Slashdot Mirror
UK MPs Approve Compulsory ID Cards
Idimmu Xul writes "BBC News is reporting that the UK House of Commons has approved legislation making identity cards compulsory." From the article: "The plans, rejected by peers last month, will now go back before the House of Lords. Tories warned of "creeping compulsion" and Lib Dems said the "fight against compulsory ID cards" would go on."
Actually it is only compulsory when applying for a passport. It will not be compulsory otherwise.
But I have to ask. Is there any legal recourse if this is passed into law? Any equivilent of the US Supreme Court?
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety are probably British and should be shot at."
I'm all for anything that will stop terrorism. I think people who are afraid of this are only those with something to hide. Honest, law-abiding citizens have no need to fear this legislation passed by our benevolent and wise MPs.
C - A language that combines the speed of assembly with the ease of use of assembly.
>
> "And with the real problems people have today with identity fraud, which is a major, major issue; illegal immigration; organised crime: it's just the sensible thing to do."
Because having an identity card - that you have to carry with you at all times - is the sensible solution to the problem of identity theft. Because we all know that nothing you carry with you 24/7/365 can ever be stolen.
To be fair, in order for them to become compulsory, they'll have to go back and get legislation passed through both houses. Of course, anyone who gets their passport renewed will be required to get an ID card anyway (which in the UK is a large percentage of the population) so they'll be compulsory in everything but name.
Either way, it's a massive blow for civil rights in this country - they'll be storing obscene amounts of personal information, including the buzz-word of the moment, 'biometrics' in a central database that will need to be accessable by essentially every government department. Given this government's record for IT projects, I'm almost looking forward to the ID cards being introduced just to see how spectacularly the whole system fails.
"Sir, may I please see your ID?"
-Umm, I forgot it at home.
"Did you forget it at home or are you an illegal immigrant?"
-No, seriously, I forgot it at home!
"Right."
Officers club down suspect and drag him to jail.
I can only assume this is to counter illegal immigrants- and homeless people? Any regular citizen cannot not have an ID (job, bank transfers, rent etc).
Three rings for the Elven-kings in the sky
/ACLU. The new and improved format of /.
What the hell is wrong with England?!? You people invented modern democratic society and civil rights, and you've been happily flushing it down the drain, piece by piece, ever since the end of WWII. (Would you really be any worse off at this point if the Nazis had won?) Gun control, CCTV, now ID cards--every time I look at America's problems, I can always cheer myself up by remembering that whatever we're doing wrong, you're guaranteed to do something worse.
And what kind of politics have you got going now where the Conservatives are for civil liberties and Labour are the fascists? That's just bizarre.
Media that can be recorded and distributed can be recorded and distributed.
-kfg
I don't get it. Did the British learn nothing from World War II?!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Isn't Britain's House of Commons somewhat akin to the U.S. House of Representatives, in that they are always passing lots of ill-thought-out, brain-dead legislation that their wiser, older brothers in the other house (Lords for them, the Senate for us) has to vote down?
Serving your airship needs since 1995.
They have already and mainly (from the debate that I heard) on the basis of this 'creeping compulsiom' - ie if you apply for a passport your name goes on the register, and then after a while a compulsory card is issued.
The British public were told this was an 'opt in' system. I have to travel abroad to work effectively. This gives me no choice at all.
I have already signed the No2ID refuse pledge, and I will do everything in my personal power to prevent myself from ending up with one of these.
I feel disgusted that my government feels free to treat me like a criminal in my own country. They want ID cards, they want to take my DNA if I'm arrested for a crime I haven't committed, cameras on the roads tracking vehicles.
If the Tories pledge next election to scrap the legislation altogether, I'll vote for them on that basis alone. And.. I just don't vote that way... but the Blairite government deserve a kicking for the way they've treated the electorate since they arrived.
I don't read your sig, why do you read mine?
ID Cards for the Brits, wait, here's why they can get angry!
From the Association of British Drivers press release: "The EU is already planning to use Galileo to enforce continental-wide road tolling, and the car-hating British government wants to be first. You won't be able to drive anywhere without the EU knowing where you are going, who you are travelling with, and what speed you are travelling at."
Animoog.org
.. and it looks great. What's this antenna sticking out of it?
Proof by very large bribes. QED.
How does this affect my rights online?
What the hell do US and UK people have against a national ID card? It's just a mean of proving your identity, here in France we've had it for well, decades before I were born. A driver license can be equally used. At least, unlike in the US, people without driver license have papers.
ID cards? How pleasantly old fashioned. Wouldn't compulsory RFID implants make so much more sence?
That's about 100,000 card updates per working day.
Does anybody think that there will be any kind of real checks performed on those updates?
Parent is right on.
I'm not sure what anyone gets out of the "oh no!" posts that are generated with these articles.
Information about your private activities is already for sale to most public agencies. Now they want to give you a shiny card with biometric authentication. What's changed?
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Also mandate that it's compulsary to have your ID on you at all times? Or is it mainly compulsory to have it if you're going on a bus/plane/train ? I for one have absolutely no problem with showing ID to police or other goverment entities if it's required. Nor would I have a problem with CCTV being implemented on a large scale within the US as I have no expectation of privacy while outside my own home anyway.
"The boy is dangerous, they all sense it, why can't you?"
Not to get into this whole flame war about pros and cons of One-Card-That-Does-It-All, but these kinds of things are only to be expected. If the technology can do it, people will start thinking about it, even people who have the legislative power. GB wants to have the one card, France wants to somewhat legalize P2P, it's called progress, it has good and bad sides, get used to it.
I've not been paying attention to this piece of government legislature, and I don't feel like pouring through news archieves to get the whole store.; can someone get me (and those in the same situation) up to speed on exactly what this is all about? The article stated some sides, and that people are protesting, but not what exactly they found bad about the ID cards.
Personally, I don't see a government ID as a bad thing; while it would be another piece of information to worry about, it would allow people to dissassociate themselves with their SSN (at least, in the states,) to companies. This would greatly decrease identity theft; if someone got your National ID number and went to town getting credit cards, there would be some process where they'd have to prove to the government (perhaps through the companies, perhaps not) that they are who they claim, using the SSN (and, upon failing, would be arrested). If someone did swipe your NID, then you'd prove that you're you, get a new NID, and have the old one invalidated.
While it wouldn't be impossible for someone to get both the National ID and SSN, it would add an extra layer of personal protection, and be that much harder. To add to this, SSNs would only go on important government documents; non-public military files, tax forms, FBI records, etc.
Unless they're implanting RFID tags or something into these cards, I don't see where the great harm is coming from. It would be no different than having your drivers liscense or SSN now.
There is already a large industry that can produce this kind of volume.
Do you own a debit/credit card? One of their worst-case-scenarios they manage well at a gigantic scale is identical cards in the field.
They've got the software to manage them all too.
Done.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
"What's changed?"
American Express don't throw you into jail if you cut up their card and throw it away.
An ID card has nothing in common with a credit card. They just happen to be the same size.
Operation "Barcode Britain" has begun
Exigo spamos et dona ferentes
Parent: The British public were told this was an 'opt in' system. I have to travel abroad to work effectively. This gives me no choice at all.
This isn't meant for you. This is to track a certain portion of your population that, let's say, doesn't like cartoons. This is an excuse to track their traveling. Unfortunately, honest folks are being caught up in this just to track some assholes.
The credit card companies don't give a damn about what you look like, your finger prints or the colour of your eyes. The CCCs don't require you to turn up at their offices and provide proof that you exist. The CCCs don't throw you into jail because you refuse an offer of a card. The CCCs don't have vast amounts of tax information and criminal records.
on our body somewhere, say on our foreheads and make it machine readable--like a tatto or something.
That would be cool.
I think I'd better go sign No2ID myself. I also intend to write to all of my local MPs (& potential MPs) and make it clear that at the next general election I intend to vote for the first party who make getting rid of ID cards (100% outright) an election pledge.
Syllable : It's an Operating System
Hey guys, please let me know when Hate Week starts.
I'd like to visit Airstrip One before I'm re-educated.
Ahem. "we have always been at war with islam....."
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
Not the Mark of the Beast. (Unless I can't go to work/shopping without one, then it's brown trouser time).The problem comes when they claim it will stop terrorism - like in Spain, where it didn't. The biggest problem comes with the cost per citizen and inevitability of it all being messed up and going hopelessly over budget and not working anyway.
