Where is the British EFF? Just Around the Corner!

Drachan writes "A seminar at the UK's (BBC sponsored) technology conference 'Open Tech 2005' (organised by the fantastic 'Need To Know' (NTK) team as a follow on to last year's "Notcon 2004"event) posed the question 'Where is the British EFF?' The answer, as prompted by those attending the seminar was, of course 'Nowhere! so... uhh.. well... why don't We create it?' A PledgeBank page was set up within a few hours (available here) which states that the pledging person will donate £5 (GBP) per month to the support of a British EFF-style organisation provided that 1000 others also agree to do so. There is considerably more information at Danny O'Brien's Oblomovoka. Maybe this is a step in the right direction, after all the controversy over ID cards, the Anti-Terrorism Bill and general UK political disaster?"

Comments

Political disaster?

[sosume]

..and general UK political disaster?

Why do people think that Slashdot is biased? I was under the impression that the UK has had a quite stable government for the last decades.

Re:Political disaster?

[Anonymous Coward]

They do, but never put it past a Liberal to slip in a "omg, Dubya's poodle got re-elected!!" comment.

Re:Political disaster?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Tories are on record as saying that they would be just as gung-ho, so I don't think Iraq was that much of an electoral issue.

Re:Political disaster?

[zenmojodaddy]

Stability doesn't necessarily mean good government. It can also mean stagnation and convergence of the main political parties, so they only way you can tell a Conservative from a Liberal Democrat or Labour MP is the colour of their tie.

Speaking as a UK citizen, the political setup is a rickety pile of hacked fixes, kneejerks, self-interest and outmoded traditions. The current government is incapable of coherent thought: on the one hand, giving the police more powers to deal with the growing binge-drinking culture, while also loosening licensing laws so pubs and bars can stay open all day. Not to mention the idiotic political correctness that sees Metropolitan Police officers take off their shoes before raiding a London mosque they have reason to suspect is harbouring criminals.

Don't think this makes it okay for you to slag us off though. It's like family: it's okay for an insider to complain, but if someone from the outside criticises, the ranks close and you'll get your sorry arse bawled out... :)

Re:Political disaster?

[BenjyD]

The post was probably written by an English person: we tend (outwardly at least) to take a very pessimistic "the sky is falling" outlook on things. Hence the nickname "Whinging Poms", I guess.

That said, I didn't vote for the current poor excuse of a government :-)

Re:Political disaster?

[Shaper_pmp]

ObPratchett:

Vimes: "How is his lordship?"
Littlebottom: "Stable"
Vimes: "Dead is stable."

And always remember:

Stable != Ethical
Stable != Honest
Stable != Trustworthy ;-)

Re:Political disaster?

[thaig]

Here's the view from an insider who wasn't always an insider: stability is good and something that one shouldn't knock without experiencing the alternatives.

Regards,

Tim

Re:Political disaster?

[mikeplokta]

The current government is incapable of coherent thought: on the one hand, giving the police more powers to deal with the growing binge-drinking culture, while also loosening licensing laws so pubs and bars can stay open all day.

But those policies are both intended to address binge drinking. If you don't have every pub in a city full of people drinking as fast as they can in order to drink as much as possible before the pubs close at 11, and then throw them all out onto the street at the same time, it will reduce rather than increasing binge drinking and alcohol-fuelled violence.

Re:Political disaster?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do people think that Slashdot is biased?

Because posts like yours get modded Troll.

Re:Political disaster?

[Linus Torvaalds]

Speaking as a UK citizen, the political setup is a rickety pile of hacked fixes, kneejerks, self-interest and outmoded traditions.

Are there any governments where this is not the case?

The current government is incapable of coherent thought: on the one hand, giving the police more powers to deal with the growing binge-drinking culture, while also loosening licensing laws so pubs and bars can stay open all day.

That seems perfectly sensible to me. Why let a few drunken louts spoil things for the rest of us? It's like banning football because a few hooligans start fights.

Not to mention the idiotic political correctness that sees Metropolitan Police officers take off their shoes before raiding a London mosque they have reason to suspect is harbouring criminals.

Again, seems perfectly reasonable. Taking off shoes doesn't impede their raid in any way, yet it respects their religion instead of giving them more reason to resent the authorities. Trampling all over their religion is something the yanks would do; let's not follow in their misguided footsteps and become as hated as they are.

Re:Political disaster?

[zenmojodaddy]

I've seen this argument put forward before. Subjectively, I just don't believe that it's a two-pronged attack; I think the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. That's an opinion rather than a fact though. Like most of Slashdot. :) I also don't think that 24 hour drinking is going to encourage anyone to pace themselves - the sort of people who are going to get pissed and start fights will do it regardless. Then again I don't drink anyway, so maybe I'm talking out of my hat.

Re:Political disaster?

[ColdGrits]

Actually, it DOES work as was shown in Scotland where a relaxation of the drinking laws saw a reduction in drink-related disorder for precisely the reason you dismiss - no need to cram those last 4 oints down your neck and then head into the street with hundreds of others when the pub remains open for hours more.

Re:Political disaster?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Your sig

"BSD is for people who like Unix; Linux is for people who hate Windows"

A slight problem, as I see it: your choice of terminology. Your insistence on using "Linux" instead of the more proper "GNU/Linux" serves a variety of negative functions. First off, you not only perpetuate ignorance, but you also are blatantly ignoring the contributions of the volunteers of theGNU project, dating back to the mid-80's--far before the emergence of GNU/Linux. The kernel is a critical part of the operating system, but not the only part; indeed, you cannot drive to the grocery store without your engine, or with only an engine. The insistence of many in the Open Source community to refer to Linux as GNU/Linux also serves to alienate the Free SoftwareFoundation and the ideology promoted by it. Calling the system GNU/Linux recognizes the role that our idealism played in building our community, and helps the public recognize the practical importance of these ideals.

Indeed, such mistaken terminology will only serve to distance the now-misguided Open Source community from the ideological goals of the movement they ostensibly joined, but from which they have effectively and unknowingly splintered.

As was originally stated, Richard Stallman's goal was not to create a free of charge operating system with available source code--it was to create an operating system that was as free in speech as it was in price. Not only do you propagate misinformation as to the nature of the operating system, but ignoring the GNU/ prefix is simply inappropriate, given the large share of the code that was written by the volunteers of the GNU project, and promoted by the Free Software Foundation. I'm sorry if this sounded preachy, but it's an important distinction that you have to make.

Re:Political disaster?

[TobascoKid]

I also don't think that 24 hour drinking is going to encourage anyone to pace themselves

Have you tried to drink for 24 hours?

I tried years ago back at uni. Even ten years ago, if you were in Edinburgh during the festival and you new which pubs opened at what times you could do a 24 hour pub crawl - a lot of pubs got late extensions combined with market pubs that had odd hours anyway. It's not that easy.

Re:Political disaster?

[sosume]

So why do I get Score: 0 (troll) ???? Because some people may disagree? Mods must be having a bad day :/

Re:Political disaster?

[Dwonis]

No, no. The grandparent's sig is only talking about the kernel. No sane person would use anything except Debian as their user-space environment...

Re:Political disaster?

[Anonymous Coward]

This what they call an ANAL ATTITUDE ;)

Re:Political disaster?

[Drachan]

Irish, thanks, but I'm England born and England raised. ;) How did you guess? Hehehee I voted Lib Dem... Had a major row with the gf about it "Why on earth do you bother to complain about the goverment if you can't be arsed to do anything about it.. You don't protest!" "I did protest, I didn't vote for them!"

Re:Political disaster?

[puke76]

Did 24 hour supermarkets make people suddenly want to shop 24 hours a day? No.

Likewise, 24 hour bars and pubs will not encourage people to drink 24 hours a day.

Re:Political disaster?

[Anonymous Coward]

This what they call an ANAL ATTITUDE ;)

You mean a GNU/ANAL GNU/ATTITUDE, surely?

Re:Political disaster?

[KDR_11k]

ANAL's No an Attitude, Loser!

Re:Political disaster?

[KDR_11k]

Shit, make that "Not", my T key is somewhat broken.

Re:Political disaster?

[rarity]

no need to cram those last 4 oints down your neck and then head into the street with hundreds of others when the pub remains open for hours more

Although it does deny us Scots the once-amusing spectacle of hundreds of paralytic sassenachs wobbling around Edinburgh's streets at about 11pm, while everyone else is just heading out for the evening...

Re:Political disaster?

[markandrew]

don't be daft - prohibition is the answer! it's a tried and trusted theory; if you want to stop people abusing something, make it illegal and drive it underground where you can safely ignore the problem. it's worked with drugs, it's worked with prostitution, and it worked *really well* in 1930s america, why wouldn't it work now?!

Re:Political disaster?

[nickos]

Didn't they introduce 24 hour licencing in Ireland too, only to change it back to being even more restrictive after having problems?

Re:Political disaster?

[drsquare]

The current licensing laws are a disgrace and are discriminatory. The pubs have to shut at 11pm. I often finish work at 11pm. Why should I not be allowed to have a drink after work?

Oh right I forgot, these laws are written by middle-class people who work 9-5 and don't know anything about the real world because they're all lawyers are career politicians who haven't done a day's work in their lives.

Re:Political disaster?

[drsquare]

Again, seems perfectly reasonable. Taking off shoes doesn't impede their raid in any way, yet it respects their religion instead of giving them more reason to resent the authorities. Trampling all over their religion is something the yanks would do; let's not follow in their misguided footsteps and become as hated as they are.

I wonder if I started a religion with a building in which everyone had to be naked, and the police can in to arrest someone, they'd all strip off first. I doubt it, seems a cult is only respected if it's large and powerful.

Re:Political disaster?

[PigleT]

> Again, seems perfectly reasonable. Taking off shoes doesn't impede their raid in any way, yet it respects their religion instead of giving them more reason to resent the authorities. Trampling all over their religion is something the yanks would do [google.com]; let's not follow in their misguided footsteps and become as hated as they are.

Yes it does. Removing shoes prior to storming a mosque does not scale to instances when someone runs from house to bus to tube station to mosque and out the back door, with police in tow.

Now, for those who don't know the UK, there used to be an idea that folks could hole-up in a *church* to claim sanctity, or whatever the phrase was. Strikes me that, if I'm thinking of the idea aright, it could be quite useful to *extend* that to mosques - "you can stay in there as long as you like, unable to do an awful lot, but we'll be waiting for you outside". Makes the process a lot *calmer* on average. More time to think is good, both for police and criminal.

This is the trouble with the UK at present: not just that privacy is being eroded, but that the justice system we had was actually quite good. There is nothing you can solve by instantly locking someone up that you could not have got by observing with more detail earlier and lying in wait. Then when you come to arrest them, you *have* the evidence on which to make charges. Never mind holding people for 3 months without charging; never mind even detaining them for a fortnight; you're just there, ready. That's what I really object to.

