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."
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...
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?
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.
In most countries you can't just walk into a store, purchase a shotgun & shells, then carry the firearm right out of the door with you.
Remember, the United States is a big place. You'd only be able to walk out of the store on the same day, provided you pass the instant background check AND you're in a state that does not impose its own waiting period. Add to that various local restriction on the purchase of ammo.
However, yes, there are places in the US where you can walk into your local hardware or sporting goods store in the morning, pick up a shotgun, a box of shells, and some clays, and drop by the local range in the afternoon. Unfortunately, with urban creep, and the diaspora of urbanites who tend to bring their laws with them, these places are starting to become fewer and fewer.
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.
Perhaps it's because many of us grew up with movies depicting SS guards demanding to see the papers of French citizens in order to stomp out resistence.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
okay,, both the article and the parent post stated that the id card was only mandatory for people applying for passports...
so, the situation is this: you submit to enumeration by the state or you are not allowed to leave the country.
i submit that before 2008 we'll see people 'defecting' from britain.
2 1337 4 u!
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).
Actually I already did that one and took out Canadian citizenship. I'll be quite happy to travel on a canadian passport rather than get forced to submit to getting a useless ID card with farr too much personal information on it.
Well I live in the UK and that is the last time I vote for a Labour government.
Good luck Blair.
I'm waiting for a particularly odious Bill not to receive Royal Assent. Elizabeth II is probably too apolitical to refuse, but Charles looks as if he knows what happened at Runneymede
I read the LA Times - it was rather interesting to hear how all the city mayors in SoCal were asked to play a trading game. All the city mayors with expected population growth were given blue chips. All the city mayors who had land available for housing were given red chips. The two had to trade chips so that six million new residents had to find a house each.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Using New Hampshire (the state I live in) as my basis here...
1. You want to drive.
Though you don't need to have it with you to drive.
2. You want to travel on an airplane (and most inter-city bus systems say you have to show one when asked, though they don't usually check).
Our great friend + activist Russel Kanning attempted to board a plane at Manchester international last year without ID, and was informed that he would be allowed if he submitted to the "selective screening" proceedures. He refused and there is a court case being organized.
3. You want to buy a firearm or ammunition (in most states).
Not here.
4. You want to cash a check (read: get paid).
I've never shown any. I usually do it at the convenience store though, they will cash checks up to $1000.
5. You want to pay for anything with a check or credit card (and places that sell expensive items don't always accept cash!).
Is a credit card or a check an ID card, or an electronic money payment system?
6. You want to enroll in school.
Didn't show one for college. Used a notarized statement instead, I didn't need ID to get it.
7. You want to buy cigarettes or alcohol.
You got me. I have bought cigarettes ONCE, I used my birth certificate when asked for ID (had it printed in wallet size, easy to carry). Got a funny look but they sold them to me.
8. You want to get an ID (Yes, really, even if this isn't exactly what the law says. I've been through this).
I guess I don't understand what you're saying here. I don't want an ID card!
If you could guess, I don't carry photo ID. I don't have a social security number either. I don't have a license but I still drive a car. I paid cash for the car. I carry my birth certificate sometimes, but not usually. I pay cash for nearly everything, but sometimes I do pay check. None of this has ever caused me a problem except once when I got pulled over and said I didn't have my license. I got a ticket and a court date, and if I showed a license I wouldn't be fined. I went to court and they dropped the charge, without investigating. I'm usually conscious when I'm driving, I speed but not to excess and don't really put myself at risk of being the cause of an accident, since I'm uninsured.
I love living here.
Yes, but they're in favor of bloodsports, so what's the problem?
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
You're entirely correct.
Right now, I'm not in a position to move to another country and leave my life in Britain. In the future, it's something I see myself doing.
With CCTV cameras on every corner, Government intrustion to subjects' personal lives, and this new ID card farce, the UK is not a country in which I wish to live. In 2007 I plan to renew my passport for 10 years (the standard renewal period) which will give me time to learn the necessary foreign language (most likely Dutch or German) and plan for a life outside the UK.
Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
I have no problem with any injury being inflicted on pro-hunting protestors, up to and including being ripped apart by dogs.
Except in most uses the biometrics will not be checked (bar a quick look at the photographic component to check the holder vaguely resembles teh portrait).
Times when other biometrics are used will be rare as for a properly secure system ID card will not hold all the biometrics data otherwise it will be too easy to reverse engineer biometric data and produce fake ID cards.
Note biometrics are poor anyway, they will have to have very loose acceptance windows, but whichever approach they take either hassle of false positives (i.e. more chance of impersonator matching a valid ID) or false negatives (the legit person fails on biometrics test).
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.
I have a passport. That's all I need to prove my identity. In order to open a bank account, you also have to provide a proof of address, which I find is always more of a pain to get hold of.
Is it ID-Phobic to ask why I need an ID card, when I already have a passport?
Is it ID-Phobic to ask what problem would be solved with ID cards, that cannot be solved with a passport?
Is it ID-Phobic to ask who will have access to my biometric data?
If you are a citizen of the United Kingdom, you can apply for a passport, which is considered proof of ID everywhere. (Except liquor stores in Pittsburgh,PA.. but that's another rant). If you are an asylum seeker in the UK, there is already an ID scheme in place for you. If you are visiting the UK, you already have ID issued by your country of citizenship.
I oppose ID cards, and will continue to be so until someone can tell me why they are a good thing. The burden of proof is on those who wish to introduce something that costs umpteen billion pounds.