And it will give the police even more of an excuse to be over the top and oppressive with anyone who "might be an immigrant".
There'll be tears before bedtime over all this.
(The HoL isn't perfect, but the theory of having wholly independent mechanisms in the checks and balances seems to be sounder than having the US system where money can buy you everything.)
The Queen could refuse to sign, but the Government wants to replace her, too. Besides, as nobody sees the Queen sign anything, who's to say that the PM doesn't have a rubber stamp with her signature etched on it? It's not as if she is in a position to complain!
(I like democracy, but I utterly reject the notion that you can have truly independent segments of Government with true separation of powers when those segments exist in a wholly co-dependent, master-slave relationship.)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I live in the UK and my major worry is that when I get an ID card it could easily end up getting lost or stolen.
These cards aren't like credit cards where you can phone up you bank and get it canceled making the card useless, once it is stolen some crook will have all the information that they could possibly want about you. While it is easy to change the pin number for a debit or credit card you can't go and change your biometrics everytime your card is stolen.
"Hello, I would like to report my ID card as stolen."
"That is fine sir. Can we arrange a time to burn off you finger prints and laser you eyes?"
If they introduce yet another identification system, it would make more sense to integrate it with the drivers license & NHS/medicare/whatever identification systems.
I can't believe the depths of inefficiency that government can go.
In Victoria, Australia, Vicroads, the motor vehicle licensing body also administers boat operators licenses. Rather than add an endorsement code to an existing piece of plastic, they issue a completely new one. Very nearly identical to the driver's license plastic (except the colour), right down to the license id number. Yes, I am one and the same customer, but I have to carry two bits of plastic in my wallet. Not sure which I'd present if I was driving an amphibious vehicle...
Have you read Edmund Burke's Reflections on the French Revolution? England lasted as a Republic for only eleven years between 1649 and 1660. King Charles II took care of that little rabble rousing "social experiment." All hail the King!!!
so what if like me, you already have a full passport with your name and picture in it, and a full driving licence with your name, address and picture in it?
portfolio
We have had compulsory ID cards for years and frankly, I find it rather artificial that such a fuss is made about the principle of introduction in the UK. In reality people already need to carry some document that allows them to identify themselves, if only to their banker, even in the UK and USA. The practical difference with having an official "identify card" is minute.
This is all about symbolic value. Both the US and UK government have summarily granted themselves the power to lock people in jail without any form of trial, or at least restrict their movements; to snoop in people's communications and to fill the streets with security cameras. These are far more outrageous attacks on civil liberty than a compulsory ID card. The reason civil liberty groups focus on ID cards is simply that they are both universal and material and therefore have the potential to concern everybody; not that they are enormously problematic.
But this focus on matters of principle and symbolism is highly counterproductive. While libertarians are wasting their time fighting a lost battle, the British government is quietly getting away with storing vast amounts of information on the chip in the identity card -- no less than 49 different types of information, and vastly more than is necessary just to ascertain someone's identity; the UK legislation opens the possibility to store a lengthy record of all interactions someone has had with the government on the card, from work permits to health insurance. It even includes, lugubriously, "date of death" -- apparently even the corpses will have to carry an identity card!
It is there that the real matter for concern rests.
My card carries my family name, first names, gender, nationality, date and place of birth, address, photograph and signature, identity card number and date of expiry. That is really all such a card should be allowed to hold. When I get a digital card this will include an electronic signature, the government having had the idea -- on which diverse views are possible -- to issue every citizen with an electronic signature for computer transactions.
Actually, because of its insistence on machine-readable codes, arrival and departure records, pictures, fingerprints, and in the future biometric data as well, the US government probably holds a far more intrusive dossier on me than my own government, and without any opportunity for me to have a say in this.
I have a feeling that the 'unbearable hell and choking life' of the US, however bad it becomes, will be several circles of hell above Afghanistan under the Taliban.
Article clearly states, right of the bat, that it's when you apply for a passport. So that's a point against hysterics.
:D.
However, it also states "...and will be put on a registry," so might as well leave the 1984 alarm running. Let's see:
Some random thoughts, concerns, questions for the crowd and more than a bit of polemic inspired by this latest tidbit in the Tony Loves George show:
This is effing ridiculous. Why not just rebuild the Berlin Wall, only turn the gun towers around t'other way? As Carmichael says in the linked article, "the only way to opt of the system is to give up your right to travel abroad."
Here's another amusing bit:
"Tony Blair was not able to attend the debate after his plane was grounded by engine troubles in South Africa."
Is this "engine trouble, wink wink nudge nudge"? He still found the time to utter that gem about it being "just sensible," and never mind all this Liberty rubbish... but maybe they felt it'd be easier to pass along without him there for opposition to focus against... or maybe he just didn't feel like getting yelled at today
(Before you object to any of the above speculation, please convince me that at any given moment, a plane actually cannot be found for the Prime Minister of Anywhere, and it is more secure to be a known grounded sitting duck? Right. If so, fire your entire staff now please, your life is in grave danger...)
Anyway. Interesting that the US and the UK are making two halves of the citizen lockdown; we talk about a US ID card, but first went ahead with the RFID passports. The UK looks like it stands a good chance of having the ID cards first. From there, it's pretty easy for each to point to the "success" of the other, and respectively pass their missing halves. Yum, compulsory RFID Citizen Cards.
Do you have a reason for crossing the border, Comrade? Why did you spend 3 hours at that truck stop, Comrade? Did you know you've been travelling with an Enemy of the State, Comrade? Please step out of the car now, Comrade.
Think that's BS? I wish. Sadly, only when more and more people who consider themselves the "normal" folks are being stopped and searched will they start to realize that maybe this isn't Liberty after all - if, of course, they haven't completed their indoctrinations into thinking it is.
As long as it looks like just black-wearing tattoed freaks and foreginers are being harassed, that's still Liberty, right?
Final, desperate plea/question to those who still doubt how this is going: Since when, in the history of Ever, has information been collected and compiled - and not used? Since when has power been sought and gained - and not abused? Explain to me how, exactly, you can collect and correlate so much data on so many private citizens with increasingly efficient and effective means of making it meaningful, finally - but when it comes to suspect uses of that information, oh don't worry, just trust them with no accountability or oversight.
"They wouldn't do that! They're the good guys!"
someone kindly wake up the great sleeping mass in the center of the country - they're used up all their Snooze button hits already.
That which does not kill us makes us... st
Every time ID/privacy/RFID comes up I am completelly baffled by the slashdot response. And if I write a comment they mod me down. So, please, don't do it this time, I really want to know what is behind this.
Basically, my question is, why do people bother if their personal infromation is stored in a computer somewhere? Forget about possible abuses - it seems that this is an argument that is always pulled up later, the real problem is deeper. There seem to be a deep irrational anxiety in majority of people (epecially brits and americans) about releasing their private information. Is this the case? I would like that at least someone admits it is irrational. I personally don't have a problem if a someone knows who many times I day I shit, what kind of tea I buy, what party I vote, etc. so I have real trouble comprehending this strange fear... Elaborate, but don't mod down! Plus, again, don't come with silly abuse arguments - at least in principle the system can be made secure (though UK doesn't seem to have a good track record with IT projects, but that is a different story).
...is that roughly 0.000000001% of the public can function without multiple of government and private ID cards, nearly all of which (certainly, all that are of any use) are searchable by every conceivably interested government entity and just about any private entity as well under many circumstances, most of which are verified after the fact, not prior to search. That is, you affirm that you are searching lawfully--you generally don't have to prove it until someone complains. The bottom line is that the collection of numbers and cards that the vast, vast majority of us already need in order to function are effectively a de facto national ID.
/. falls into that category.
Sure, if you're holed-up in a shack somewhere in the woods of Montana, this is a massive intrusion into your life. My vagabond uncle was duly pissed-off when he was trapped in some backwoods town trying to get on an Amtrak, but didn't have "proper I.D." I doubt highly that anyone on
What people should be more concerned about is the fact that--sans national ID--some dude like me can with just one number (pick any government issued number save for your auto license plates, say, your current address) can easily dig up every piece of registered property, corporate officer status, DBA filing, address, line of credit, criminal and civil judgments, arrest and incarceration history ever associated with you over the last decade, often more, as well as the names of your children... in every state. All from the comfort of my living room.
Frankly, I find it far scarier that all of the above information can be sourced _privately_ than any big-brother fears of a national ID, which would scarcely exacerbate the existing situation, but rather would probably clean it up considerably.
