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.
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
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!
Perhaps it's because you're a bad studnet? Perhaps if you're a better studnet you get more money?
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
Come on, bad form. There's no requirement for a student to be able to spell their name correctly outside of the exam room, and you get plenty of revision for that moment.
Studnet: Online dating for horses.
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
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.
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
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.
-.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.
"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... "
As far as the tax authorities are concerned, someone calling themselves "titzandkunt"(!) earns so much money, and consequntly pays a certain rate of tax. Unless thay suspect that I'm under-declaring my income, that's the end of their involvment. They have no idea how much I spend - why should they?
"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..."
Useful for what? BTW, were ID cards introduced in Brasil during a democratic period, or during one of the dictatorships (1930-34, 1937-45, 1964-85).
"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."
I hope to God that this is hyperbole! If a patient is in a condition that they can't clearly state their identity, the paramedics ought to be checking the ABC's (airways, breathing, circulation) first.
When I'm presenting a credit card or cheque, I don't need further ID - both have got my name on them.
"a government issued ID only adds to convenience, IMHO"
Yet again, you don't say how.
The real problem that informed critics have with the proposed uk ID scheme is not the card per se, but with the database backing the card. Do you know what information the government proposes to hold on this database? Here we go:
- Name
- Other previous names or aliases;
- Date and place of birth and, if the person has died, the date of death;
- Address
- Previous addresses in the United Kingdom and elsewhere;
- Times of residency at different places in the United Kingdom or elsewhere;
- Current residential status;
- Residential statuses previously held;
- Information about numbers allocated to the applicant for identification purposes and about the documents to which they relate;
- Information about occasions on which recorded information in the Register has been provided to any person;
- Information recorded in the Register on request.
- Photograph
- Fingerprints
- "Other" biometrics (iris recognition);
- Signature
- Nationality;
- Entitlement to remain in the United Kingdom; and
- Where entitlement derives from a grant of leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, the terms and conditions of that leave.
- National Identity Registration Number;
- The number of any ID card that has been issued;
- National Insurance number;
- The number of any relevant immigration document;
- The number of any United Kingdom passport (within the meaning of the Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77)) that has been issued;
- The number of any passport issued by or on behalf of the authorities of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom or by or on behalf of an international organisation;
- The number of any document that can be used (in some or all circumstances) instead of a passport;
- The number of any identity card issued by the authorities of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom;
- Any reference number allocated by the Secretary of State in connection with an application made for permission to enter or to remain in the United Kingdom;
- The number of any work permit (within the meaning of the Immigration Act 1971);
- Any driver number connected to a driving licence;
- The number of any designated document which is held by the ap
Political language
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.
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.
You're missing the point. It's not just about the ID card. It's about the database(s).
...you are not allowed to drive, because a recent police cross-check on databases, revealed that you have been driving for the last 10 weekends following a certain pattern. You were always driving about 2 hours after your visit to a pub, where you had a few drinks each time. Although you had always 2 drinks and you were below the limit, statistics showed that 56% of the people who follow the certain pattern and have the health problem you have, have increased risk of causing an accident. No action is required by you, your ID card has been updated. Have a nice day.
...you are required to attend to your local police station for an interview. You have been considered as a posible threat to national security. Although we hold no evidence against you, our database cross-checks have revealed that you belong to a high risk category. You have borrowed 4 books from your local library over the last 2 weeks; 1 on politics, 1 on communism, 1 on freedom and 1 on computer networks. You are a member of Greenpeace and an activist for a group against recent goverment actions like our recent war. You are also classified as a person who has objections with authority as your school records show, an incident at your previous employment, as well as a conversation you had with a police officer last year. You associate with a person who has broken the law once (your neighboor) and he has a friend where he broke the law twice this year. None of these facts about you is explicitly unlawful, however the combination of these facts classifies you as having a 12% chance of commiting an act which would be detrimental to our national security, within the next 6 months. USA security agencies comfirm this as well. Due to our proactive policy we would like an interview with you. The outcome of our interview will determine whether you will be sent to camp delta for reeducation or not. If you do not attend your local police station within 24 hours you will be arrested. Your ID card service capabilities have been suspended until then. Have a nice day.
You'd be required to use the ID for public services, health services, to get a job, to travel, to use private sector services, like buying a book, a dvd, a newspaper, etc etc.
Now, each goverment agency will have its own database collecting relevant information about you. Private companies will also keep their own databases collecting information about you. Ok, you're gonna say, nothing new here. I already use a card for my bank, another one to drive, another one for my local library, another one for my local supermarket etc. So what's the difference?