Ideally I should like a constitutional block on instituting new legislation within a suitable time-interval after a major event, too.

Re:Political disaster?

[h4rm0ny]

"you can stay in there as long as you like, unable to do an awful lot, but we'll be waiting for you outside".

Except where the charge is one of inciting terrorism, criticising someone else's religion or any other of the UKs "thought crime" laws due to be passed in October. All of these, the perpetrator can do quite happily from inside a Mosque, Church or Synagogue.

I agree with all your points though, and an approach that was less burst-through-the-doors-respect-my-authority and more, look we're here, we want to take you in for questioning and it's going to happen sooner or later so come out and come with us, please, would be much more effective a lot of the time.

But it doesn't seem to be the approach the UK government is taking. They seem to be locking themself into the Prove How Tough We Are cycle which always requires escalation. Any school teacher can tell you that once you start shouting, you've had it. And the 'thought crime' laws are just a mindless panic.

Re:Political disaster?

[Anonymous Coward]

all religions start off as cults.

it's not whether their god exists or not, it's the number of bodies it has.

Re:Political disaster?

[KillShill]

the disaster is the massive enormous vote fraud in the last election.

obviously the people there are less sheep than americans and decided not to re-elect the war criminals. but the wise and benevolent war criminals decided that this is too important to leave to the tax payers (their employers) and stole a large amount of the paper ballots.

DIEbold to the rescue. in time for the next election. stealing bags of paper ballots is hard and a lot more traceable.

attention british citizens: you are complicit in the war crimes of your beloved leaders for every second they are not tarred and feathered and put in jail.

double that for the poor american citizens.

this message brought to you by the association for the promotion of justice and decency.

Re:Political disaster?

[PigleT]

> Except where the charge is one of inciting terrorism, criticising someone else's religion or any other of the UKs "thought crime" laws due to be passed in October. All of these, the perpetrator can do quite happily from inside a Mosque, Church or Synagogue.

Interesting point. I wonder how much of the refuge system relied on churches being more or less neutral such that when someone runs into one, they're unlikely to spread their "desire for crime" to the natives.

> Any school teacher can tell you that once you start shouting, you've had it. And the 'thought crime' laws are just a mindless panic.

Absolutely, well said. Good likeness (my mum's a teacher...).

From somewhere on the NYT news site:

"What appeared to be straightforward linear thinking last week doesn't appear to be so today"

This is why we should really have a minimum delay before passing new laws after such critical events.

Re:Political disaster?

[sosume]

war criminals

please note that the 'war on terror' campaign is a reaction to at least 10 years of terror attacks by islamic organizations on western targets. these attacks were inspired by an organization called the 'muslim brotherhood'. this organization was in its turn (partly) founded by the nazi party.
So i'd say we've done enough to get rid of the war criminals...

Re:Fighting for Bloggers' Rights

[murky_lurker]

Some of this info is fascinating :)

From the EFF Bloggers' FAQ on Online Defamation Law:
Not-libelous:
* Calling a political foe a "thief" and "liar" in chance encounter (because hyperbole in context)
* Calling a TV show participant a "local loser," "chicken butt" and "big skank"
* Calling someone a "bitch" or a "son of a bitch"
* Changing product code name from "Carl Sagan" to "Butt Head Astronomer"

ID Cards Refuseniks

[Baljet]

There's been a fair bit of recent noise comming from pledgebank for example the No2ID campaign: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/25/id_refuse_ resist/

Re:ID Cards Refuseniks

[dances with elks]

I hope it works because our MP's aren't looking out for our rights. My own MP http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/tom_levitt/high_p eak Tom Tevitt, always votes the party line never rebels or sponsors a bill and costs us >£100000 a year in expenses (not including salary).

Re:ID Cards Refuseniks

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes but opposition to biometric ID 'cards' and the database state is the logical and sensible thing to do. The EFF campaining for filesharers 'rights' is pathetic when the only rights holder in this case is the copyright assignee.

Big difference.

Incidentally, if you are a UK citizen be shure to renew your passport in August ;-)

Re:ID Cards Refuseniks

[Anonymous Coward]

It's coming with one m.

There are some organisations already

[bvdbos]

Of course there's the European Digital Rights-EDRI (http://www.edri.org/) which is the joint organisation for digital rights in Europe. In the UK the
* Campaign for Digital Rights-CDR (http://ukcdr.org/)
* the Foundation for Information Policy Research-FIPR (http://www.fipr.org/) and
* Greennet (http://www.gn.apc.org/)
are members. I would suggest consulting them first.

Re:There are some organisations already

[PhilHibbs]

They have the support of the UKCDR, and if they get up and running then UKCDR will turn over their assets to the new organization.

Re:There are some organisations already

[Anonymous Coward]

There are even more than that:

• Association For Free Software (AFFS)
• Free Software Foundation Europe

Re:There are some organisations already

[bvdbos]

IMHO, these are related organisations with the specific purpose of software and not digital rights (freedom of speech etc) as such.

Re:There are some organisations already

[ntk]

Ian Brown of EDRi (and ex- of FIPR) was on the panel which inspired this. CD-R has given it their support.

The idea would be to act (initially at least) as a one stop shop to redirect media inquiries to the right experts, and direct publicity to other groups. There's not much else you can do for 60K -- but there is enough spare to start seeking out extra funding for bigger co-ordinating efforts.

Re:There are some organisations already

[Anonymous Coward]

At least in the case of FSFE, this is clearly wrong; I propose to check the list of their activities: United Nations World Summit on the Information Society, IPR Enforcement Directive, reform of the World Intellectual Property Organisation.

The FSFE has its roots in Free Software, but much of its work is more towards "informational human rights" -- which makes a lot of sense: software is what shapes the information society, so it makes sense to not only demand freedom, but also implement it.

Re:There are some organisations already

[bvdbos]

Thanks, didn't know that...

Re:There are some organisations already

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, not fair, I saw them first...

Anyway, there is also statewatch, privacy international and liberty.. Also plenty of ideas (dmca, biometric rfid passports, airline passenger data selling/sharing, listening in to internet traffic with warrants and listening in to radio traffic without (UKusa)) have roots in the USA, so the EFF and ACLU should be doing their part already. Not that the brits need help thinking up stuff like this, but still.

Re:There are some organisations already

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey hey 60K, what do you get for that today?

What's the big deal with ID cards?

[master_p]

In my country every citizen has to have an Id card from the age of 15. But I see no problem with this. Even without the Id card, government agencies already know about any person.

Re:What's the big deal with ID cards?

[t_allardyce]

That's not the problem, the problem is that they want these cards to be mandatory to carry at all times and include fingerprint and possibly iris scans. They also want to make them exempt from the data protection act so that you won't even have the right to know what information they store. As if that's not enough they will also use RFID (and we will probably see that broken) and they want to charge each of us for the honour, an estimate of £100 to £300 each!

Re:What's the big deal with ID cards?

[achew22]

While it is true that the government knows A LOT, even in a free society, about a person. But when you force them to carry a traceable ID card their power grows at a geometric rate - the ID card lets them know where you are so they can send a well equiped van (or extra large camel) with a hyperbolic mic to bug your house.

Re:What's the big deal with ID cards?

[Anonymous Coward]

The real problem is twofold: first, it erodes the sensitivity to privacy as seen in your acceptance of it (you grew up having one, right?). Second, they need extremely strong restrictions so that they don't become a prerequisite for commercial and public services as that opens the door for abusive data correlation and invasion of privacy.

Re:What's the big deal with ID cards?

[Dachannien]

To be honest, I don't see a *huge* problem with mandatory ID cards. People always say "Papers, please" as if that by itself is supposed to be argument enough against mandatory ID, but it wasn't just having ID and being required to present it that made such regimes oppressive. It was the limitations on what you could do and where you could go that was the real evil.

Now, I do object to being unable to know all of the data stored on your ID card. I'm also leery of these systems using RFID. But as long as the cost of issuing the IDs is kept to an absolute minimum, I just don't get why everyone's so worked up over this, and it has so far kept me from donating to the EFF since I'd rather my money go to combat restrictions on fair use than something I don't have a problem with.

Re:What's the big deal with ID cards?

[MartinG]

I just don't get why everyone's so worked up over this

For me it is exactly the same as if the government said they were going to force each citizen to pay 100 quid towards having their house painted white in order to raise educational standards.

My point is the card costs money but nobody has yet adequately explained what problem it actually solves and how.

I don't care whether costs are kept low or not. Is it good value is the real question and that requires knowing what it is actually supposed to do.

Also, google around a bit and see how mandatory id systems have been abused in the past.

Re:What's the big deal with ID cards?

[strider44]

To be honest, I don't see a *huge* problem with mandatory ID cards.

The question is, what about people who do see a *huge* problem with mandatory ID cards? Why do you presume to speak for them?

Re:What's the big deal with ID cards?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not just an ID card it is an entire database about your life that contains all sorts of personal data that governemnt intend to sell on to marketing companies to help finance.

It can be cross referenced with friends and family, entire profiles constructed of different people and ethnic groups. It will be a government record of your entire life based on physical identification from cradle to the grave and contain way about you and your life than anything previously seen.

It is open to enormous abuse, it is hugely expensive, it is way way more than the current status quo and I think a lot of people don't fully understand that.

Check out http://www.no2id.net/ for more info

Re:What's the big deal with ID cards?

[GreatBunzinni]

flamebait?? You got to be kidding me! That is the truth and, if the mod knew something about the real world, he would know that there are a lot of countries which have mandatory ID cards for it's citizens. The parent isn't flame-baiting. He is stating a fact.

Re:What's the big deal with ID cards?

[torpor]

To be honest, I don't see a *huge* problem with mandatory ID cards.

You lose the card. You can't cash checks, withdraw money from your bank, shop at the grocery store, go out drinking with mates, buy plane tickets, get on a plane.

The point is: it is a limit being put on the actions of society. When you need an ID card in order to buy milk, your life will revolve around whether or not you have that ID card on you, or not.

It may seem strange to the modern citizen, but it is actually possible to live a safe, happy, comfortable life, without needing ID right now. If the ID act goes into place, and its mandatory: without that card, your life will be hell. Restricted. You will not be able to live 'within the so-called normal limits' of society.

Think of it as a mandatory genetic modificiation which, if not performed, precludes you from certain society. Like circumcision.

Re:What's the big deal with ID cards?

[Will Fisher]

Indeed.

Lets not forget that all the london bombers would have had no problem getting ID cards.

Re:What's the big deal with ID cards?

[Anonymous Coward]

You lose the card. You can't cash checks, withdraw money from your bank, shop at the grocery store, go out drinking with mates, buy plane tickets, get on a plane.

All of which is true if you lose your driver's license and expect to pay with credit card.

But not if you live in the UK.

I can't get a bank account because I don't have ID. Since I don't drink and don't need a bank account

Good luck getting paid if you ever work in the UK. It is normal that your pay is credited directly into your bank account over here.