The census is enumeration.
The national health number is enumeration.
My passport is enumeration.
What problem is it that the id card is supposed to solve?
Because for every (read many) person there is a card, doesn't mean that when you find a person you find their identity.
There will be chips implanted at birth before ID cards really work.
Sam
blog.sam.liddicott.com
Citizen Watcher: 'allo Constable. There's another suspicious-looking person on the landing.
Policeman: British subject or foreigner?
Citizen Watcher: 'ow should I know?
Policeman: It's tattooed on the back of their necks. Ere! Is that rat tart?
don't give a damn about what you look like, your finger prints or the colour of your eyes.
A nation-state doesn't care either. Your biometric identification is far better than the primitive hair/eyes descriptions. Again, what's so different than what they are already doing? Give me a clue here.
The CCCs don't have vast amounts of tax information and criminal records.
In both instances if an entity with the authority to review both will do so if they deem it necessary. And they've done this for as long as the records have been generated/kept. What's different about giving everyone a shiny new card? It doesn't change anything they have already been doing.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
I guess the old Major Hochstetter gag with the heavy German accent saying "Show me your papers!" ain't so funny now. Gee I wonder what the world might be like if the Germans won WWII...
Looks like you're right!
Wikileaks, no DNS
are terrorism, surely?
Wikileaks, no DNS
Right now, if you travel abroad, you already have to have internationally recognized identification. Furthermore, if you want to engage in any kind of significant business transaction, you must identify yourself as well.
A national ID card just makes it easier for you to identify yourself and harder for others to steal your identity. I'm all for it.
What I'm against is using a national ID card as an excuse to create a national ID database containing detailed information about every citizen.
I suspect that the UK government is actually trying to use the national ID debate as a smokescreen for creating additional databases, and that's wrong.
An ID card has nothing in common with a credit card
Absolutely untrue. They would both share very similar infrastructure to make and manage. There's no way a nation-state would start from scratch. There is too much risk and no card manufacturers to build something brand-new and "better." Different rules will be in place as far as handling data, but they'll make the software "fit" the public entitiy need in those cases.
Enrolling is very different.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
It doesn't work.
I'm not going to go into the "civil liberties side of things here" (there is already enough discussion on this page).
What really worries me about ID cards is that it might make identity theft easier as identity thieves will only have to fake one document.
"Welcome to our world. We are the wasted youth. And we are the future too." Yes, I know these are stupid lyrics.
You keep getting modded down because you keep labeling people's legitimate concerns with terms like "irrational" and "silly."
"I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
That article seems to misundertand what GPS actually *is*. They've bought into the idea propogated by hollywood that it's some kind of two-way locator beacon.
The only way you could 'track' someone with GPS is have a box that recorded its location... say, like a satnav (which a lot of cars have now and I bet they have them in the US too). There would then have to be some way to extract the data - which would be hideously expensive to organise...
If they're only after distance for tax purposes they've had that on lorries for years and could add it to cars easily enough. No GPS needed.
If you truly do believe that the various western goverments are not answerable to the voter then what exactly is the difference between living say in the US/UK and the Soviet Union/China? Either the west has democracy and then anything the goverment does is by the will of the people OR you liven in a dictatorship. Remember, the soviet union did have elections. Just you could chose between a communist and a communist, not at all of course like the US where you can choose between a capatalist and a capatalist. Or the UK where you can choose between a corrupt party, a party that doesn't matter and a left-wing party so right-wing it makes the right-wing party look left-wing.
If you believe that it the west is a democracy then shut up. This is obviously what the majority of voters want. Democracy can only work if the minority accepts the rule of the majority. The only difference between dictatorship and democracy is really the size of the group that does the telling.
The older I get the more I come to believe that democracy is fundementally flawed. The majority of voters are to stupid to truly consider the results of their voting (voting for parties that are for policies the voter is totally against), you got only 1 vote for a generic candidate so screw you if on some issues you lean to the left and other you lean on the right. Myself I am dutch. I am pro socialism when it comes to helping people who are in trouble but I am right wing when it comes to people leeching from the system. Or put another way. A single mother with kids should be able to get good social security to raise her kids but uni graduate who can't find a job in whatever useless field he studied can go sweep roads. Wich party do I vote for? Tax me for the needy but put the whip on the lazy.
Of course with just 1 vote every four years how can I make my views known? Do I vote against the mess that is the current health care change over (left) or do I vote against the current mess with imigration (right)?
This move to compulsiry indentification is nothing new and is happening in various stages throughout the west. The reasons are simple. In the view of the currently elected goverments it needs to know who its people are and what they are doing. Simple stuff like knowing who is holding what job so you can collect the taxes. Oh sure you can rely on the honor system but apparently that ain't working well enough.
Who has judged it not working well enough? Well us the voters it seems. If you voted for tax cuts then you voted for the taxman needing more powers to make sure that everyone pays the reduced taxes. 1 person not paying taxes equals another person paying double to raise the same amount after all.
Same with imigration, if you ever complaint about illegal immigrants then you vote for indentification since that is the only way to find them.
At times it is easy to feel that the goverment doesn't listen to the voter but when you spend some time trying to understand what the voter wants you start to realize that the goverment has no choice.
Everyone wants cheap electricity, nobody wants a powerplant in their district. So what choice has goverment got? Build no powerplant and upset everyone a bit, build one and upset whatever district it is in a lot.
The whole discussion about identification needs to get out of the "the mean goverment is forcing me' moaning and into a debate about what we are willing to live with. Do we want anonimity even when it costs us a lot in taxes because of fraud OR do we want to be tracked througout our life?
Considering that the best election result still goes to the guy who promises he is going to cut taxes I think the answer is clear. We may moan about id cards but seem unwilling to live with effects of not having them.
Put it simple, your driving license is an ID card. We as a soc
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Well I live in the UK and that is the last time I vote for a Labour government.
Good luck Blair.
If and when RFID implants are compulsory... I'm guessing ferriday cages will become compulsory too. Anyone remember that movie "Enemy of the State"?
Wow, they may or may not have get RFID chips built in them, but then by the time they are introduced the same will probably go for your typical loaf of bread. So wheres all the articles about bread then?
Hat tip to you, Sir!
I hate to sound like a troll (which I assure you it is not my intent to be), but having seen the furor over the identity cards, and the privacy implications thereof, I still have yet to see a cogent argument as to why they are terrible from a privacy point of view. Now, I have concerns with the pragmatics of the scheme (cost, risk of losing a card which has all the ID on it, the computer security of the government's data banks). That part, I understand.
But, could someone please explain to me, in a reasoned, logical manner* what the concerns are with ID cards from a privacy/1984 scenario. We're talking about data the government has anyway (through drivers licenses, health cards, social insurance cards etc). So, what is the concern with tying all this together? I am serious, again I assure you, I'm not trying to troll, but most of the reactions I've seen have been knee-jerk, "ID cards are evil and so is any government that supports them!" type arguments. So, other than pragmatics, what are the real concerns with a national ID card scheme.
Thanks in advance
*And before I get a million replies aiming for a +5 Funny, please spare me the "You must be new here" jokes. There are, in fact, some well-reasoned people who post to SlashDot. They're the ones from whom I wish to hear.
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one " -Albert Einstein
This is to track a certain portion of your population that, let's say, doesn't like cartoons.
What? They already know who they are. They were standing at protests holding hateful, borderline illegal plaques. The police decided to leave them alone and/or protect them.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
I'd have said Blair would have qualified, along with Thatcher. John Major would have escaped such a fate by getting on his soap box and boring the army to death. Actually, you mentioning the summoning of an MP has given me an idea. If enough people in enough constituancies go down and demand to see their MP at the same time, it could seriously clog up the House of Commons. It could be very effective as a means of public protest - at least, until the rules are changed. Far more than by-elections have been.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Perhaps I find the whole argument odd as I'm neither from the US nor the UK. In my country (Italy) people > 15 have to keep an ID card (paper) with them. It says really few things about the individual, mainly a photo, some details like marital status (that can be left blank, according to the person's wish) and an expiration date. It originally required a fingerprint but it's no more the case. I don't see people screaming mad about IDs in Italy. Perhaps it's also because the privacy legislation is very strict. Can someone explain me what's really at stake here?
A CC-licensed illustrated horror novel
Because during prior hearings Microsoft testified that the UK ID card database would be a 'honeypot' and wouldn't be safe. Shit, if the planet's number 1 experts on fucked up systems think this, I'm *worried*.