The difference is that you'll only use *one* card. That is *one* database *key* able to be used to run queries across any databases that keep information about you. These queries can return results in seconds with almost no effort. While nowdays, to get a profile on a person you'd need too much resources and time. So they only do it for criminals and not for your average citizen. Things will change though. Combine this with statistics, a proactive policy and the export of ID data to the US and things get scary pretty quickly. Think of the unlimited possibilities for the goverment or corporations; they could built complete profiles on you. Something that is impossible today because even though you exist on many databases, they are not integrated.
For example, you receive a letter saying...
You think this is fiction? Yes, but for how long?
VStrider.
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
Yup, it's been lead story on BBC News for many months, it's had a lot of coverage for a year or so now.
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.
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
I suppose that's the diffrence between the US and UK. The UK wants people from all walks of life to be able to get educated were as the US can't stand to see people getting help to do things that would be otherwise impossible for them , Oh and most of the money a student gets is a loan that must be payed back when earning but the loan allows a student to concentrate on there university work and education and the government gets it's money back.
No matter how bad the UK gets slashdot serves to remind me the the US has it worse and likes it.
Saying Apple is better than MS is like saying Botulism is better than rabies.
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.
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.
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.
Store loyalty cards dont cost over £100, they're also optional, eg NOT compulsory, in every store I know that uses them
^ Important emphasis added by me. It was like a week or two after they won the election this came out of nowhere. In a just society, that reason alone should have stopped the idea dead.
Individuals are allowed to trade their freedom for whatever price they deem worthy, and that is their perogative. However, when the loss of freedom is compulsory it is an altogether different matter. The citizens being required to pay for the real ID is just added insult to injury.
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
The fact that it only appeared after the election pissed me off too.
Had we any idea that it would fly right back on the Labour agenda the moment they returned to office, things may have been very different.
Of course, politicians don't do such honest things as actually tell us what they're planning at voter-critical moments!
any takers for 666???
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Because they know about technology and know how badly it can fail and easily it can be abused. BTW when it's possible and true it's not paranoia.
Saying Apple is better than MS is like saying Botulism is better than rabies.
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!!!"
You should probably realise that the 3 grand a year is not a free handout to all students.
First, it's means-tested, so how much you get depends on how rich you are to start with. It's designed so that poor students arent dissuaded from attending uni.
Second, it's not a gift, it's a loan. You pay it back, with interest.
I suspect you've been trolled deliberately.
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.
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
Not that I agree with the idea of ID cards, but the data protection act actually helps the general population, not the government.
Any company storing information on you is obliged to register with the data-protection registrar and tell them what class of data they're storing. Any member of the public can ask the DP registrar who is storing info on them, and demand to see it (from the companies, not the DP registrar).
It's actually a royal pain for companies, but well worth it - it means people think twice before storing information, rather than doing it as a default, which is a good thing, yes ?
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
Which is a reson why, alot governments are dubious of building new ones unless absolutely necessary and prefer other types (Chernobyl taught the world a lot). What's worse a nuclear reactor failing or a coal/oil/gas power plant.
Point is, your info is out there. There's nothing you can do about it.
want to bet? My information is far from out there. who has my DNA, fingerprints Etc? no one that's who who has all this information stored on there central database, No one. You would be surprised at what information about you is not out there
Wouldn't it be worthwhile for you to have it EASIER for yourself?
Saving myself a minute hear and there is not worth the price, im not that stressed about my life that I need to save a few minutes a day
If you are worried about it getting out there, too damn late. I'd rather them put into place better security for my data and use this ID card than leave it the way it is.
how will an ID card will stop others using the information they already have? How will it improve there data security, what data protection rights would get that you don't already have (assuming you're a UK citizen)
This ID card would make our lives that much easier and just because of a few problems that COULD happen, you are all against it. Seems short sighted to me.
Are you saying that because it is unlikely to be abused at the moment we shouldn't worry about it being abused in the future. Now that IS being short sighted! Just because they are a few problems that could happen doesn't mean they are not important. If you had a child who COULD suffer an asthma attack (no matter how unlikely) in the future would leave there inhaler at home because it was unlikely that they would need it, or do you take it with you because no matter how unlikely an attack the repercussions of such an attack are too serious to be ignored. Whether agree with ID cards depends on whether you think spending lots of money and ignoring serious potential problems are an acceptable price to pay for a slight improvement in convenience.
You sound a lot like one of those pro Euro people who's main reason for being pro Euro was the convenience of not exchanging money for a holiday and ignored the far more important economic arguments against the Euro. I'm surprised by the similar tactics, ignore the important focus on the trivial.
Frankly, I think it would be easier to keep secure all my info in one place than all my info in 10 places. Yes, it would be easier to get all my info that way but there's not much you could do about that.
An ID card wont change any of that.
Saying Apple is better than MS is like saying Botulism is better than rabies.