Re:What's the big deal with ID cards?

[Shaper_pmp]

"...it wasn't just having ID and being required to present it that made such regimes oppressive. It was the limitations on what you could do and where you could go that was the real evil."

Right, but you can't effectively restrict what people do and where they go without a national ID system.

There's nothing wrong with a National ID card. And there's nothing wrong with police asking you to see it instead of another form of ID. And there's nothing wrong with every government or utilities-related transaction you engage in sitting on one central database, and traceable right back to you. There's nothing wrong with you not being able to find out what information is stored on that database. And there's nothing wrong with the government having unfettered access to the database, as long as you trust the government to act selflessly in your best interest.

For those of us who keep up with the news (and no, I'm not talking about Fox News or the Sun/Daily Mirror/Daily Sport), it's very, very, very painfully obvious that the government can only be trusted to do three things - act entirely in its own interest, attempt to garner the maximum amount of information and control it possibly can over the people it's meant to be serving, and abuse said power and control whenever it's convenient.

Re:What's the big deal with ID cards?

[Shaper_pmp]

And the overwhelming majority of those involved in 9/11 were in the Unites States legally. In fact (IIRC) the few (3-5 max) who weren't there legally had entered the country legally on temporary visas, and simply overstayed for a couple of weeks after their visas expired.

And yet every single time a terrorist incident occurs the government concerned trots out the "ID cards would have prevented this!" bullshit. Just once I'd like to hear them explain how.

Re:What's the big deal with ID cards?

[tiger_omega]

A major part of the problem is the cost involved in getting the goverment to setup a biometric ID cards along with a national register database. When it comes to rolling out projects that require huge IT infrastructures the public sector in the UK usually ends up becoming a complete farce. Mostly down to bad management and political infighting.

The UK goverment tells us it's going to cost £100 per citizen while the initial report from the London School of Economics tells us it's going to cost closer to £300 per citizen.

We are also told it's to help fight terrorism. But then fail to explain how and why? But off course the UK goverment have been happy enough to let the Jihadie bastards setup shop and practice recruitment and their "trade skills" in our country.

There is also no good arguements why the ID card is better than the photographic driver's license or passport. It's another form of identification on top of these existing methods and not an integration. So my personal feeling on ID card introduction is that it does not provide any real benefits while having a project that is going to cost the tax payer (of which I am one) a huge amount of money for nothing more than a political mess.

Re:What's the big deal with ID cards?

[Richard_at_work]

THe 9/11 hijackers all had valid passports and visas, but I dont see that as a reasonable arguement for not having passports and visas.

Re:What's the big deal with ID cards?

[Will Fisher]

Thats because passports a visas are not touted as measures to prevent terrorism.

Passports and visas are there for other, good, reasons.

There are no good reasons for ID cards.

Re:What's the big deal with ID cards?

[Shaper_pmp]

Yeah - the poster clearly had no clue, but the Mod was a fucking tool.

Re:What's the big deal with ID cards?

[t_allardyce]

But it is going to cost too much, it is going to use RFID, it is going to use biometrics and it is going to be data-protection-act exempt.

If the police stopped me and wanted to see some ID I would be more than happy to show them my drivers license, student card or anything else with my name on it. However I would also not expect to be arrested if I didn't happen to have my wallet on me. If they suspect me of something then they can take it further, if not then let me go on my way.

If my description matches someone they are looking for then fine. If they think im an illegal immigrant or a known terrorist then at the nearest police car or station they can check my fingerprints on the immigration, expired visa or terrorism database. Oh wait... Tony, you do have a fingerprinted immigration, expired visa and terrorist database don't you? don't you?!?

Re:What's the big deal with ID cards?

[robbieduncan]

To be fair Charles Clarke (UK Home Secretary) said the exact opposite after the London attacks: BBC Story.

Whilst the man may be attempting to force ID cards into law he was at least honest this time.

Re:What's the big deal with ID cards?

[TobascoKid]

There is also no good arguements why the ID card is better than the photographic driver's license or passport.

One thing I find interesting is that no one has mentioned that the excuse given in the early 90's as to why the UK didn't join the Schengen area (the part of the EU with no internal borders) was that we didn't have ID cards like the rest of Europe - so we needed the border controls because police couldn't go up to somebody and ask them for ID to prove that they should be here. But nobody on the pro ID card side has mentioned that one of the "benefits" of ID cards would be that there's no longer any need for border control with the rest of the EU.

Re:What's the big deal with ID cards?

[Anonymous Coward]

Jeez! Some people need to stop and think about knee-jerk political responses...

The authorities (and credit agencies etc.etc.etc.) will assume that the ID card biometric data is correct and that you, the holder must conform to the card. How do you verify the biometric data matches you, the card holder? Only by having expensive, robust and accurate fingerprint and iris scanners in every institution (eg: bank) or building (eg: town hall) accessing a central database.

Is that going to happen? No. So anyone who gains, steals or clones your card will be able to run amok and you, the real, valid card holder, will have to jump through flaming hoops to get your identity back.

Which will actually never completely happen once a number of databases have been updated with your now, bad debt and possibly criminal background. These mistakes are almost impossible to eradicate. Google for people who have suffered even simple identity theft.

Who are you anyway 617929? Are you just masquerading as a number?

Re:What's the big deal with ID cards?

[TrappedByMyself]

So the obvious question is asked and modded as Flamebait.
Lovely.

No wonder the people on Slashdot fear the hive mind, conform or be outcast, "don't ask that question citizen" mentality, because it happens here everyday.

Re:What's the big deal with ID cards?

[Badfysh]

Yes, they had no problem getting Housing benefit.

Re:What's the big deal with ID cards?

[nairobiny]

My point is the card costs money but nobody has yet adequately explained what problem it actually solves and how

Obvious really. The proposed ID card scheme is necessary to stop those currently committing the crime of not possessing an ID card.

Re:What's the big deal with ID cards?

[torpor]

All of which is true if you lose your driver's license and expect to pay with credit card.


right, so why add yet another item that has to be involved in the whole thing, instead of just using the existing items to provide the identity needed?

Cash is your friend.


you live in a cash-only society? lucky you. you must be either super-rich, or not bothered with the idea of carrying around tens of thousands of dollars with you to pay for luxury items.

oh, sorry, wait. only the poor classes will have Real ID problems. the super-rich, with all their cash reserves, won't have a problem not using it ...

I have no ID because I've never learned to drive. I can't buy beer or get into clubs because I don't have ID. I can't get a bank account because I don't have ID. Since I don't drink and don't need a bank account, none of this is a problem, but I'm far from normal.

you don't really participate in society much, i think ..

You're a fucking moron.
.. and now i see why.

Re:What's the big deal with ID cards?

[Richard_at_work]

Really? I thought visas was supposed to stop unwanteds from gaining permission to enter the country. You mean terrorists arent unwanted?

Re:What's the big deal with ID cards?

[Shaper_pmp]

Passports and visas are basically a way to track who comes into and who leaves your country. This is understandable and essential, because without it you couldn't have any kind of meaningful border controls (immigration controls, customs & excise, etc, etc), and no way to track even the rough population of your country (taxes, budget, statistics, public spending, etc, etc, etc).

It is important to note that if you don't wish to leave the country, you don't need a passport (indeed, I know of a few 50 year-olds - "local" types - who've never owned a passport).

In fact, I believe legally you don't need a passport to leave the country, it's just that not many other countries will allow you in without one, and airlines won't serve you without that kind of reliable ID.

Incidentally, a girlfriend of mine once flew from the UK to Greece only on her student NUS card, and got back into the UK with only her Greek ID card (different to a passport, and before internal EU border controls were relaxed).

Short answer, passports allow you to keep functioning effectively as a country, by tracking those who enter and leave. ID cards track you within your own country, and have no further purpose than that. You can't see the problem?

Re:What's the big deal with ID cards?

[Shaper_pmp]

Touché - interesting point.

Doesn't that suggest, then, that it would be more proper to simply fix the broken visa system than to institute draconian and privacy-invading observation laws on every person already in your country?

And of course I'm ignoring for a second the whole argument about whether it's right to give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety...

Re:What's the big deal with ID cards?

[NickFortune]

Really? I thought visas was supposed to stop unwanteds from gaining permission to enter the country. You mean terrorists arent unwanted? If you mean that passports and visas serve a valid purpose, I think you'll find that the GP already said that.

Alternatively, if you mean that ID cards will perform some useful anti-terrorist function, perhaps you might explain what that function is and how it will operate. I know a lot of us have been waiting for the government to address that very point.

Re:What's the big deal with ID cards?

[Goth Biker Babe]

Originally passports were there to proev you were a member of the nation you say you were to the local authorities. The old blue British passports had something in the front which basically boils down to ...

"The person carrying this passport is a subject of Her Magesty and if you mess with them you'll have Britain to deal with." ...together with a disclaimer saying that if you're also a member of the local nation then tough.

Re:What's the big deal with ID cards?

[Badfysh]

But it's yet another step down the road to totalitarianism, a small thing here, another small un-noticed thing there and before you know it you live in a police state. Yes, people say that if you haven't done anything wrong then there's nothing to worry about, but who knows how giving up our liberty and privacy now will impact the future? What if 10 or 20 years from now they move the goal posts (which they undoubtedly will) and suddenly you're dragged off screaming in the night because you once looked at a dodgy website, and sent to jail with no trial? What if they read this post in 10 years time and mark me down as a troublemaker? Sounds crazy? It's happened before. We need to nip this in the bud. We need to learn the lessons from the past and stop this now, while we still can. Sorry for the dramatics but it's important.

Re:What's the big deal with ID cards?

[Richard_at_work]

Im personally not looking at the ID cards from a terrorism prevention point of view, but I am looking at them from the point of view that it would be nice to have a government backed proof of identity. I dont drive, my bank cards only have my name on, I wont carry my passport around all the time, therefor I dont have a photo ID on me, and it would be useful in some circumstances for me to have one. Yes there are identity theft issues, but there are also the same issues with passports etc.

Theres no such thing as a sure thing.

Re:What's the big deal with ID cards?

[Shaper_pmp]

Yeah, I suppose. But I strongly suspect had he (or the government) attempted to make political capital out of events the way Bush did with 9/11, he'd have been hung drawn and quartered by an outraged mob.

You'll notice also that the question was introduced by the interviewer (not the interviewee), and that Tony Blair (who's been leading the pro-ID card charge from the front) has been merely quiet on the subject, rather than admitting it would have done bugger-all to help.

Most telling bit of the interview:

"I've never argued ... that ID cards would prevent any particular act.

The question on ID cards, but also on any other security measure actually, is on the balance of the ability to deal with particular threats and civil liberties, does a particular measure help or hinder it?

I actually think ID cards do help rather than hinder.

If you ask me whether ID cards or any other measure would have stopped yesterday, I can't identify any measure which would have just stopped it like that."