I hope you caught that I was trying to be funny, but I actually had an American roommate react that way in all seriousness once. I was living in Australia about 10 years ago when they passed stricter gun control laws after a shooting rampage in Tasmania. The restrictions were controversial, but were fairly popular there and passed quickly, but wouldn't have lasted a day in the United States.
This space intentionally left blank.
The difference is the CC company doesn't care, in the end, who really ended up with the credit card. They have the cost of fraud built-in to their service, so if x% of their pre-approved spam comes back with a fraudulant application, those charges are written off as a cost of doing business. If fraud increases, they slap a holographic sticker on their card and tell customers "We'll protect you!", while jacking up fees & rates.
A national ID, however, has true identity of an individual as its ultimate goal. Very different than a credit card. The real question is - what's the result when ID card fraud happens? If you are the victim - is your purchase denied, or do you go to jail?
And finally - why should I need to prove to my government who I am on their whim, anyway? I pull out my CC when I need to purchase something - a business transaction. I despise having to "prove" who I am when I board a plane or a bus because my identity is completely irrelevant to the transaction, insofar as my ticket has already been paid for. It has nothing to do with terrorism - that's a red herring. If you are someone on a "watchlist", then either the goverment has enough data on you to arrest you legally (so they should), or they don't, in which case they should leave you the f*ck alone until they do (at least in the states, if the Constitution still had any power).
The scary thing about this is not the card itself, it is the database that will be set up.
The bill calls for an Identity Register that will contain not only all of the information that is provided at signup, along with biometric identifiers such as fingerprints and iris scans, but also a record of every access of that information. Think about this - the database will know that your identity was checked by the doctor, the hospital, leaving the country, maybe even your bank or your employer. A corrupt official with access to this information could build up one hell of a profile about you. Got nothing to hide? Are you sure? This database could unocover whatever it is that you don't think you have to hide.
Before this bill there were specific laws that prevented government departments from sharing information in their databases because of potential abuse of it by government or otherwise. The Identity Cards bill demolishes those laws and establishes a database containing all of the information that was previously scattered around and impossible to link, and it shares that database with every government department there is.
A few months ago I pledged that I would not sign up for an ID card and that I would give money to fight it in court. Given that Passports renewed after 2008 will be accompanied by an ID card, the question I now have to answer is whether I should renew my passport 5 years early to avoid registration, or if I should become one of the first cases to fight in court as far as I can.
A latent existence
We like our gun control, thanks very much. Not many people are shot in this country. Some, not many - the number is very, very small. The UK population has never had a history of carrying offensive weapons, certainly never any form of gun, and as far as I know the only people who were affected when handguns were totally banned were a few people in gun clubs who had to find a new hobby. And it buggered up our Olympic shooting team of course.
Overall, not much was taken away, but the one or two nutters who used to get their guns from the gun club and go mad have been deterred. Criminals still get guns, but criminals can get anything, legal or not.
Watch my YouTube atheist video blog (user NickGisburne2000) for arguments against religion
From first principles, it is fundamentally unjust for a government, or for that matter any authority to compel you to do anything.
We give our tacit consent to the things governments compel us to obey (taxes, the criminal law) by participating in society and exercising our franchise. But this is a poor substitute for real voluntary association and direct democracy. For states such as ours to be even remotely as just as the ideal, there must be a clearly demonstrated and overwhelmingly obvious need for the things that government requires of us.
General handwaving about stopping teh terrar or "oh think of how convenient it will be!" doesn't pass muster, IMHO. The standard for being coerced by an authority that has the power to exercise violence against you is simply too high.
The website on your profile links to a University in Slovenia... You're coming from a culture which spent 50 or so years under Soviet domination where the private was the public.
The abuse arguments aren't silly from our perspective. It's what we've learned from history. If something is susceptible to abuse, eventually it will be abused. The question then is the tradeoff, of whether it is worth it or not.
Hmm, wasn't it just a few years ago they were fighting fascism?
Now fascism is becoming public policy, just like in the USA!
When do the secret camps and death squads come on line, or is that TBA?
I've been semi following this id for a while over here and one of the reasons that it was not passed by the house of lords in the first time was due to the government refusing to give any accurate costings for the indivdual, but they were giving overall figures of total cost to implement and they were demanding it to be compulsory. At the time it was being priced by various economic specialists at anything from £100 to £399 per person.... thus it would cost me even more just to exist in the uk. Which concidering that I already have to pay for my driving licence, my passport etc and now on top I have to pay for a card with ALL my details etc on it. I find it VERY hard to trust the government when they say that all the economic experts are completely wrong and the card will "only" cost around £30 to £90
The latest with the "only for passports" is only for passports at the moment with the option for complete compulsory id to follow. This linked with the database that is going on including the dna database that is being built via the police (dna from anyone suspected of a crime is taken and kept regardless of whether guilty and they are even starting to do the same from victims of crime)
I am just glad that I can renew my passport next year 2007 before this comes in and then get the hell out of the uk
And please don't even start with the "but it will help in the fight against terror" The more you rely on one card and electronics to "prove" who someone is the easier it is to fake
Sorry, 'Supreme' and 'US' do not belong in the same sentence...
It's how the jews were identified for extermination. The nice thing about a computer system though is they can mark the identity on the computer and the person doesn't need to know they've been singled out. Very handy.
Deleted
Perhaps you should read this story on the Register.
The proposal is to monitor the location of the car at all times to charge variable prices depending on the road used and the level of congestion. The Galileo system will have some feedback, it can recieve and locate distress signals for Search And Rescue. Of course it would probably be swamped if every road vehicle transmitted to the satelites at once. Whether the plan is to use a "black box recorder" or some new system making use of Galileo, the government do want a record of where you have been.
A latent existence
Besides, it doesn't appear terribly scary. Charging road tax according to how much one uses roads seems fairy reasonable - heavy road users will be worse off, of course, but those who only take the occassional trip will be better off. It might also encourage car sharing schemes etc. I also really don't see how they would be able to keep track of who is in the cars.
And what's wrong with recording speeding offenses automatically? It might teach people to actually respect speed limits more, instead of the silly business of hitting the brakes whenever cameras appear. The British government does not hate the car nearly enough. That's why our public transport system is in such trouble, and road congestion is so problematic.
As I wrote on another forum: they will make ID cards compulsary by clever manipulation of thicko MP's and public.
n ews&showtopic=671&st=0&#entry16962
At the time it is brought back to Parliament for compulsion, they will say, "The many billions we have spent so far is wasted and ID cards are not fully effective - unless the database is complete with entire population - as the thieves and terrorists are not registering".
You can see it coming a mile away.
http://www.hosted-forum.com/index.php?boardid=not
...that would be the Official Monster Raving Loony Party.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
My irony meter just blew a gasket.
Why? Here in Singapore we have ID cards, its perfectly normal and safe, it stores your blood data, thumb prints, race, all stuff like that. You guys are too sensitive...but I guess I'm from somewhere different
Since day one after I got born (1980), I've had a unique number attached to me. I even carry around a card with that unique number. I don't recall that ever being a problem. So what's the fuss all about.
As far as I understand your comment - you are reffering to just about any card carrying your photo.
And as far as I understand the UK proposal - it will require a particular card issued only by the government.
That's a big difference (if the above is correct).
Let me tell you - in Israel there is compulsory ID card. Practically all institutions use it to identify you (Banks, Income Tax, Nationa, Insurance) as well as any contract you sign (rentals, electricity, telephone, checks etc). This means that anyone who gets hold of your ID number can find virtually ANYTHING about you - it would be mostly illegal but still many people can do this and the fact that you are forced to use the same identifying number everywere makes it far easier on them and harder for you to repudiate.
On the other hand - I still couldn't find how these cards are supposed to stop terrorist attacks. The government might say that it makes it easier for them to spy on attakers but attackers should be smart enough to use false identities, it will be just another hurdle for them to overcome.
There's a valid association in this case, though. South Africa issues "ID books" to all its citizens, a practice which started way back in the apartheid days, to be able to better keep track of who should be considered a first-class citizen and who shouldn't. By the late '80s, they were fingerprinting everyone and keeping that on file. It's not a coincidence that the most draconian regimes love to maintain detailed databases on their citizens - it helps them maintain control in all the wrong ways.
