put a halt to all those banks & card sevices going bankrupt.
Get the picture? Civil rights are traded for pennies. Near-unbreakable IDs have less to do with terrorism than with control, efficiency, direct marketing and (mis)use by greyhats.
Also given the notorious and consistent failure of UK government IT projects, I bet my left testicle that someone will crack it and freely distribute everything they find within five years. Goodbye witness protection etc. etc. This time Daily Mail readers will be able to find every paediatrician at their home address and call them ALL paedophiles.
See the difference?
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
So why not introduce what other countries had for years: A difficult to forge ID card with NO CENTRAL DATABASE.
Timo's Audio Software http://www.esseraudio.com
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.
It was front page news on the BBC website, shortly after the general election:
m m
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4554827.st
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4551121.st
I think the common people in the UK do know about it, but perhaps not about all the consequences that we worry so much about here on slashdot.
You cannot do anything in Sweden without one
Yes, that's the problem. I quite like being able to go into the pub and get a drink without being forced to identify myself.
You're used to it - we are not. We like being able to get on a train anonymously.
I also imagine that your id cards don't cost you upwards of £100 (149 EUR, 181 USD) per annum!
As a US citizen, I find a complaint about "only 3000 a year" to be damn ridiculous. As another reply hinted at, get a job. Guess how much the gov't gives me. 2000? 1000? Try zero. And on top of that, I pay income tax, pay into a social security program that most likely won't be there when I retire, and pay for a myriad state run programs such as Workman's Comp, Unemployment Insurance, Paid Family leave, etc. So while you are sitting there with your 3000 handout from the government, I'm going to continue to pull 19 and 20 hour days trying to cram in work, school and studying. I think any US citizen that's put themselves through college can relate to this.
Thank you, that is all.
College Humor at it's best
> Just out of interest, which important civil right is that?
Being able to move around freely and anonymously if you've done nothing illegal. (Vs. being treated like a suspect/potential criminal by default.)
--
"We really don't have any enemies. It's just that some of our best friends are tr ying to kill us."
Because it creates a new crimes of simply not presenting your ID card.
Do a keyword search for the court case "Willcock vs. Muckle"
www.statewatch.org
Clarence Henry Willcock"
The justification for ID cards is that they will prevent fraud, while experts have testified that ID cards will become "the master key" for identity thieves.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
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.
The lack of ID cards is not the main cause of the administration inefficiency.
Countries with National ID cards have censuses, too.
That kind of information flow can be done with your tax ID.
Credit card fraud can easily be done in countries that have ID cards.
I'm sorry, the number you have dialed is an imaginary number. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and dial again.
Then you are white and middle classed. I spent many years living and working in Paris and was appalled to see blacks and arabs routinely pulled over for questioning and production of papers. Being white I was never asked once.
Friends of mine of Cambodian origin were unable to leave their home without ensuring they were carrying their papers, since they were routinely stopped.
If you choose not to make a fuss about such a situation that is your choice. I for one refuse to submit to such a situation.
And if you believe that identity theft can be prevented by simply presenting an ID card, then I hope for all our sakes that you are neither a policeman or banker.
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
ok your opinion but how? Hint: it won't as we (civil servants) already have government ID cards and someone else being able to prove who they are quickly will save all of 1 minute in the course of things
You can for once prove you are who you are in the UK
I can now with drivers license, bank cards, pay slip, utility bill, national insurance card ETC (ironically my government ID is not acceptable/recognized).
For the normal law-abiding citizen it will actually be easier to acquire a new driving license or passport should you have lsot the old one.
not difficult anyway might save a minute or 2 in the scheme of things
Improved information flow through the public sectors, e.g. if you become unemployed and go to the job centre or such like, your tax code can be updated right there instead by changing your status.
There is no reason this can't be done now so it is unlikely to change with ID cards.
Credit card scams are ripe in the UK with people stealing identities and having to provide an absolute minimum of ID to empty your account
No more ripe than any other country many of whom have ID cards.
Just because it wasn't part of the empire doesn't mean you can't use it!
Grow up you pathetic child! By using that as one of your arguments you show you have no real arguments in favour and that you allow prejudice to cloud your judgment "some old colonial types oppose ID cards then I must be for them" well I have news for you a lot of old colonial types favour ID cards probably more than oppose them, not that there are many old colonial types left.
Saying Apple is better than MS is like saying Botulism is better than rabies.
Yes and the Inland Revenue don't have access to your NHS records and the DVLA can't check on your Tax history which is really exactly as it should be. If it aint broke why fix it ?
Interesting, can I ask who you voted for? How you did it? In my opinion it's not that hard to vote without a polling card in this Country, but I do believe it's a little harder than just walking in and crossing a box.
I find it pretty hard to believe that they would let you open a bank account without photo ID. The Letter addressed to yourself, normally from a Utility, is not a form of ID it is a proof of address.
As for mother's maiden name, I can't think of any time I've ever only been asked to supply that in order to access something, usually it is used in conjunction with a few other pieces of information.
Frankly I have to say I'm fairly skeptical of your comments and think you've over exagerated.
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