So, still pro-ID card, still happy to give up essential liberty to obtain (possible) temporary safety, but not actually advancing outrageous exaggerations on the subject (as the government has up to now)....

That said, it is a concession, and one I hope the anti-ID card lobby jump all over...

Re:What's the big deal with ID cards?

[Shaper_pmp]

This kind of dovetails with my point - they're a way to sort out who's a subject of a country and who's a foreign visitor (who might carry legal complications). They aren't to track subjects within their own country, and they certainly aren't mandatory.

Re:What's the big deal with ID cards?

[Pentagram]

But it still says that -

"Her Brittanic Majesty's Seceretary of State Requests and requires in the Name of Her Majesty all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance, and to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary."

- did it used to say something different?

Re:What's the big deal with ID cards?

[mdwh2]

Sure, there's an argument for a Government-backed cheap ID card, optional for those people who don't have other forms of ID.

But that's nothing to do with the proposed ID card in the UK.

I mean, why don't you just get a passport if you want ID? The ID card will be about the same price, and more hassle to obtain (what with all the biometric checks). Why would you be happy to carry an ID card all the time, but not a passport?

And with it being compulsory, everyone who already has ID has to pay out again.

Re:What's the big deal with ID cards?

[Shaper_pmp]

If you want a government-backed ID card then sign up for a Citizen Card (yeah, the website sucks). These are photo ID, require references to apply for one, and are supported by the Home Office.

Importantly, they're also optional, administrated by a non-profit, non-governmental organisation, and have to conform to strict Data Protection laws, none of which apply to the ID card if the government decides otherwise.

With options like these available it seems like simple ignorance or laziness to support the ID card scheme. You have your option. You have your benefits.

Leave our rights and privacy alone.

Apologies if this post seems somewhat terse, but you've just advanced the most intellectually lazy and unashamedly self-serving reason I've ever heard for supporting a national ID card scheme.

Re:What's the big deal with ID cards?

[Shaper_pmp]

I've re-read your post, and two more points occurred:

You won't carry your passport (which, these days, fits in a wallet) around all the time, but you'll happily carry a card around? Why?

True, there are identity theft issues with passports, which is why I don't carry mine with me all the time. And that's exactly why I object to being forced to carry around yet another weak point in my personal and financial security, let alone one I'm charged £300 for up-front, and doubtless a mandatory replacement charge if I lose it.

Before ID cards you have a single major point of weakness, and a free choice as to whether you carry it around or not.

After ID cards you now have two major points of weakness, and no choice whether you have to carry it around or not.

Hmmm, progress...

Re:What's the big deal with ID cards?

[mdwh2]

To be honest, I don't see a *huge* problem with mandatory ID cards.

The problem is that people keep confusing the general concept of "ID card", with what the UK Government is proposing. I doubt there are many people have problem with the concept of ID at all. I have no problem with "mandatory ID card" if it's something that the Government sends me in the post for free when I'm 16, and I put it in my desk and forget about it (eg, as happens with National Insurance cards).

I do have a problem with mandatory having-to-pay-a-load-of-money for no good reason. I do have a problem with needing to carry a particular card to use all sorts of public services.

Now, I do object to being unable to know all of the data stored on your ID card. I'm also leery of these systems using RFID. But as long as the cost of issuing the IDs is kept to an absolute minimum, I just don't get why everyone's so worked up over this

But the cost won't be kept to an absolute minimum. So that's three big reasons why you object to it (data, RFID, cost), so surely you see why people are being worked up about it?

Re:What's the big deal with ID cards?

[hardcode57]

I kind of agree. I think the cost is unacceptable (it amounts to a kind of poll tax), but I don't mind in principle being obliged to carry proof of identity.

What does concern me is when I can be asked for it by authorities, particularly the police. I don't want to end up in the position of walking down the street minding my own business and being required to identify myself by some cop because (s)he feels like it.

The occasions where identification may be required must be stricltly and explicitly limited by law, and it must be a criminal offense to demand identification outside those guidelines.

Re:What's the big deal with ID cards?

[montyzooooma]

Right now as a British citizen I seem to get by quite handily without an id card. Recently however I had to sign some papers in work and amongst other things prove the address I gave as my main residence was indeed my home. So to do this I had to bring along a utility bill (gas, electric, that sort of thing). It just seemed a bit silly. If the information can be worked into my driving license (since I always have it on me it would make more sense) or passport and was secure I wouldn't have a big problem with it. However asking me to hand over a hundred quid for something I'm not clamoring for seems pretty EFFed up.

Re:What's the big deal with ID cards?

[andyt]

I agree. Bad modding decision.

I think it reflects the frustration of those of us who do not support ID cards. It seems that every single time we get into a discussion about setting up pledges, organising protests, trying to get the story out about them etc. etc., we end up covering the same old ground as to why we are against them.

Especially if the "obvious question" is framed in the context of "Why don't you want an ID card, what have you got to hide?"

(NB: I realise that this isn't the case in relation to the OP this time, but it's a conversation that I'm sure those of us on the "nay" side have had on many occasions.)

So yeah. Bad modding call. As Stan Lee says, "every issue is somebody's first." Just because we've had to go through the arguments many, many times, it doesn't mean that everybody has.

Maybe we should FP each UKID slashdot story with a link to No2ID.net just to get people up to speed on the arguments.

Re:What's the big deal with ID cards?

[Goth Biker Babe]

No. I just don't have my purple passport to hand and only remember seeing it on the nice old blue ones.

Re:What's the big deal with ID cards?

[NickFortune]

I am looking at them from the point of view that it would be nice to have a government backed proof of identity.

And this is going to give what, precisely, that your passport does not? No one insists on a passport before they accept a cheque.

What does this governemt backed ID get you?

What purpose can it serve that your passport cannot?

I still haven't heard anything worth shelling out 100 quid for.

And yes, there are identity theft issues. And privacy ones. And issues of civil liberties. And they're still using it to hit us with yet another bloody tax. And they won't give straight answers to questions about the pestilent thing...

Re:What's the big deal with ID cards?

[Breakfast Pants]

Fingerprints?!?!? What nerve do they have! They want you to have to carry around a card all day that has your fingerprints stamped on it? That's absolutely preposterous! Next thing you know they will want you to bring your hands and fingers along when you leave the house!! Don't you think the fingerprint concern is a bit alarmist as you are already carrying around your fingerprints?

Re:What's the big deal with ID cards?

[mrogers]

Part of the problem is that automation has made tracking and profiling easier than ever before. If everybody carried an ID card with an RFID chip it would be trivially easy to track people's movements, find out who they associate with, and round them up at short notice. You might not object to the current government having that kind of power, but countries can turn from democracies to dictatorships in a matter of decades. Measures like ID cards, which centralise knowledge and power, arguably accelerate the trend towards dictatorship because few people can resist the temptation to increase their power over others.

In my opinion we haven't been given a single good argument for ID cards. The often-quoted cost of ID fraud is mostly credit card fraud, which ID cards wouldn't fix; benefit fraud costs the country far less than well-known tax loopholes. Terrorism of the kind we've seen recently can't be prevented without draconian restrictions on freedom of movement, and nobody has explained how ID cards would reduce other kinds of crime.

People talk about the convenience of a government-approved photo ID, but passports already provide that function. In practice people don't carry them - they're rarely needed and it's inconvenient (and expensive) if they're lost or stolen. The same would be true of voluntary ID cards, and the inconvenience would be much greater for mandatory ID cards.

Even if you think I'm being paranoid about the potential dangers, why introduce ID cards when the benefits haven't been demonstrated and the costs are likely to be high?

Re:What's the big deal with ID cards?

[t_allardyce]

My fingerprints never appeared on a database before like a common criminal. No-one currently has a use for my fingerprints because they are not used as a form of ID. Therefore its unlikely that anyone would want to steal my fingerprints until they suddenly become worth something - i.e access to the UK, bank machine, car door, government buildings etc.

Re:What's the big deal with ID cards?

[mrogers]

The fingerprints will also be stored in a central database. (Personally I have no problem with the biometric aspect of the proposals - if everyone has to have an ID card then it should be linked as strongly as possible to the owner's physical identity; photos and fingerprints are preferable to DNA and iris scans because they can be verified by the bearer as well as the authorities.)

Re:What's the big deal with ID cards?

[flossie]

At a time when the Daily Mail, and hence many politicians, are getting worked up about illegal immigration and port security, suggesting a reduction in border controls is not likely to go down well.

Re:Fighting for Bloggers' Rights

[achew22]

I think thats it an important right of mine to be able to call someone a "chicken butt" in my blog! I'll have you know I'm a strong supporter of the EFF, but even the best organizations take it a little too far sometimes.

British Mares.

[Anonymous Coward]

Either way, British mares are quite sexy.

Re:British Mares.

[Anonymous Coward]

And don't you know it!

Good luck!

[Arioch of Chaos]

You need it... World leader in camera surveillance, recent terrorist attacks... hm...

Re:Good luck!

[Andy_R]

There are many good reasons to criticise the UK Govt, but putting those two together makes a pretty weak argument when you consider we have quite good cctv pictures of the terrorists so we can catch them. They would, incidentally, all have qualified for a legal UK id card.

Re:Good luck!

[typical]

Yeah, if only we had taken pictures of the terrorists in the *US* before they blew themselves up so that we could...uh...make proper headstones?

Re:Good luck!

[BenjyD]

No, the important pictures are of the second group of bombers - the ones who forgot to keep their explosives in the fridge and therefore didn't meet quite the 'glorious' end they were hoping for.

Re:Good luck!

[Anonymous Coward]

Smartarse... Many of the UK bombers are still on the run, so the CCTV camera images will help catch them.

Re:Good luck!

[che.kai-jei]

despite there being no national id card they were identified pretty easily anyway so were the other bombers AFTRE THE FACT!!!

id cards are useless.

dont belive the doublespeak

unless you have vested interests in repeating it.

When the UK web site goes down...

[Spacejock]

We can all yell 'EFF off!'

Re:When the UK web site goes down...

[Anonymous Coward]

They can't call it the EFF - that name's already taken. And indeed, why restrict their version of the foundation to the protection of electronic free speech? They could combine with the press and representatives of the UK media, and just call themselves the British Freedom Foundation... the BFF.

Then as they charge into the battle against censorship, suppression of human rights and personal freedoms, they may let forth the mighty roar of their war-cry: "Baom Fom Froosh!"

Re:When the UK web site goes down...

[Spacejock]

Combining the two, when their web page goes down you can then shout... BFF is off the menu!

A few questions

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you have to pay around £90 for it?

Do you have to show it to police officers on demand for any reason whatsoever (or none)? If so, does this tend to happen a lot more to ethnic minorities?

Did you government claim it was needed to fight terrorists?

"Even without the Id card, government agencies already know about any person"

Ok, so why do they need to spend billions on an ID card scheme then? They dont need one!