When legitimate, democratic governments start wanting such tools of control, no matter how noble the alleged purpose, it's worth examining all the ways in which they can be abused, and the regimes which have abused them in the past. All it takes for abuse to start is a few bad people.
I'll bet the UK is going to have a lot of fun engaging in heated debate when V for Vendetta comes out next month.
Try shopping somewhere like Lucky's late at night. On some evenings, the line to the banking system would be down. So instead of asking for your PIN, they will ask for a drivers license number (or any number you care to make up).
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
than on criminals. What else should be blown up to make UK fight domestic terrorists/religious radicals?
Just some background information. Currently in the UK there isn't a single document to prove that you're a resident and identifies you (a passport does not prove you're a resident, and anyway only a British citizen can obtain a passport).
This means that for many services having a ID could make sense.
Any other issue related to privacy, terror etc sits on top of this problem.
Ironclad Security only exists when you have Chuck Norris on the shift. Do we really have to discuss this? (Plutonite)
We may have gun control but we still have Bows and Arrows for defence.
Henry I (1100-1135) passed a law that absolved any archer if he killed a man whilst practising archery. (don't know if this has been repealed).
The first statute, 13 Edward I (ce 1285), known as the Statute of Winchester, ordered all males of a certain rank to shoot from the age of seven.
Writ to the Sheriffs to make proclamation encouraging the practice of archery by way of a pastime in place of football, cock-fighting, &c. Witness the King at Westminster, 1 June, 37 Edward III. [A.D. 1363]
In 1363 Edward III. commanded the general practice of archery on Sundays and holidays, all other sports being forbidden. The provisions of this act were from time to time re-issued, particularly in the well-known act of Henry VIII.
In 1365 archers were forbidden to leave England without a royal licence.
Statute by King Henry VIII in the 6th year of his reign - 1515 to promote Archery
Item: Whether the Kinges subjectes, not lame nor having no lawfull impediment, and beinge within the age of XI yeares, excepte Spiritual men, Justices etc. and Barons of the Exchequer, use shoting on longe bowes, and have bowe continually in his house, to use himself and that fathers and governours of chyldren teache them to shote, and that bowes and arrowes be bought for chyldren under XVII and above VII yere, by him that has such a chylde in his house, and the Maister maye stoppe it againe of his wages, and after that age he to provideb them himselfe: and who that is founde in defaute, in not having bowes and arrowes by the space of a moneth, to forfayte xiid.. And boyers for everie bowe of ewe, to make two of Elme wiche or othere wood of meane price, and if thei be founde to doe the contrarie, to be committed to warde, by the space of viii daies or more.
And that buttes be made, in everie citie, towne and place accordinge to the law of auncient time used, and the inhabitantes and dwellers in everye of them to exercise themselfe with longe bowes in shotinge at the same, and elles wher on holy daies and other times conveniente.
And that al bowstaves of ewe, be open and not solde in bundels nor close.
And that no stranger not being denizen, shall convey oute of the kinges obeilance (?) anie bowes, arrowes, or shaftes without the kinges speciall license upon paine of forfaiture, and also imprysonment nor use shotynge in anie longe bowe without the kinges license, uppon paine to forfaite the bowes and arrowes to the kinges subjectes that will Seaze them.
The Statute thereof is ANNO 6. H8. Cap:2
Modern day translation:-
The Statute by King Henry VIII in the 6th year of his reign - 1515 to promote Archery
Item: Whether the kings subjects, not lame nor having no lawfull impediment, and being within the age of 11 years, except Spiritual men, Justices etc. and Barons of the Exchequer, use shooting on longbows, and have bow continually in his house, to use himself, and that fathers and governers of children teach them to shoot, and that the bows and arrows be bought for children under 17 years and above 7 years, by him that has such a child in his house, and the master may stop it against his wages, and after that age he to provide them himself: and who that is found in default, in not having bows and arrows by the space of the month, to forfeit (xiid)12p.. and boys for every bow of yew, to make two of elm, wiche or other wood of mean price and if thee be found to do the contrary, to be committed to warde, by the space of 8 days or more.
And that butts be made, in every city, town and place according to the law of ancient time used, and the inhabitants and dwellers in every of them to exercise themself with longbows in shooting at the same, and elsewhere on holy days and other times conveniant.
And that all Bow staves of yew, be open and not sold in bundles nor close.
And that no stranger not been denizen, shall convey out of the kings obeilance (?) own bows, arrows, or shafts without th
I'd like to take the opportunity to thank my Grandfather's generation for the daring acts they undertook to stave off totalitarianism.
If only we had half their courage.
-Peter
I really don't understand it. I live in a country (Argentina) where ID is compulsory. It's called the DNI (National Identity Document) and it's issued at birth, and updated at 8 and 16 years old or so.
It's a booklet with my photo, my name, the name of my parents, and my wife/husband. It also registers my current address (and all previous addresses), and if I do military service, it has a little page for it too.
Also at the end there is the vote log where every time I go to vote (vote is also compulsory) they place this little stamp in there and there is evidence that I voted (because I can go to jail -- but most likely get a fine -- if I dont vote).
So I have to ask myself, after reading slashdotist-tinfoil-hatter comments about how you are smart enough to overcome the need for an ID and walk around the country with cash and a copy of the birth certificate to avoid having an ID.
Here's how it works here. If we're not in de-facto state (which hasn't been the csae since 1983) a cop or whoever cannot just ask for my ID. I don't need to show him or her, unless he has a court order, for example they usually do age checks in club areas, but otherwise they can't ask for my ID.
Suppose I want to open a bank account, I show up with some cash and my DNI. Plane ticket? Cash, and DNI. Pay with credit card? Cash, and DNI. I can do basically anything with it because it's convenient and it works anywhere.
But suppose I don't want to carry it around all day (good idea, because it's like using your car's master key instead of the duplicate. If you lose it you're in deep shit.). I need some other, more portable kind of ID. No problem, I can go to the federal police and get the federal police ID. It says my name, address, birth date, my DNI number (of course) and has my photo on the front, and my signature and thumb print on the back.
Whats the big deal then?
I surely try to understand what is all the fuss about mandatory ID cards.
In my contry it is mandatory, and I have one since I was 14, and I never saw anyone die out of it.
I admit, they were introduced in rough dictaorial times. But in a democracy, they work just fine, thanks, unless I want to just move away, change my name, and start a life with a made up ID. One intending to this would be out of the law anyway, I guess, even in countries with no ID cards. (if not, tell me where. I will just move over to your country and live 2 years in each place, leaving all my debts behind each time I move).
Moreover, in USA people already have the infamous driver licenses and Social Security numbers - which identifies one either way.
So, what is the fuss about?
Honest. I am not meaning to troll here, I want you to explain me that.
-><- no
I've lived in (i.e had a home in) 4 countries. Three of them required a national ID card.
These countries have had the ID card system for decades, are democracies, and to my personal experience (limited as that may be), are free and fair countries.
Finland has a card system with an SSN. Everyone has a card, its necessary to have it to open a bank account, rent an apartment or get a bus pass.
Belgium has it. Everyone carries it. Want a new mobile phone connection - card please.
Singapore has it. Your I/C number is on every transaction you do. My video library has it on record. Car dealer, employer, IRS, hospital, daughter's school (has her's and mine on record) and so on.
Does it make things easy for me? Yes. Loan approval is a snap, landlord doesn't look at you suspiciously (if you have a card, then you're legit, so he has no worries).
Am I worried about loss of privacy? Not sure. But I sure as hell am getting used to it.
What about the fourth country? That would be India. You need some form of identification to do various things, like open a bank account - an introduction letter by an existing account holder (or your employer) is enough. There is a voter ID card, but it isn't mandatory. You can vote without it, as long as your name is on the census list. And the lists are prepared and displayed in advance, so you can ask to be added. You need a proof of residence - your lease agreement or property tax document is enough. For a phone connection, you need some form of photo identification - your student ID card, driving licence, company ID card, passport, anything with your name and photo will do. Need to file your taxes - use your PAN (permanent account number). Don't have one? File your taxes anyway, though do apply for a PAN to use next time.
India has a terrorism problem. We've had bombs going off for more than twenty years now. A large part of the problem is the porous borders and terrorists coming in with the rest of the illegal immigrants.
But at no time has a national ID card or greater surveillance been touted as a solution. India is still the freeest country in the world, with no ID required to travel anywhere. As an Indian I can take a flight within India without showing any ID other than the ticket. Since the ticket is not transferrable, they may ask to see some form of ID (e.g. a credit card with my photo on it) if I don't look like M55. But thats it.