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.
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.
- National Identity Registration Number;
Otherwise known as the Primary Key for the Mother Of All Databases.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
"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..."
Useful for what? BTW, were ID cards introduced in Brasil during a democratic period, or during one of the dictatorships (1930-34, 1937-45, 1964-85).
actually it exists in one form or another since the empire (sept 7 1822-nov 15 1889).
it's usefull to prove i am who i claim to be. everytime someone here issues a check it serves as proof of identity. i know of at least a couple of thieves who were arrested because they tried to issue a check they had stolen from my aunt. the supermarket called us because they didn't had the RG card to prove they were my aunt.
when credit cards are issued or checking accounts are opened, the bank asks for a copy of the RG card. if i receive bills for things i didn't buy with a credit card, i can prove it wasn't me simply by comparing my RG card with the copy the administrator holds. for everything americans use the so called "social security number", we use the RG number. simple as that.
and the information stored along the ID number... well, our governmetn already stores all that. including fingerprints. each state holds a huge archive with the fingerprints of all citizens above 18 years old and everyone less than that who already have an RG card. so what ? the other informations too. they can even cros the data from diferent databases to tell if the property owned by someone matches his/hers tax form. the same laws that imposes penalties if a natural person misuses the RG card can be aplied to government officials who missuses the information about citizens. it's up to the congress and to the attorney general to make sure the executive don't missuse the information.
your fear that UK government will abuse any perceived "power" such database gives only proves your distrust in UK's government. what's the point in having a democratic government that can act pretty much as a dictatorship then ? son't you think that if elected the government, you should trust them a little ?
What ? Me, worry ?
It depends. Pell grants arent paid back, but by the same token they generally aren't for that large an amount.
If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
"...it's [the ID card] usefull to prove i am who i claim to be. everytime someone here issues a check it serves as proof of identity. i know of at least a couple of thieves who were arrested because they tried to issue a check they had stolen from my aunt. the supermarket called us because they didn't had the RG card to prove they were my aunt.
That's part of what puts my nose out of joint about the prospect of being issued with an ID card - I honestly can't remember the last time I was asked to confirm my identity beyond telling someone my name. My fear, and I think it is a justifiable fear, is that the introduction of cards will change this. The society that operates on a certain level of trust will become the society where many common transactions will hinge on the production of a card. Ihre papieren bitte!
"...your fear that UK government will abuse any perceived "power" such database gives only proves your distrust in UK's government. what's the point in having a democratic government that can act pretty much as a dictatorship then ? son't you think that if elected the government, you should trust them a little ?..."
I do trust the government a little. Unfortunately, they are asking, well demanding that I trust them a hell of a lot. Think about it: They are promoting legislation which will fundamentally change the relationship between citizen and state. For the first time in peacetime UK, the law abiding citizen will be answerable to the state. Yet the government first attempted to rush this legislation through parliament with limited debate and no oversight or comment from the select comittee. This was foiled by the snap election, but now the bill has returned in the current parliament, and it's just as bad.
The justifications for the introduction of the card keep changing - first it was an anti-terrorist measure, then it was to curb illegal immegration, now the latest reason is to prevent identity theft. The notion thta an ID card will have a substantive effect on any of these problems has been soundly debunked (see here for more info). It appears that at best the government does not know why they wish to impose the card and database, other than to appear tough on law and order. You really think I should trust these people that much?
Political language
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.
Please, don't be so silly! Those two scenarios could never happen in real life...
you are not allowed to drive: First of all, the police would have to monitor the exact location of every single car at every single moment - this will never happen. But, for the arguments sake, assume that they do. Just because you are in a "high-risk" group does not (can not!) mean that they have the right to revoke your drivers license. You could drive from the pub to your home because you work at the pub, or perhaps you did not drink anything with alcohol. If the police could revoke licenses just because you belong to a high-risk group, then men below the age of 25 would not be permitted to have a drivers license in the first place. In legal philosophy, you accept that certain actions done by the citizens cause a higher cost to the the society (e.g. people are allowed to drink alcohol and smoke), because otherwise it would be a Big Brother society.
you are required to attend to your local police station for an interview. You have been considered as a posible threat to national security. Does the police have a crime that you committed they can point to? Again, no, which means that they can't bring people in for interrogations at random.
If you really believe that your scenarios could happen, then I suggest that you pay a visit to Sweden (where we have national IDs and databases), and you'll see that your worst fears will not come true.
* 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
Regarding knowing the locations of every car at every moment, if they bring in the road charging scheme then they may well get this info too.
To err is human, to arr is pirate.
So you mean that there will be a check point for the congestion charges at every junction? I don't think so - only at the perimeter of the congestion charge area.