Re:A few questions

[Anonymous Coward]

In Belgium:

We pay around 11 Euros (varies from place to place) for an electronic ID card. A valid ID card must be carried at all times. We have to show it, on demand, for any reason, to a police officer. If you can't identify yourself, the police will take you to the police station until such time that your identity can be verified.

Re:A few questions

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you have to pay around £90 for it?

More like £300

Re:A few questions

[TobascoKid]

We pay around 11 Euros (varies from place to place) for an electronic ID card. A valid ID card must be carried at all times. We have to show it, on demand, for any reason, to a police officer. If you can't identify yourself, the police will take you to the police station until such time that your identity can be verified.

Which are powers that I just don't want our police to have. Exactly what crimes are those powers supposed to stop? And what stops the police from harassing innocent people? I feel such power is far to liable to abuse with no appreciable gain in security.

Re:A few questions

[Shaper_pmp]

So, basically, you're a criminal in your own country by the simple expedient of forgetting your wallet when you leave the house in the morning?

And it's a crime punishable by several hours detention (minumum?).

And the police don't have to have a reason to stop you and demand your ID?

And what happens if/when you lose your card?

Hate to tell you mate, but that sounds frighteningly like a totalitarian police state to me.

As an aside, isn't the biggest step towards a police state the attempt to criminalise the average citizen, so there's always something you can pull them in for if you want an excuse? (I'm sure I remember reading that somewhere - might even have been 1984.) The idea is that then the average citizen always has to be slightly afraid of the police, because they always have something they can be threatened with.

In a free society the police shouldn't be able to inconvenience anyone without just cause.

Re:A few questions

[Shaper_pmp]

Oops - forgot... also:

"But they won't use these powers for intimidation" is not an excuse. Historically powers like that are extremely unlikely to ever be repealed[1].

Do you feel able to make that promise for every government your country has for the rest of time?

No, then you'd be stupid to completely unnecessarily hand them the powers now, wouldn't you?

Here's a quick hint: If the government is (1) seeking greater powers over their citizenry, and (2) citing terrorism, drugs, organised crime or whatever the trendy anxiety du jour is as the reason, and (3) failing to give a single sensible example of how these new powers would actually help prevent the problem, they're either megalomaniacs after power for power's sake or they're knee-jerk-reacting paranoid idiots - either way they should be opposed[2].

Governments serve people, not the other way around. The government is supposed to represent the majority will, not impose their will on the majority.

Footnotes:

[1] Well, without revolution or large-scale civil unrest. And historically what happens when there's a lot of civil unrest? Right - governments clamp down and do start abusing those powers.

[2] Since even paranoid idiots will then get those laws on the books... to be abused by the very next megalomaniac administration that gets in.

Re:A few questions

[Anonymous Coward]

Not according to official government figures.

Yes. That was a joke.

So are most official government figures.

Why not FFII?

[RAMMS EIN]

Why don't they just join forces with the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure? That seems to me the closest European equivalent to the EFF. Even if the goals are not exactly the same, an organization at european level would have a stronger voice than an organization based in a single state, I should think.

Re:Why not FFII?

[Jussi K. Kojootti]

Well, of course it would. Likewise, when local grass-roots action is needed an organization like FFII is not the most efficient (pardon the pun).

To say that smaller-than-EU-wide orgs are not needed is just plain wrong -- organizations like this are needed on all levels where the powers-that-be work in (from municipal to global).

Re:Why not FFII?

[GozzoMan]

As far as I know, there do is a local UK group which is part of the bigger-picture FFII: http://www.ffii.org.uk/

Re:Why not FFII?

[baadger]

Why don't they just join forces with the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure? That seems to me the closest European equivalent to the EFF. Even if the goals are not exactly the same, an organization at european level would have a stronger voice than an organization based in a single state, I should think.

You scare me very much.

Re:Why not FFII?

[Anonymous Coward]

State? We don't have states. We have individual countries. The US is not the model for the rest od the world.

It's a disaster because there is no opposition

[NigelJohnstone]

It's a disaster because nobody wants to elect the Conservatives after the idiot John Major. So all the Conservatives do now is try to copy Labour but out-do them.

Labour wants a million cameras watching everyone all the time, and Conservatives want, no, DEMAND, 2 million cameras. Labour wants detention without trial, Conservatives want execution without trial.
(OK, so I'm exaggerating, but you get the idea).

The voter has no choice, there is Labour and Labour-to-the-Max (Conservatives). All because Tony Blair is such a convincing orator that they don't want to disagree with him.

Re:It's a disaster because there is no opposition

[PeteDotNu]

Are you sure that it's not the other way round? I thought that New Labour were actually more of a Conservative-Lite.

Re:It's a disaster because there is no opposition

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure it's the idiot John Major, more the spectre of Thatcher looming large. Not helped by people like Michael Howard and David Davies. If Davies is elected leader this October, I can see the Tories not getting in for another 10 years simply due to alienation of everyone who's not as right wing as he is. Hopefully with the euro-constitution on ice they'll come to there senses and elect someone a bit more voter friendly and we can get back to having an opposition in the Commons rather than the Lords.

It seems like we're stuck in the rut like we were in 80's - better the devil you know and all that. The only difference being that in the 80's the Tories were elected by more than 21% of the electorate.

Re:It's a disaster because there is no opposition

[MichaelSmith]

Conservatives want execution without trial.

Sounds like they got it.

Re:It's a disaster because there is no opposition

[Anonymous Coward]

John Major is the reason that the conservatives are still so far behind?? Pull the other one. There are many, many reasons why Conservatives didn't and won't get voted in to power. It's mostly because they are the greedy representitives of industry and most people don't care less what these slef-righteous self-important scum bags think.

Liberals will overtake Conservatives in the next 15 years and we'll end up with a people oriented humanitarian system of politics that is fundamentally different from the greed based direction of the recent past.

Re:It's a disaster because there is no opposition

[Tony Hoyle]

It used to be like that...

Labour copied the conservatives to get into power ('New' Labour).

This freaked the conservatives out so much they basically collapsed in a mess (they changed their internal rules after a lot of fighting, elected a succession of lame duck leaders who nobody can remember the names of, and they've just changed the rules again... who knows if they'll get out of the pit their in.. politics suffers when there's no opposition)

only in the last couple of years are they starting to be a credible oppositition, basically by taking a leap to the right to differentiate themselves, and copying everything Labour do.

The problem is Labour just keep pulling the same trick.. if the Conservatives ever have a good idea it'll be government policy within a couple of weeks.

The only people with any guts now are the Lib Dems and they're able to be like that as they're unlikely to get elected in my lifetime anyway.

Re:It's a disaster because there is no opposition

[TobascoKid]

Liberals will overtake Conservatives in the next 15 years and we'll end up with a people oriented humanitarian system of politics that is fundamentally different from the greed based direction of the recent past.

The only way the LibDems could overtake Labour is if Old Labour split from New Labour and join with the Lib Dems. As long as people with left wing politics vote for a right wing party simply because they like the brand name, then we're going to have "conservative" government. At that assumes that the rump Labour party doesn't just swallow the Conservatives - if they did that they'd still be larger than the "New Liberals". While people in this country (ie, the UK) hate to admit it (as it's extremely unfashionable) this country is a very right wing place and has been for years. Socalism (ie, a people oriented humanitarian system of politics that is fundamentally different from the greed based direction of the recent past) just doesn't appeal to people, other than as a fashion statement.

Re:It's a disaster because there is no opposition

[NigelJohnstone]

"There are many, many reasons why Conservatives didn't and won't get voted in to power. It's mostly because they are the greedy representitives of industry and most people don't care less what these slef-righteous self-important scum bags think."

They were like that under Mrs Thatcher, yet it didn't stop them getting elected.

So I stand by my comment, I think it was the staggering incompetence of John Major that made them unelectable. if you recall how huge the vote was in favour of the then unknown Blair over the then, very well known, Major.

Re:It's a disaster because there is no opposition

[OohAhh]

Really? Let's have a look at the Thatcher elections.

1979 - Well what else was going to happen after the "Winter of Discontent", etc? Anybody could have won that as Tory leader.

1983 - Falklands Factor. Thatcher was perceived as the strong leader defending British citizens and their freedom.

1987 - Well, where was Labour? Tearing itself apart over Militant, the party in a party. There wasn't enough opposition to mount a challenge.

Then by the time Major lead the Tories into the 1992 election Thatcher had become a liability. Mostly things like the poll tax, but also her increasing disconnection from reality.

1992 - Major's main, or only, virtue was not being Thatcher. Labour seem to have helped him win too.

Interestingly Major got a higher proportion of the vote than Thatcher, but a hugely reduced majority. That made him the hostage of the anti-Europeans. The split that revealed coupled with more and more sleaze stories made the Tories unelectable in 1997.

Re:It's a disaster because there is no opposition

[TractorBarry]

Then why not vote for another party ? Say the Liberal Democrats ? Failing that then why not start your own party ?

Personally I don't vote at all (for a variety of reasons) but I simply can't understand why the sheeple of Britain can't get it through their thick skulls that there are more choices than the Tory Party (New Labour) & Tory Lite Party (Conservatives)

Re:It's a disaster because there is no opposition

[Anonymous Coward]

The only people with any guts now are the Lib Dems and they're able to be like that as they're unlikely to get elected in my lifetime anyway.
But don't use that as justification for not voting for them, or voting for someone else, or not voting at all.

Re:It's a disaster because there is no opposition

[NickFortune]

It was more those smug self righteous hypocrites in the cabinet that really got my blood boiling.

Meh. I'm going to take a major national resource and sell it off, so it can be bought up by foreign corporations and asset stripped. I'm going to do this despite massive grassroots opposition to the scheme, and in return I'm going to get a seat on the board of the winning company and a fat sinecure after this government finally collapses. And there's nothing you can do about it.... peasant.

So in some respect, I find the tories election failure quite reassuring. People finally seem to be learning that just because labour are a pile of excrement, that doesn't mean that the Tories have stopped being shits.

all the Conservatives do now is try to copy Labour but out-do them.

I think they're a single political; party that split into two teams. They can take turns in power. Once you're in, the game is too see how much you can piss on the electorate before they rebel and let the other team continue your policies using new rhetoric.

Or to put it another way, Big Money has a hand each up the arses of Blair and Howard both. They face the camera and say "Gottle of Geer" and "That's the way to do it!" and whack each other over the head with the sausages while we try to decide which glove puppet best represents our interests.

And they have the nerve to describe this as "Democracy".

Re:It's a disaster because there is no opposition

[NigelJohnstone]

Again I disagree,

My recollection was that Major was chosen as a new Mrs Thatcher, Mrs Thatchers position had become weak and she was seen as hostage to the cabinet rather than leader of them. He was touted as a new Thatcher, not weakened by political scars.

Major hadn't been in power long before his reelection attempt, Labour blew it by saying they would negotiate away the nukes, and if they couldn't get an agreement, they would give them away anyway (any child can see the fault with that). So Major was reelected, or rather they voted not to give away the nukes unilaterally.