Bottomline - an ID card can make things easier, my personal experience hasn't shown it being abused.
But the reasons that the American and British governments are giving for greater surveillance don't hold water.
cat
I was in Italy recently, and was quite surprised to find out that I had to supply identification before any internet cafe would let me use their computers - apparently a government requirement. I was surprised because I knew this sort of thing was required in China so that the government could track what people were looking at, but I didn't really expect it in Italy. (then again, I don't know too much about Italy)
A year ago I moved from Ireland (no compulspry ID) to Belgium (Compulsory ID) and have managed the change without difficulty. In fact, in many situations, it has been useful.
The ID card here contains my picture, DOB, ID number and address. 3 of these are already on my passport (ok, granted the ID number isn't the same as my Irish passport number but it is of a similar vein).
Having my address included, which to some may be considered invasive, has proved useful when opening accounts (e.g. Bank, DVD Store, etc.) where a proof of address is needed. As the ID's are considered official, they are accepted as proof of ID and proof of address. So I no longer have to bring an electricity bill to open an account with the local equivalent of Chartbusters.
Other than that I can see no difference with having this card to having a Passport. In fact, just before my last visit to Ireland I ruined my passport by putting through the laundry. Turned out that holding a valid ID Card for an EU country was sufficient ID for passport control when travelling...
Maybe this system can be abused and therefore merits genuine concern but I have yet to witness this. Hopefully, it should be the same in the UK
You have moved your mouse. You must restart Windows for these changes to take effect.
I+D=ID=nonsence
US military members must have their ID on them at all times. Its not bad, it just isnt going to fix anything.
A government that plans to put a GPS in every car and build a nationwide monitoring system, just to collect road taxes, is balking at the cost of handing out ID cards?
There can be a way for the common citizen to revoke the ID in a rapid and easy manner.
The best kind of ID card for a citizen of a republic is an ID card that has NO revealing attribute (age/weight/sex/address/affliation) and has ONLY ONE simple long number protected by 3-way public keys (ok ok, just throw in a decent picture and a full name for good measure for old time sake, but nothing else).
Three public keys are provided by three parties of interest surrounding such an ID card:
1. Consumer (i.e., driver, traveler, purchaser)
2. Merchant (i.e., service-provider, manufacturer)
3. Arbitrator (i.e., Government, credit-history bureau)
If any of the three can invalidate the ID, then it's a fair identity card.
With that said, I'd take it any second.
If the government wants biometric, they can maintain such parametric data separately from such an ID card using side-band verification channel, but please... please, don't include the biometric data IN the ID card. Biometric parametric data is a perishable resource...Once stolen, forever stolen (and NEVER revokeable, even with hash data thrown in).
For non-residents (read ex pats) visiting the country and deciding they might like to stay a while, will they need an id card? Will a passport still be considered sufficient? OT If I acquire American citizenship do I need an ID card to visit?
Any idea of the consequences for foreigners vissiting the UK?
The original plan called for the cards to be mandatory for them as well, to be purchased at point of entry into the country for something like a hundred pounds.
Or was that scrapped because it would hurt tourism and business travel too much?
Remember that ALL governments exist only to increase their own power.
In the end every government will decline towards a totalitarian state, especially one led by socialists (and especially (ex-)labour union leaders).
and that's exactly what they're planning to do, have every car transmit its location, direction and speed of travel to a central computer at regular intervals (every minute, every 10 seconds, who cares, it's still Big Brother watching your every move).
The Brits will have to be quick though to be the first, the Dutch government is planning to have the system in place and operational nationwide by 2012 to more efficiently enforce speed limits (no more need for policemen to sit in cold cars along roads with laserguns, no more need for automated cameras which get vandalised every few weeks, every car reports itself immediately when it's speeding).
In Britain, we will be expected to carry it at ALL times, and they will prosecute you if you don't. Britain follows the EU commandments even when our EU neighbours disregard its laws. British officials are intensely slavish to the letter of the law, so it will be a nuisance and a concern to us here.
I think we still have a law that says if we don't have a certain amount of money in our pockets we can be arrested for vagrancy. As other posters have said, it's not the card per se, it's the Dbase behind the card, which goes beyond anything we've ever had to put up with before.
You misunderstand, most of us *want* the police to brutalise hunt supporters - that's democracy for you!
They want them for anyone staying longer than 3 months, but this law only makes them compulsory for UK passport holders. So their usefulness for combatting illegal immigration is zero with the law passed yesterday, and IMHO near zero even if they bring in a fully compusory scheme. As for how they propose to combat terrorism with this, I still haven't heard any concrete proposals on that.
I'm far more worried about the government than the extremely small chance of ID theft (plus, I do just about everything reasonable to reduce ID theft).
And to prove bureaucracy has not gone wild, the same easy to identify 'patchs' from the 40's, will be made available free - to selected groups. Citizen, wear yours today, with pride.
Maybe the point has been missed, besides fee gouging, don't they already do the same checks with passports now - the ones with the chips in them? One check is redundant, and false logic is being used to cover the fraud.
I wonder whether that six percent represent thieves, fraudsters, illegal immigrants and co? It's obviously not in their best interests to be identified.
The argument against compulsory ID cards is based largely on the fear of eroding civil liberties and basic human rights. There is also a lot of anti-EU feeling coming out of the woodwork. This all seems rather ironic. Preservation of basic human rights and civil liberties are at the heart of EU policy - a fact which is often used by the tabloids to poke fun at their legislation.
To those that fear a 1984-style totalitarian police state, home secretary Charles Clarke notes "[the UK Identity Cards Bill] does not make it compulsory to carry a card, nor does it give powers to the police to stop individuals and demand to see their card. Neither will the database which accompanies the card hold information such as medical records, religion or political beliefs."
Therefore it seems to me that fears of 'abolition of our way of life' are slightly over-blown. Of course, the possibility of forgery is a valid concern, but let's put things in perspective here. It's going to be significantly more difficult to forge a biometric ID card than a traditional passport or driving license, both of which are currently used to identify people.
I'd rather have my identity stored in one, secure location rather than spread over credit cards, my driving license, passport, company ID card and suchlike. I'd rather that the Government had my biometric data so my alibi could be proved if I was ever wrongly accused of a crime. I'd rather benefit fraud, election fraud, human trafficking and illegal immigration were reduced. Did you know that over £50 million a year is lost on benefit fraud due to the use of false identities?
Personally, I don't mind having my fingerprint and iris scanned. I'll be glad for everyone to have such scans. Criminals would be identified with more accuracy than ever before. Since I'm not planning any murders or robberies, it really doesn't bother me.
I have nothing to fear from people knowing who I am. Do you?
Here in Northern Ireland, which is still part of the UK, we can apply for an Irish Passport instead of a UK one. Guess what I'll be doing when my UK one runs out :)
Jonathan
http://www.justgofaster.com/
New passports in Britain are already biometric ; currently, the only biometric being used is face-recognition. The passport form comes with a sheet of regulations for your new passport photo that those in the know will instantly recognise as being for the purpose of enabling a machine to recognise your face more easily, things like guidelines on the aspect of your face, position in the photo, no background detail, etc.
British constitutional arrangements have always been moderately hard for outsiders to understand, and are now even more difficult. The Union parliament (in Westminster) happens to be the same institution as one of the National parliaments (for England). It isn't the same as the parliament for Scotland or Wales, and it doesn't (in general) make laws for Scotland or Wales, except with regard to things like foreign policy.
In principle Northern Ireland also has its own parliament. In practice it doesn't, because the Loyalists won't co-operate with the Republicans so the province is governed from Westminster - but nevertheless has its own laws.
So while it is true that 'UK MPs approve compulsory ID cards', this only applies in England, because 'UK MPs' don't have legislative authority over the rest of the UK. Of course, England is by far the largest of the nations of the United Kingdom. It's also by far the most authoritarian and right-wing nation of the United Kingdom.
The Scottish Executive have already said that Scotland will not have compulsory ID cards; I don't know what the position is for Wales and Northern Ireland, but in any case this law won't apply there. What will happen if someone from Scotland (who does not have to have an ID card) is stopped by police in England (where people will have to have ID cards) isn't clear, but doubtless this will get sorted out by the courts.
So this is a bit like the Texas legislature introducing compulsory ID cards, and the headlines saying 'US introduces compulsory ID cards'. It is true, sort of, but... only in Texas.
