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.
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
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
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.
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?
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.
All the Madrid bombers had valid ID also.
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?
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.
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.
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!
Just to clarify: since in fact no Afghan soldiers were involved, no "act of war" was in fact committed. The taliban "government" came to power with aid of the US and were later removed by US force. A souvereign state with innocent civilians was raped over an issue that is primarily US internal.
Surely, Afghan training camps weren't there out of American pattriotism. But neither were the Saudi families on US soil that paid for the camps. They were NOT hunted, caught, killed, or tortured without trial in Guantanamo. Far from that. They were put on planes and allowed to escape to Saudi Arabia even when the post-9/11 no-fly measure was still in effect.
Fingers could equally point at agencies, airport security, North-American, European and Asian countries. That's what I mean by Afghanistan being related only peripherally and Iraq not begin related at all.
OK. I'm ranting, so I'll stop.
--
Ps. Thanks for spelling corrections, but please have another go
Perhaps you should suggest to your neighbour that he and all other police officers be fitted with webcam/microphone/3G phone combos so that the public can monitor them via the Web as they perform their duties. Of course, as a paragon of virtue with nothing to hide, he could have no objection.
Also, who cares what the identity of a defendant is. The important point is that the person who committed the crime is the one that is prosecuted. The "real name" of that person is irrelevant.
Changing the subject a bit, the ID card issue will be the poll tax all over again. Wait till the notices to attend a registration centre 40 miles away, on a work day, and the hand over £80+ start hitting door mats. Suddenly, an awful lot of people with suddenly be far less keen on ID cards.
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.
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