Then we had a term of total incompetence, as he would swing with every random thought that came into his head. When his party would be critical of him, he would attack them or threaten to resign to cause a crisis.

At the next election, it was vote that Conservative idiot out. Now I see a distrust of Conservatives in myself, simply because of the memory of that idiot Major.

Re:It's a disaster because there is no opposition

[NickFortune]

Then why not vote for another party ? Say the Liberal Democrats ?

I did. Why didn't you?

No, really. Why didn't you?

Re:It's a disaster because there is no opposition

[Mant]

Remember by the time Major came into power they had had to dump Maggie because she had become so unpopular after stuff like the Poll Tax.

Not that Major was any good, but he inherited a lot of that dislike. To be honest I don't think the Tory party have ever lost it.

Re:It's a disaster because there is no opposition

[jacksonj04]

Are you sure you've got the term "Tory" associated with the right parties?

Anyway, if you don't vote then don't whine. I don't give a shit why you don't vote, but if you can't make the effort to spend a few minutes every 4 years to vote then you are in no position to complain.

Re:It's a disaster because there is no opposition

[Petersson]

Sounds like they got it.

That is exactly the famous 'First shoot, then ask questions' policy.

Police should never have such rights, or we're in a crap. What we need is sort of electronic nose, that can sniff traces of any explosive, but detection dogs are better at this now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detection_dog

Re:It's a disaster because there is no opposition

[MichaelSmith]

That is exactly the famous 'First shoot, then ask questions' policy.

In this case there appears to have been an extension of assumptions.

To clarify

1. Cops are watching this building
2. Man walks out of building
3. Man walks into tube station
4. Cops panic because they are looking for a bomber

But along the way they forgot a few facts:

1. Man was almost certainly not a bomber (even without benefit of hindsight)
2. Practically everybody in London uses the tube (but perhaps not undercover police?)

In their haste the Police forgot that the behavior they saw was perfectly normal. They assumed the worst, and may have been influenced by the fact that the person they were watching had dark skin and felt the cold.

The only thing I can suggest is better training and management. Somebody removed from the situation should be in the loop and able to supply a reality check.

What we need is sort of electronic nose

Hmmm, maybe. But I reckon I could seal the explosives in a vacuum bag and defeat a sniffer.

Re:It's a disaster because there is no opposition

[OohAhh]

Maybe that is how he was seen by the Tory MPs, I don't know. I doubt very much it's how the majority of the electorate saw him. Even so you could still say his appeal was in not actually being Thatcher.

Do you really think the policy of unilateral nuclear disarmament lost the election for Labour in 1992? I suspect it had more to do with the threats, mainly put out by The Sun and it's ilk, about huge tax hikes. Of course the Tories blew that by hiking taxes anyway. Not that it was anything, but unavoidable as government finances were bad at the time. Of course it did serve to destroy once and for all the myth that the Tories are better managers of the economy. Much more important to the average voter than nuclear weapons that we could never practically use or need.

"... he would swing with every random thought that came into his head"? Thatcher never had to contend with a sub 100 majority. Major had 22 at the general election and less by 1997. Or in other words only 12 MPs out of the 336 might be needed to defeat him. It's no surprise that he was the victim of that minority to whom anti-europeanism was more important than anything else.

BTW having looked back at the results I find that Major did get a lower proportion of the vote, but a more of the electorate as a whole than Thatcher. This was because of the high turn out in 1992. http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/uktable.htm

"At the next election, it was vote that Conservative idiot out". I'm not saying this wasn't the case. However taxes, sleaze, and the state of the public services also had a big impact. Also add in the fact that the Tories couldn't get off their split over Europe.

Major was not the only or even main reason for the Labour victory in 1997.

Re:It's a disaster because there is no opposition

[FluffyPanda]

The problem is Labour just keep pulling the same trick.. if the Conservatives ever have a good idea it'll be government policy within a couple of weeks. Isn't that the way it should work? Why fight a good idea just because the other guy came up with it? I just wish there was more "Actually, that's a really good idea, lets all agree to carry that out" in politics.

Re:It's a disaster because there is no opposition

[FluffyPanda]

The problem is Labour just keep pulling the same trick.. if the Conservatives ever have a good idea it'll be government policy within a couple of weeks.

Isn't that the way it should work? Why fight a good idea just because the other guy came up with it?

I just wish there was more "Actually, that's a really good idea, lets all agree to carry that out" in politics.

(Now with added line breaks)

Re:It's a disaster because there is no opposition

[aslate]

To be fair:

• He ran into the tube station.
• He ran away from armed police.
• He was wearing clothing unusual for the day (Heavy coat on a warm day?) that could conceal bombs
• He did this the day after bombers tried (again) to attack the tube

It may not have been right for him to be shot and killed, but you can see the reasoning as to why.

Re:It's a disaster because there is no opposition

[mickwd]

"The only people with any guts now are the Lib Dems and they're able to be like that as they're unlikely to get elected in my lifetime anyway."

The biggest thing preventing them from being elected is the fact that millions of people around the country think it's not worth voting for them because they'll never get elected.

If those people got off their a**es and just voted for them anyway, they'd be much, much closer to being elected. So close in fact that people might just start voting for them.....

If only people here were less like sheep sometimes.

Re:It's a disaster because there is no opposition

[mdwh2]

To be fair, all we know right now is that he ran away from people in plain clothes who were following him.

I really hope their evidence was more than "Well he was wearing unusual clothes and went on the tube". Not to mention that the police didn't challenge him when he went on the bus, also a prime terrorist target.

Where's the -1, Uninformed mod?

[One Childish N00b]

The parent is not a troll, from the outside, the comment tacked on the end about political disaster was completely unwarranted and does indeed look like a knee-jerk reaction to everyone's favourite warmongers getting new terms in office, so I can quite understand the parent's annoyance at Slashdot (a site supposed to report the news and not bias it with it's personal opinions) taking a swipe at the UK government.

An uninformed person does not a troll make.

The problem with the British political system is that, while stable, every party looks pretty much like every other party, only with slightly different reasons to hate them - in other words, people do not vote for the best, they vote for the least worst. Allow me to indulge in a non-partizan rant about the major political forces in the UK, this should give anyone else confused like the parent a little help...

Labour Led by Tony Blair, these are they guys in power right now - Labour, traditionally, is a socialist, left-leaning party, but under the leadership of Blair it has swung very much swung hard towards the right, and have done all the awful things you've heard about on /. before, like flooding the country with CCTV, planning ID cards, etc, while the police are wholly incapable of dealing with what are essentially groups of kids. Blair, if not the party as a whole, is now very unpopular with many people, largely due to the Iraq war and the ID cards debacle - most people would like to see Blair step down and Gordon Brown take the reins, with many members of the party itself voting against him on important issues. The party, however, remains in charge because last time the other major force in UK politics was in power, they made things even worse.

The Conservatives In the last election, led by Michael Howard, but with him stepping down it looks like Kenneth Clarke may be replacing him sooner rather than later. In my opinion it's a bad idea for them to be considering placing another unpopular figure from the last Conservative government in charge, which proved a major negative point for them during the last election. More right-wing in terms of immigration (a sensitive issue in the run-up to the election and an even more sensitive one in light of the London bombings) and promising to pull troops out of Iraq, the major factor against them is the fact that when they were in power (when Margaret Thatcher and later John Major were leaders) they very nearly crippled the country with severe mismanagement. Arguably the largest factor in their election failure, in light of the unpopularity of Blair's government, was the spectre of those old governments in the form of Michael Howard, who was Home Secretary under the former Conservative rule.

Liberal Democrats Led by Charles Kennedy, and could be summed up as 'lacking voice'. Their PR assault during the last election boiled down to, while the other two parties slogged it out over immigration, ID cards and the War in Iraq, the Lib Dem PR machine putting out a statement that Kennedy's wife had had a baby. Even in the UK of reality TV stars being involved in supposedly serious political debate and tabloid newspapers declaring they could decide the election simply by siding with one side or the other on election day, this didn't get them the votes they needed, falling far short of their target of overtaking the Conservatives as the 2nd-largest party in Britain. Very left-wing in their views, they are disliked by many for their open-doors views on immigration, which as I previously pointed out was a sensitive issue at the time of the election, with many Britons fearing being swamped by immigrants largely from Eastern Europe. This, combined with their status as perpetual also-rans in general elections for as long as I can remember pretty much scuppered their chances of winning this election.

British National Party Led by Nick Griffin. A media campaign against the BNP by the BBC led to Griffin's arrest under religious hatred laws

Re:Where's the -1, Uninformed mod?

[Jon Chatow]

The Conservatives [...] when they were in power (when Margaret Thatcher and later John Major were leaders) they very nearly crippled the country with severe mismanagement.

Surely you jest? (Old) Labour are the party of the Winter of Discontent, what with their inability to deal with the unions. The British economy was improved almost immeasurably by the Thatcherite reforms (even if the attempted social reforms left something to be desired). I really can't understand how this myth is perpetuated (except, perhaps, by disgruntled former coal-miners who wrongly feel that the loss of their jobs was neither necessary nor unpreventable); yes, people lost their jobs at the same time that Thatcher was reforming the industry, but there is not a causal link - they were both symptoms of globalisation and so economic competition from the Far East.

And, before you go accusing me of being a Tory, I'm a Lib Dem. :-)

Re:Where's the -1, Uninformed mod?

[Tony Hoyle]

Going back a little further Edward Heath had *excatly* the same problem with Unions (3 day week anyone?)... back then it wasn't a party political issue but an endemic one to britian.

Thatcher sorted that out, it's true (and should be commended for that). She also mishandled the economy so badly we ended up in the worst recession since the 30's.

It's pretty much the memory of Thatcher that keeps the conservatives out of power (not of John Major, who was too uninteresting to be hated).

Re:Where's the -1, Uninformed mod?

[cyclomedia]

black wednesday?

Re:Where's the -1, Uninformed mod?

[Mike1024]

The British economy was improved almost immeasurably by the Thatcherite reforms (even if the attempted social reforms left something to be desired).

Thatcher wasn't the satan she is sometimes made out to be, but you can't deny that she was ousted when interest rates approached 15%, heavily undermining support from the Conservatives' middle class, home-owning typical supporters.

It's understandable in a way:- you say the economy was improved almost immeasurably, but for some reason it lead to high interest rates and high unemployment. Not a way to win votes.

Also, many of her reforms create mixed feelings - for instance she privatised British Telecom, which free marketeers would tell us should have lead to competition, low prices, and flawless service. I think quite a lot of people would say we don't have that!

Michael

Re:Where's the -1, Uninformed mod?

[awol]

I think the poster's distinction between left and right with regard to the position on ID cards and things like CC TV monitoring is mistaken. The issue is big government vs little government and when taken in that context the Labour party is exactly the party that I would expect to push for ID cards and monitoring.