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
... for me personally, as I was planning on returning to the UK in about a year or so to get away from this kind of thing in my own country.
Now I'll have to go to fuck knows where. Some island country in the middle of... you know what? I'll just keep that to myself.
Nyhetsankaret.com -- det bÃsta av Sveriges Nyhetssido
And the reason the CIA's 'rendition' planes drop in at Preswick so often is just refuelling, is it? Actually, probably, yes it is; but it doesn't seem to me we're less complicit if we just let our airports be used for refuelling. We should at the very least have withdrawn our ambassador from Washington.
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
I didn't realise that. Thank you.
I've moved from Belgium ,a country with ID cards , to the UK , a country without ID cards. I must say ID cards are pretty damn handy. You try to do a simple thing like opening a bank account in the UK. It took me 6 weeks of running around with phone and electricity bills to prove my identity and to actually get paid by my UK employer. There is a huge burden on private companies that depend on their consumer's identities to invest resources on security. 'Security' that is based on checking phone bills. It's idiotic. In ID countries that burden is outsourced to the governement , where it belongs.
It's ridiculous for people to maintain that they are more free without ID Cards when they need to go through lengths to perform simple administrative tasks in day to day life using low security pseudo ID like a damn phone bill.
ID-phobia is just an irrational fear deeply held by people who obviously do not live in a global economy where waiting 6 weeks to open a bank account is a nightmare.
Same situation here. I fear I may accidentally lose my passport over the next few months. Oops.
Posted anonymously because I really am that distrustful.
Do you have a reference from an organisation credible enough not to use the phrase "car-hating British government" in their press releases?
When it comes to opressing people, this government has a very good record when using technology. Speed cameras, facial recognition systems, number plate phtography and vehicle movement monitoring, congestion charging etc
If you commit a motoring "offence" the letter arrives almost the next day.
So, I predict that this system (or multiplicity of systems which is what it will be) will cost billions, but will be delivered and will work.
It's only when it come to assisting people that government can't (won't) do Info Tech. (Health, the Child Support Agency, Social Security systems etc)
To take an HISTORICAL example in context, if you shop at the wrong shop (for example for Kosher food, or whatever prescribe your religion as special food) then you get shipped to the enxt concentration camp. And never get back from them. So you do not need to make a database about the religion of the people (illegal in many country) just do a database of their food shopping habits... Such database will give moer true info than a questionnaire where people have to disclose their religion : some people will not do it out of spite or paranoia, BUT their shopping habits give them up for what they are even if they do not want to...
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I live in a EU country. We have compulsory ID cards for decades, it's mandatory to carry yours all the time, and nobody gives a shit about it.
Brits will get used to it, eventually.
That was the last thing pushed through using the Parliament Act, and was the death-knell into obscurity for the House of Lords.
"4. Absolutely false. Your bank might make you present ID, for their own protection. So go to another bank, or to your mother/brother/uncle/neighbor/boss/etc. and have them cash your check. I have *never* presented ID to cash a check in my life."
Even people who know me ask for my ID, and claim that it's necessary"
I knew you were lying when you said this. People who KNOW you demand ID? Bullshit.
I realize you were trying to make a point, but don't make shit up.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
Look, the cards are not a major problem, so please stop saying 'I have one and we have no problems', it's the huge database (the National Identity Register) that sits behind the cards and holds lots of information on the card holder (which can link all existing government databases on the card holder, something which currently tends to take a court order, or the security services and an awful lot of manpower due to people being known by slightly different names, addresses etc.) and an audit trail of all transactions using the card.
No Government in the world has done anything like this before! Although the French are now thinking of doing it. This is the big problem, the law is mainly about the creation of this register, and the Government have been trying to avoid people realising this. If you think about the implications of this register it truely is something out of an Orwellian nightmare!
And what's wrong with recording speeding offenses automatically?
Nothing provided they are being assessed sensibly.
60MPH on a motorway, at night, in freezing fog with a 10 metre visibility, is legal but very unsafe.
90MPH on a motorway, on a quiet Sunday morning, on a dry sunny summers day, is not legal but safe with a modern vehicle.
The thing with automatic systems is that they don't take in to account these things. A traffic cop can use his experience to decide whether someone is safe or not. In the end a traffic cop is there to ensure the safety of the roads and not actually whether the laws are being adhered to. (I know two traffic cops).
Cameras are fine for enforcing slow speed suburban streets just no where else.
So, in a accident situation where my options are:
a) accelerate to 10mph above the speed limit into to escape unscathed
or
b) keep a legal speed and die
I should be penalised for having the common sense to go faster than the speed limit?
All laws can be flexed. This is why we have judges - to ensure the law is applied reasonably and to the spirit of the law, if not the letter. A mindless automaton handing out penalties for speeding is not only unfair, but more importantly, fosters a culture of disrespect for the law, which will spread to realms outside of motoring.
I'm curious as to how the Data Protection Act applies to the ID Card scheme. Under the data protection act I have the right to demand a hard copy of all the data that any company holds on me. Will I be able to use this to demand knowledge of what info the ID Card database holds on me? And if so - how do I prove that its me thats requesting the data? By ID Card? Seems a bit catch-22 to me.
Why are you so against these cards? They're not actually that bad. It is just one of those issues where it is very easy and natural to take the "NO THEY ARE BAD!" view, but in fact it is not so terrible. The worst it will be is a waste of money.
... why is that a problem? It isn't. It helps catch criminals, and it actually does.
I do not see why you have these objections. "they want to take my DNA if I'm arrested for a crime I haven't committed"
I think you should stop the knee-jerk reactions and actually think about things. You may think you are thinking right now, but your not. Be calm and logical. You may come to the same conclusion, but then you will be able to come up with a better argument for it than "I feel disgusted that my government feels free to treat me like a criminal in my own country".
And voting for the torries is just a plain terrible idea. Don't do it.
(How odd. In this story I have been posting as a real Pro-ID-Cards person, when in fact I am not. It seems somewhat necessary though.)
- Jax
I could write out an interesting paragraph or three on the dilemma here, but truth be told, my reaction upon finding out about this was:
MOTHERFUCKER
This is a huge decision to make, and it's being made on my behalf by a bunch of insulated middle-class politics and law graduates who I wouldn't trust with my wallet, let alone my identity. Where's the referendum? Where's our vote on the matter? It completely breaks my trust in our system of government that in less than a generation the government could do so much on our behalf without proper representation. It's deeply disturbing.
What really terrifies me though is that I can't think of a nation I can emigrate too that doesn't have the same sorts of problems in one form or another. Suggestions? Japan, maybe? I hear they have pocky.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Reading Private Eye (2006/02/03), I notice the large financial consultancy "KPMG" audited the costs of the ID card scheme. The audit results were mostly kept secret. The bit that was published doesn't support Home Office Minister Andy Burnham's statement that the government financial projections were "robust and appropriate".
The LSE (London School of Economics) academics say the cards will cost a great deal more, as much as GBP10bn to GBP19bn. KPMG has the motivation to hide things under the carpet, as it hunts for other government contracts.
Environmentalism is the new Victorianism. Everyone ties on a green corset and pretends we're virtuous.
I submit that "drastic enough measures" would be, and are, indistinguishable from "terrorism." To whit:
Are the NSA wiretaps lawful? I wish I could ask that in the past tense, but have they stopped? What effect has the revelation of their use had on society?
Are no-knock, secret property searches a violation of the Fourth Amendment? What effect has the institution of this and similar tactics had on society.
Using the DoD's operational defintion of "terrorism," the present administration's own actions, and those of their lapdogs in the Legislative and Judicial branches, reveal them to be terrorists.
--
Sig null
This is not racism but we do lack a word for discrimination based on faith, don't we?
Are you suggesting that they are targetting christian religions?
Hmmm... what about catholics and protestants in Northern Ireland? Going back on topic: should ID cards there contain a reference to religion or not? Wouldn't that be abused sooner or later? There's no need to talk about muslims and jews being targeted, the problem runs much deeper than this. It's about what exactly belongs to an identity and ought to be recorded as such? DNA signatures perhaps? Everything else, including religion and nationality, color of hairs, political affiliation, whatever, ... could change. So what's the essence itself of identity?
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
I was around the area on the day. The pro-hunting protesters where really pushing their luck, the frontline people facing the police were gratuitioulsy agressive, until the police had to hit back.