The main issue for politics in the socialist democracies of Europe and the Commonwealth (Aus, NZ, Canada etc) is that there is an overriding push to the centre for economic policy since there is almost no way of "arguing" against the tenets of economic rationalism in the Global Economy. Interest rates, Budget deficit are more or less out of the control of the government (well whilst technically in control, to use fiscal policy unfettered has been shown to be ordinarily problematic). Which means the battle ground for politics has turned to how the government spends money (the extent and quality of the welfare state) and how they collect it (who pays what tax).

Since there are so few actual issues, it is almost impossible for the parties to distinguish themselves. Most people attribute this to the fact that the parties are equally crap. The reality is, I think, much more benign. The function of government is so well established that it is only around the edges that can be tuned and the distinguishing features of the left and right are unable do do this "tuning" in such a way that they are different enough to justify someone changing their vote.

Obviously, radical changes in structure are possible. In the UK the most recent was Thatcher's attack on the labour market to free up the structural rigidity that was stifling the economy. But there was the NHS before that and others before that. In Australia, the massive changes to industrial relations (the labout market) that are impending are the natural successor to the extensive deregulation that has already taken place. These radical changes in structure are usually the result of "great leaders" (I don't mean good I just mean influential) and it seems to me that these structural changes are the result of the left and right ideological differences. One would never find the labour party in any of these economies advocating the kind of industrial reform being contemplated in Australia and once the reform is complete the left may well regain power to add a little "sugar" to the recipe that the right has formulated. As a result the swinging between left and right in the Liberal Democracies is a very marginal thing in general since there are so few "fundamental" differences remaining to distingush them.

This begs an obvious question in my view and that is; "Are there new 'big ticket' items that the left and right can use to distinguish themselves?".
From my perspective it is less the left and the right that is the axis on which the new big issues are based and more liberal -> totalitarian and the answer is yes. The EFF acts in the space where I think many of these issues will be defined. So it is a very important organisation to add to the Corporatist landscape since it is the influence of these corporate groups (environmentalists, human rights campaigners, business groups, etc etc) that provide a second channel for the influence of political agenda within the democracies of which we speak.

Re:Where's the -1, Uninformed mod?

[TobascoKid]

Also, many of her reforms create mixed feelings - for instance she privatised British Telecom, which free marketeers would tell us should have lead to competition, low prices, and flawless service. I think quite a lot of people would say we don't have that!

Yeah, but anyone who says that probably hasn't bothered to try and find a better deal. There is plenty of competition and some very low prices.

If anything, the percieved problems with BT are due to the failure to deregulate the market fast enough, thus protecting BT. Why did local loop unbundling happen only recently? And look what LLU is bringing - broadband band use is high and there is now real competition for BT - you longer need to either keep your existing BT line or have cable installed to use another telcom company.

Re:Where's the -1, Uninformed mod?

[Anonymous Coward]

As the son of one of those (now ex-) coal miners, I beg to disagree. The Tories used the full force of the Police and State to destroy the NUM because of political ideology, nothing to do with economics. Miners were starved into submission with refusual of welfare aid (which they had *paid for all their working years*) and finally, I'm sure you've seen the many newsreels of police acting as a paramilitary force to brutalise the miners...

I'd say you are a New (neo-) Conservative, not a Lib-Dem because of this rather rosy rewriting of recent history.

Re:Where's the -1, Uninformed mod?

[isorox]

As the son of one of those (now ex-) coal miners

you naturally have an unbiased view then

Miners were starved into submission with refusual of welfare aid

They weren't available for work, they weren't disabled or otherwise unable to work. They made a lifestyle choice to not work, why should they get any money for it?

Re:Where's the -1, Uninformed mod?

[qcomp]

So who would you vote for? The 1984 Party, The State-Wreckers, The soft saps or the racist thugs?

Th Official Monster Raving Loony Party of course, who else?
scnr

Re:Where's the -1, Uninformed mod?

[Anonymous Coward]

3 day week anyone?

Two here please, and a choc ice.

Re:Where's the -1, Uninformed mod?

[dan the person]

One would never find the labour party in any of these economies advocating the kind of industrial reform being contemplated in Australia

How about the Rogernomics of the Fourth Labour Government of New Zealand in 1984 that

slashed top tax rates from 66 percent to just 33 percent. Company taxes were similarily cut, while workers' incomes were squeezed by a new Goods and Services Tax. The right to strike was limited, and employers' attacks saw real wages decline by as much as 10 percent. Meanwhile unemployment doubled from 8.5 percent to 16.2 percent. Welfare benefits were slashed, and the dole for those under 18 was abolished.

May not be the same as Oz now, but this was back in '84...

Re:Where's the -1, Uninformed mod?

[Anonymous Coward]

'A media campaign against the BNP by the BBC led to Griffin's arrest under religious hatred laws for using a racial slur while being secretly taped by an investigative journalist.'

surely, a racial slur by Nick Griffin led to his arrest. The media campaign didn't force him to make a racist comment - it just exposed it.

Re:Where's the -1, Uninformed mod?

[Anonymous Coward]

... and she would have been out on her ear in the early 80s had the UK not won a war that could be traced (in part) to the Government's negligence.

Re:Where's the -1, Uninformed mod?

[multiplexo]

They weren't available for work, they weren't disabled or otherwise unable to work. They made a lifestyle choice to not work, why should they get any money for it?

You don't understand, there is a certain class of British leftist to whom coal mining is every bit as sacrosanct as the image of family farming in the US and France. Something about nationalised collierys really makes these guys spooge. It's some weird Lenin/Trotsky/Stalin/mass collectivization/5 year plan thing that's wormed its way into their political DNA.

Re:Where's the -1, Uninformed mod?

[mdwh2]

Their PR assault during the last election boiled down to, while the other two parties slogged it out over immigration, ID cards and the War in Iraq, the Lib Dem PR machine putting out a statement that Kennedy's wife had had a baby

That's not right. I saw plenty of coverage from the Lib Dems regarding issues such as ID cards and the war in Iraq. I didn't see any official publicity about the baby, just some coverage in the news as would be expected.

I don't think anyone seriously expected them to *win* this election - and did they really have a target of beating the Conservatives?

I would say that they met many of their targets this election. They gained their share of the vote, won more seats, and also moved from 3rd to 2nd place in many places (the problem with our first-past-the-post system is that 3rd parties have a long way to go before increased vote share translates into winning large numbers of seats).

I don't think anyone expected them to suddenly gain power this election - you've got to look at things long term.

The problem with the British political system is that, while stable, every party looks pretty much like every other party, only with slightly different reasons to hate them - in other words, people do not vote for the best, they vote for the least worst.

Are there countries where this isn't the case? ;) It certainly beats the US by far, where you have a choice between two similar candidates of "very bad" and "not quite as bad", and people tend to vote for who they hate least.

I'd also argue that this is as much a problem with the voting system (only having one vote), than the choice of parties.

And I agree with the other replies - I wouldn't say Lib Dems are "very left-wing", and there are many other parties at least as significant as the BNP.

Respect the right to vote, please

[lbbros]

Whether you like or not a government, you should always respect the people that have elected it with their votes. If they are dissatisfied, they'll change their vote on the next election. That's democracy for you...

Re:Respect the right to vote, please

[mugstar]

When we have a *representative* democratic system here in the UK, I'll agree with you. This Government was elected on a 22% share of the electorate. [source]

Re:Respect the right to vote, please

[Anonymous Coward]

Whether you like or not a government, you should always respect the people that have elected it with their votes.

Why?

Re:Respect the right to vote, please

[Anonymous Coward]

A democracy elected Hitler and supported his actions. Do I respect the people of Germany for that choice?

No... no I don't.

Re:Respect the right to vote, please

[drsquare]

To be fair, that's counting people who didn't vote. They actually got 35% of the votes. Still excessively low for a party which now effectively has complete control over the country.

Re:Respect the right to vote, please

[lbbros]

I'm sorry, but those talks that imply that UK is not completely democratic are off. Before considering this, think about China, North Korea, and the like. That's where democracy lacks, truly.

MP3 Victim Pledgebank

[Anonymous Coward]

Check this out http://www.pledgebank.com/bpifine

"I will donate £10 to pay the fine of Sylvia Price, whose daughter downloaded some MP3s but only if 400 other people will also throw in a tenner."

Bit much

[Anonymous Coward]

I would donate but five pounds per month is a bit steep I'd rather make a one off donation of maybe £20.

In Soviet Russia

[In_Sovjet_Russia]

The EFF corners you!

It's about bloody time!

[flajann]

With the way the British gov has been acting lately, squashing privacy everywhere in that country, it is about bloody time they get into operation something akin to EFF.

Re:Fighting for Bloggers' Rights

[Mechcozmo]

Lawyers Are Wimps!

Single point of failure, stealth through obscurity

[Anonymous Coward]

Ignoring the issues of costs, effectiveness and infringements of civil liberties there are good, hacking reasons for not wanting ID cards.

The government will no doubt spend millions developing encryption techniques on the cards. This will not be open to scrutiny and we, the UK public, will just have to trust the government that the cards are secure. Yet inevitably the cards will be hacked by some of the thousands of hackers on net who can makes tens of millions stealing and abusing people's ID. And because ID cards are meant to be the one safe reliable piece of ID, when your identity is stolen its like someone's got root on your server. They can do whatever they like.

Why list the BNP?

[Smuttley]

What about Greens and UKIP? Both got way more votes than the far right BNP.

And don't forget Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish parties as well. They may not have got as many votes due to lower populations in those areas but at least they got some seats.

Re:Why list the BNP?

[Tony Hoyle]

The BNP is a more 'established' party.. UKIP is little more than a pressure group at the moment (it remains to be seen whether they grow beyond that - Kilroy Silk* didn't help their cause any).

The Greens should probably have been listed but they've never done much... they have one MP on an offshore island somewhere I think.

* I'm really glad that fucktard lost his deposit.

Re:Why list the BNP?

[Smuttley]

The UKIP imo is more established than a pressure group, they've been around longer than a decade and got over 3 times the number of votes than the BNP in the latest election. They may be seen as a one policy party, but then the same can easily be said for the BNP.

Re:Single point of failure, stealth through obscur

[Shaper_pmp]

Bonus points - the compromised ID will have biometric data on it.

You can always change a password or PIN after you experience ID theft - ever tried to change your iris map or fingerprints?

Connecting the ID card to biometric data was the single stupidest idea since... well, the ID card.

Re:i must say

[spot35]

I can only agree.

signed up

[Cederic]

I prefer to avoid signing up to things, especially when they want money.

However, Danny O'Brien is that rarest of beasts, a journalist I trust. I've also experienced a lot of his work in this arena in the past (or, more accurately, been informed by him of the work being done by and with people he knows).

Some of the other names mentioned are also ones I've recognised, and a couple of the people I've met.

I may not agree with everything they propose, but I do agree with their general aims, and I'm happy to do a little to help it. Since I'm a lazy sod (rarely doing much more than writing to my MP/MEP and posting on slashdot) contributing a small amount to help fund someone to do my campaigning for me sounds like a fine idea.

Hey!

[Mike Savior]

Where's the ..Beff?

Wait a second.. that doesn't sound right..

Re:Hey!

[TheoMurpse]

Ugh. Can you imagine the Freedom Association of Poland?

FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP

Re:Single point of failure, stealth through obscur

[nairobiny]

Connecting the ID card to biometric data was the single stupidest idea since... well, the ID card

Actually, I see the biometric data as the sole purpose of the ID card. The Government, simply, wants a big database of our biometric data.

In a properly designed database, the biometric data would not form part of the database itself. Rather it's a mechanism for validating whether your assertion that you're you is true. They've tied it to fingerprints and iris scans in order to snatch your biometric data and then use it for alternative purposes. I don't suppose the average Brit would be too happy with being considered a suspect in every crime where a fingerprint is left at the scene. But now, they will be. Probably every crime in Europe and the USA too, when we've consolidated our databases ("for national security measures", mind you). Before long, they'll take your DNA when you go to the doctor as well, so you can additionally be considered a potential rapist in every case.

The potential for miscarriages of justice in such a sloppy regime are enormous, yet the ability of the individual to make good his/her record or correct errors would seem minimal. On top of which, we'll have sucked so many resources into staffing the scheme that we'll inevitably have to reduce our intelligence-gathering and community policing. Result? More incidents like 7/7 and 21/7 (but at least we'll know who the suicide bombers were after they've blown a carriageful of innocents to pieces).

What's really wrong with them

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

OK, let's get this straight right from the start, because while no doubt well-intentioned, the parent post is Just Plain Wrong on several counts.

I won't presume to speak for everyone, but here are some of the main objections to the specific plans currently being advocated by the Labour government in the UK.

• The cards are not likely to bring the claimed benefits. The government has switched its argument for the cards from anti-terror to reducing benefit fraud to immigration issues, each time as the previous "advantages" were debunked. Little evidence has been provided that any of these causes will be advanced by the introduction of the government's proposed scheme.
• The cards will be expensive. The government's own estimates put them at nearly 100 pounds already, though they try to hide this behind the claim that we need biometric passports already and they'll cost nearly as much on their own. Independent estimates have put the figure as high as 300 pounds already, and no major UK government IT project in recent years has come in anywhere close to on-budget.
• The cards present a risk to civil liberties. While the government is keen to stress that having an ID card will not be compulsory at first, it is on the record as saying it wants them to be compulsory within a few years. The government also says that it won't be compulsory to carry them in the street, but without that they'll be even less effective, and once everyone has them it's a short step away. Civil rights campaigners argue that simply walking the streets of our own country is likely to become a privilege rather than a right.
• The National Identity Register is subject to abuse. One of the main objections is not to the cards themselves, but to the creation of a national, government-controlled ueber-database. The government has made noises about restricting access to this database very carefully, but history suggests that they aren't as good at data protection as they claim.
• The National Identity Register is subject to human error. Even if the system is reasonably resilient to malicious interference, any database that's dealt with hundreds of times a day by civil servants is inevitably going to get incorrect data entered occasionally simply through keyboard error and the like. Examples have been given (I personally am one) where a similar error in the existing tax office computer systems have left individuals out of pocket by large amounts of money for several months, with essentially no way to get compensation (since this part of the government is conveniently has Crown immunity from prosecution). There have been no guarantees made about the failsafe procedures to protect victims of innocent mistakes. While the government says the Information Commissioner (who usually enforces our data protection rules) will have some authority here, the Information Commissioner himself has criticised the proposals.
• The scheme could make things worse. If the scheme becomes the established, universal form of ID that it's supposed to be, then it will present a single point of attack for identity thieves. Identity theft is one of the fastest growing crimes in our country today, and recovering after having your identity stolen can take a huge amount of time and effort.

Several of the claims in the parent post (mandatory carry, exempt from individual access) have been explicitly denied by the government at the present time. Such rules would certainly be even more unwelcome, and are definitely a cause for concern, but perhaps we should concern ourselves more with the damage that may be done by the proposals the government is actively and publicly supporting already?

Re:What's really wrong with them

[t_allardyce]

The cards present a risk to civil liberties. While the government is keen to stress that having an ID card will not be compulsory at first, it is on the record as saying it wants them to be compulsory within a few years. The government also says that it won't be compulsory to carry them in the street, but without that they'll be even less effective, and once everyone has them it's a short step away. Civil rights campaigners argue that simply walking the streets of our own country is likely to become a privilege rather than a right.

In the case of compulsory cards the government is using non-sense logic:

- any card system will take time to roll out, it could conceivably take from months to years to issue cards and reach anything like 99% penetration.

- while the system is in the roll out phase it is simply not possible to make it mandatory - that is mandatory to own or mandatory to carry. it cannot happen until all or almost all people have the cards. the government is supposedly giving us this 'grace period' of non-compulsory cards when in fact they have absolutely no choice in the matter. hell they may even be 'nice' and 'extend' the period later if the project is late.

But otherwise agreed, good post.

Re:What's really wrong with them

[mediabunny]

The biometrics don't work. none of the identified biometric information is unique enough to be able to accurately identify the person involved. Worse as with all genetic data the person you are most likely to be confused for are your immediate relatives.

Re:What's really wrong with them

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

The biometrics don't work.

They certainly don't work reliably enough, that's for sure.

Lack of reliability is one of the big reasons behind the first objection I listed (not bringing the claimed benefits). This, combined with the ability to trawl the database for suspects any time any biometric information is found near a crime scene, is also a major cause of objection 4 (the NIR is subject to abuse).

The Tories won the English election!

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

It seems like we're stuck in the rut like we were in 80's - better the devil you know and all that. The only difference being that in the 80's the Tories were elected by more than 21% of the electorate.

Of course, the Conservative Party actually won the popular vote in England at the last election. Tony Blair's Labour were returned to government by a tiny majority of the popular vote across the UK as a whole, relying on their stronger support in the other countries to keep them in, yet have wound up with an absolute majority in parliament thanks to our wonderful first-past-the-post system.

This system is more wonderful than ever, because most of those other countries in the UK now have devolved governments that they elect independently. Consequently, unlike England, they often don't suffer the results of votes in the UK parliament directly, leading to the absurd position that Labour can force through legislation on universities that is widely opposed in England, with the support of their Scottish MPs whose own universities won't be adversely affected by it!

What really turns my stomach is when Labour happily argue that since they won the election, they now have a mandate to implement measures in their manifesto, even though more than 2/3 of the votes went to candidates who do not support those measures. Still, this is the government that introduced the term "spin" into common vocabulary, so what do we expect?

Our government system was never ideal, but the handling of devolution and the House of Lords has made it even more corrupt than ever since New Labour came to power. I'd say vote them out, but we did that, and yet they're still there.

Just around the corner...

[Junior J. Junior III]

and probably visible to some CCTV camera.

It's going to be an uphill battle for England.

Just Around the Corner?

[Anonymous Coward]

Shh....
it's around the corner!

Learned that one in Jr. High.
And about as OT as you can get.

Whaaaaaaaat??

[Pentagram]

Where do I begin??

First, the Lib Dems, "Very left-wing in their views"? They may be less right-wing than Labour on several issues but that hardly makes them "very left wing". They're significantly less left-wing than the old Labour party for example.

Also, how do you decide that the BNP are the fourth significant force in British politics? I doubt they're even 10th. Plaid Cymru, SNP, Respect, the various NI parties, and independents all have MPs, and other parties such as the Independence party and Greens all have far more support than the BNP.

Welcome England!

[ebvwfbw]

Welcome to the club! It will be tough as your liable to be attacked in the papers, and elsewhere by sometimes very hateful things. Start up an equivelent of the NRA too. Get the right to defend yourself back. You will need it with the United States of Europe wanting to take you over.

Re:Welcome England!

[meringuoid]

You will need it with the United States of Europe wanting to take you over.

You misspelled 'Ame...' - naah, too easy.

Re:Welcome England!

[ebvwfbw]

You misspelled 'Ame...' - naah, too easy.

Listen to some of your politicians. They are trying to tell Europe about the EU and their quest to become the United States of Europe. Based in Brussels they will turn the British Parliament into a rubber stamp. They seem bent on doing it even though France and the Netherlands has rejected the EU's Constitution. Ever look at it? The US Constitution is like 7 articles, something like that. The EU's is around 109. Bound to be applied in ways to harm Europe.

Europe has nothing to worry about with the US. We offer protection but we have shown for over 50 years that we let the countries run themselves and help where needed. Sometimes even though it hurts the US. Sometimes I think the US should just let Europe fall flat on their face. We'll be there to help you back up again. We always are. Then you can do it all over again. I see Europe heading to another war. A very bloody one. Once again nobody can stop it. Not soon but it is coming.

Re:Single point of failure, stealth through obscur

[mediabunny]

So its a real shame that it appears that biometrics are infallible and are no where near unique enough to be of any real value.

Whats more measuring them seems to be far, far harder then this government seems to think it should be.

The only solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Vote for Sinn Fein and make them rule Britain except for Northern Ireland. That will teach them.

More like their religion trampling over us.

[FatSean]

In case you haven't noticed....

i wonder if the british EFF...

[KillShill]

will prosecute the war criminals who commited massive vote fraud. clearly, a lot of the issues being discussed stems from the fact that the "elected officials" no longer feel they are accountable.

national ID cards? check

bombing your own population to terrorize them? check

it'll only get worse folks, if you don't jail those criminals.

orwell wasn't wrong. it's just that it took this long for the small amount of the public to notice.

What is given can be taken away.

[Bob_Robertson]

It's not the card that is the problem. The problem is the *requirement*. By requiring such an ID, a very large door is opened to abuse.

Don't believe it will be abused? Then you ignore all of history. All governmental powers abused at some time. That's why democracy sucks so badly, it's just institutionalized mob rule.

Why have a constitution at all, if governmental powers are not abused? Because they are abused. They are always abused.

What government giveth government can taketh away. Piss off some petty bureaucrat, or just catch one who's having a bad day, and they can put a flag on your ID that will do all the bad things other people have suggested and you will have to prove your innocence in order to get your life back. Ever try to prove you DIDN'T do something?

ID's are a great idea. If governments didn't issue them, private firms would. In fact, it happens right now. You've seen the requirements like "no rental without a major credit card"? Same thing.

I notice you're worried about RFID. That means you do understand the potential for abuse. Now imagine simply that those against it are merely taking the reservations you already have and going further with them.

Unfortunately, so long as government is doing the issuing/requiring, there is no room for disagreement of any kind. Everyone is forced into the same one-size-fits-all package, and if anything goes wrong everyone is harmed.

Bob-