Of course the pro-hunting lobby use this to play the role of victims, but they were not blameless.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Labour is born out of socialist movements, and we know that Socialism has very nasty tendencies to control and sheperd people in the direction the state dictates.
Taken to the extreme, that is Communism, we know the control freakery can be quite scary.
The people currently in power (as a movement) I believe never had the chance to be this long as rulers, thus they are showing their true, big broterish, colours (I can almost hear George Orwell: "I told you so!"). Their reflect reaction is always to control.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
If that is you idea of more secure I never want you watching after me.
If you have different documents to relate to the state and to other organizations then the chances of your full identity being hijacked diminish in inverse proportion to the amount of relationships you need to keep.
If your only relationship to get a gamut of services is one little card, the day someone else manages to fake it, then you are fucked. Big time.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
In the US you are pretty much a non person if you don;t have a driving license or a social security number.
Well, guess what, illegal immigrants need neither. They will be hired to do one job, will be paid in cash, and be let go to never be seen again.
ID cards would change nothing regarding this, employers that employ illegal immigrants now, will continue to do so. Or do you thing Illegal immigrants will be queuing for their ID cards any time soon?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Sorry guys, British people need to get a clue and vote for the party that consistently has opossed this scam.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Absolutely right. My error.
Why are you so against these cards? They're not actually that bad. It is just one of those issues where it is very easy and natural to take the "NO THEY ARE BAD!" view, but in fact it is not so terrible. The worst it will be is a waste of money.
That alone is a more than sufficient reason - we're talking billions here. You don't throw away that sort of money just because "it's not that bad", you need to have a very strong argument as to what good it will do.
Has the Congress issued a Declaration of War? Against whom? Where can I find a copy?
If the Congress has not issued a Declaration of War, how can the President be exercising "wartime powers?"
The CATO Institute doesn't believe a Declaration of War has been issued. Do you?
I found this quote from that article quite interesting, as well, in the context of a Declaration of War:
None, there are no reports of anyone who's been injured by tapping; no violation of trade secrets, noones personal property have been infringed...Do you believe that the same people who feel entitled to intercept private communications without first obtaining a warrant (or, without obtaining one within the FISA specified period) would feel compelled to report that they have caused injury to anyone by implementing their secret policy? If you don't know you're being tapped, how do you know if you've been injured? If you think you've been injured by a secret tap, how can you prove it if they're secret? Will the Administration say, 'Oh, yeah, sorry about that mate. National Security and all. Feel free to talk to the press.'
On the otherhand, I'm sure that anyone who had contacts with terrorist-related entities has now either encoded their speech, shortened their messages, or switched to alternative (electronic) secure communications. So, in a sense, we've made made it harder for our society to detect harm coming our way, which in my opinion is the real crime.
The 'enemy combatants,' if they have two neurons to fire together, have to assume that their communications are subject to interception. If they accept that, then they would have to be assumed to be taking measures to obfuscate their communications. On this, you and I (seem to) agree. If the targets of these secret taps are encrypting their communications, then what is the point of the secret taps?
--
Sig nificant
As an alumn, it makes me proud to see such straight talk from the LSE on the social costs and accountability concerns of biometric tech.
i onOffice/newsAndEvents/archives/2006/IDCard_Status ReportJan06.htm
http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/pressAndInformat
"Dozens of questions about the scheme's architecture, goals, feasibility, stakeholder engagement and outcomes remain unanswered. These questions are outlined in this report. The security of the scheme remains unstable, as are the technical arrangements for the proposal. The performance of biometric technology is increasingly questionable. We continue to contest the legality of the scheme. The financial arrangements for the proposals are almost entirely secret, raising important questions of constitutional significance."
Aomeone should start a movement to fight this. They should be well organized to show how many people feel this is wrong. Probably the best way to organize would be to but its members in some sort of database. When those people meet they should be able to prove they are who they say they are. Perhaps the organizers could issue some type of document they could distribute to those members. That would show the government who's in charge!
Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
"Civil rights are not prevented in any way by gun control (that is a very good thing and we want it. Don't you dare criticise our right not to get shot). CCTV has reduced crime a lot, and we don't like crime. It doesn't affect our civil rights at all. ID cards do not affect civil rights either at all."
First you said that, then you said this
"You are just blind of the problems of America"
I thought it very funny that you accuse others of being blind, while INSISTING that your civil liberties aren't being curtailed. I chuckled at the ridiculousness of your statements.
No one agrees with you. Think about that.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
I guess they'll be exempted, huh?
Cuz nobody wants to be knifed in the streets for offending a Muslim, which is, after all, their birthright and a unique and wonderful aspect of their ancient culture we must all respect.
"New" labour is largely comprised of a gang of ex-trots who saw the light, ie. nobody ever voted for that bunch of arses, so best pretend to be cuddly, liberal and business-friendly (because it's easier to line yer own pockets that way). I grew up in Scotland, and have a keen interest in the working man not being stiffed by the bastards, but Labour in all their guises in that part of the world have always been a gang of corrupt bastards.
And they never change. They genuinely think that they are much smarter than everyone else and know better than the population at large what is good for them. Which may be reliably translated as what is good for them, and to hell with everyone else.
They are a bunch of sleekit, lying bastards, and I hope that everyone who did vote for them is suitably ashamed.
I agree with that, yes. That is the reason I am against it.
(If you look at my other posts in this thread, I seem for it, but in fact I am not. I just don't agree it takes away any of our civil rights)
- Jax
[Sirens wailing as police pull Peter over]
Police Officer: You're that black guy I saw on the news conference, ain't you?
Peter Griffin: Yeah, that's me.
Police Officer: This is Car 15 needing backup. I got a stolen car here.
Peter Griffin: It's my car.
Police Officer: Suspect's getting belligerent.
Peter Griffin: What?
Police Officer: Officer down.
The Rise and Fall of Online Community
Try being on the wrong end of a government department screwing up your tax records because they mistyped one little NI number and fluked another valid one (yours) instead one day. Trust me, that'll leave you hundreds of quid out of pocket, for several months, and take you dozens of hours trying to sort things out.
Try being on the wrong end of a government department messing up your health records, because their system doesn't understand that you're the same person who applied for the same thing a year ago, and won't give you the same result this time.
Both of these happened to me, at times in my life when I was particularly vulnerable to them, and that was two separate databases where the damage caused by screwing up my identity was minimal. When this stuff breaks -- and it will do, frequently, if only through innocent human error as happened to me in those previous cases -- then people's whole lives are going to be screwed for months. And that's on top of the usual objections about unbounded cost, civil liberties, inaccuracy of the information leading to false positives (have you actually checked the stats on how reliable some of the biometric technology is? They're scary) and all the rest of it.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Basil can't see me, which makes this enormously fun, but as you can see, he's clearly come from the shallow end of the gene pool. He equates a fox's life with a humans because he's squeamish about killing things.
Meanwhile, he hasn't a clue how they kill beef.
Really, there's no doubt that his mum should have gotten an abortion. No doubt at all.
Ah interesting point.
I will remember it. Thank you.
(Like I say, I'm not actually for it.)
- Jax
What is it with political loyalty in this country? I just don't vote conservative sounds like a fashion statement rather than a thought out political opinion. Particularly when followed up with how entirely useless the current government is. I don't mind which way round people want to vote, but you have got to do better than that. The reason labour got into power was because conservatives became unfashionable? I think not... They were screwing up and people got rid of them. By that metric I would have chucked out Tony before the last election. But no, can't vote Tory, gotta put up with them and whinge about how bad they are. You had your chance, you voted them back in (repeatedly) and now you're upset when they are the same detached and self-serving government that went into the election.
r y.page&obj_id=127852
Anyway as I understand it the conservatives _are_ against ID cards.
http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.sto
(I'm no fanboy btw I just googled that)
What I want to see is if the House of Lords turn it down, and then the Government use the Parliament Act again to force it through with utter disregard for the legislative structure of this country. Their attempts to weaken the influence of the Lords and to replace many of its members with their own carefully selected candidates didn't quite finish the job, so they just ignore them instead. That is not how it's supposed to work. The entire reason for the Lords is to provide a check on the government. If the party has a majority and its MPs vote on the party line then Tony is pretty much dictating what goes on. The Lords are there to limit that power. Which sounds like a good reason for the Government to want rid of them. Like I said, I'd be interested to see what happens if the Lords kick it back again. I don't think they'll let that stop them.