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."

Comments

Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[Elessar]

Actually it is only compulsory when applying for a passport. It will not be compulsory otherwise.

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

The real question is, will it be compulsory to apply for an ID card? Cuz that'd be a bummer...

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[ChubZee]

The worry is they can legislate later to make them compulsory... and at an estimated cost of £30 a time, they're not exactly going to be cheap. Buy one with your passport and you're looking at £93, thats 2 full days work for me!

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[rovingeyes]

I'd rather rephrase it like this "Actually it is only compulsory when applying for a passport. It will not be compulsory otherwise for now". Once the system is in place, its only a matter of time when it becomes common place. All they have to do is prove to public that they either caught a terrorist or prevented a subway bomb somehow. Fear is the easiest thing to sell to public.

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[NoMercy]

So, in other words, it's compulsory.

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[Vanders]

Well that's O.K then, because I never need to renew my passport. I also trust the government to not abuse such a scheme and I'm totally confident in their ability to competent and cost effective contractors such as EDS to implement the ID card database and biometric identification system.

Excuse me one moment. Nurse! It's time for my medication!

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[uzusan]

i remember seeing a while back an article on bbc news that said that some major companies in the uk will be asking for the new id whenever an applicant applies for a job. so while it is not compulsory to buy one, you'll probably need one if you ever need a new job. recently privacy seems to be eroding in europe (and the uk in particular), what with the recent vote to force isp's to retain data for up to 6 months on every user (approved in december), privacy rights seem to be going down the drain.

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[IIH]

Actually it is only compulsory when applying for a passport. It will not be compulsory otherwise.

So if you disagree with the idea, you can't even leave the country. Nice.

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[biglig2]

But of course, dear boy, each employer in the UK is liable for staggering fines if they employ someone who is an illegla immigrant. So although it is not required that you produce an ID card, what employer will take the chance?

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[Frymaster]

The real question is, will it be compulsory to apply for an ID card? Cuz that'd be a bummer...

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.

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[nurb432]

Today, but if you dont believe that will be expanded into 'everyday life', then you are either a fool or blind.

Once you accept this, its a small step to the next level.

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[Pantero Blanco]

At this point in the US, ID cards are mandatory if:

1. You want 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).
3. You want to buy a firearm or ammunition (in most states).
4. You want to cash a check (read: get paid).
5. You want to pay for anything with a check or credit card (and places that sell expensive items don't always accept cash!).
6. You want to enroll in school.
7. You want to buy cigarettes or alcohol.
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'd say that's pretty damn compulsory.

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[Philip K Dickhead]

Can you picture Jerry Cornelius or Ford Prefect with one of these things?

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[uzusan]

surely there's a better way of proving to a company that im not an illegal immigrant than an id card? im not sure if im comfortable with giving a prospective employer access to all of my details (whatever ends up stored on the card). giving them access to data is fair enough, but for the most part, i dont know exactly what is on the card. who's to say that there could be information put on the card that i dont want them to know? how would i check this? i agree in principal that they need to do something about illegal immigration but not at the expense of every one else's freedom to privacy.

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[askegg]

I don't know what it's like in the UK, but in in Australia a passport is considered a very good means of identification. Of course this raises the question of how to I provide enough evidence to prove who I am in order to obtain a passport? Making a identification card compulsory add another layer - now how do I prove who I am in order to obtain an identification card so I can get a passport (no, you can't use your passport)?

The ultimate question is: How can you *prove* who you are?

In the end it comes down to webs of trust.

Of course, all of this misses the point. Are these measures meant to make us safer? From what? Terrorism? The guys who blew themselves up on the London undeground and on the buses were not hiding their identities. They were British citizens and in walked freely.

How does a compulsory id card to obtain a passport (which is already compulsory for travel) going to prevent this?

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[stunt_penguin]

Unless you're from Northern Ireland, like myself, and will never have a british passport. They'll have to catch me first.

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[ferrellcat]

Well, not exactly.

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[laughingcoyote]

No need for any -actual- event, even. If you can get away with shooting an unarmed man with no connection to terrorism, just on the grounds of terrorism in general, one would imagine you could push this through pretty easily with the same tactics.

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[gronofer]

I suspect it will be compulsory for immigrants too, whether or not they can apply for a British passport.

I think it's going to be linked to residence permits, which up to now have been voluntary for EU citizens living in the UK.

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[MentalMooMan]

"i submit that before 2008 we'll see people 'defecting' from britain."

Damn right there. I'm jumping ship as soon as I can.

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[Anonymous Coward]

Same here, your passport is usually used for ID. Very few people don't have one.

This isn't going to do anything the passport can't do. Somehow the biometric data makes it less likely to be forged. That's nonsense.

Most forged passports are thanks to corrupt people in the passport office. My guess is that the ID card office will be no different - so the forged ID cards (which WILL exist) will look no different to the genuine ones because they will have been issued and created by the genuine ID card office. They'll if anything be harder to tell if they're forged because the government are advertising them as unforgeable, so if you have one that matches the records noone will think to think that it could be forged.

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[Pig Hogger]

So, in other words, it's compulsory.

Aren't the brits like the 'mericans, that is, they don't like to go abroad???

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[crispi]

and if your passport has expired and you're overseas, how do you even get a ID card?
(I hold an expired UK current and Australian passports). I sense some vicious circle happening here...

Crispi

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[drsmithy]

Actually it is only compulsory when applying for a passport. It will not be compulsory otherwise.

Sounds like the House of Lords will have to mod it (-1, Redundant)...

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[Rdickinson]

The current New Labour government practices thin end of the wedge legislation.

Once this is on the books and active its a few easy steps to make compulsary or virtualy indistinguishable from it.

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[Pantero Blanco]

If someone is walking up to me and picks up a crowbar along the way, am I supposed to wait until they start swinging it to get defensive?

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[Isotopian]

Don't be silly. You run! Gordon Freeman, after all, is invincible.

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[Acer500]

Hope this helps:

In my country, we have had compulsory ID's since 1905.

Quite simply, it started as a way to associate your fingerprints with a name and a photo - does that answer the "How can you prove who you are" issue?

There have been talks of adding DNA to this, but for now it's just the fingerprint.

It is compulsory of any person over 45 days of age (it is issued at most hospitals)

As far as I know, it is used in much the same ways the US uses the Social Security number and driver's licenses.

See the obligatory Wikipedia reference (in Spanish) http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C3%A9dula_de_identi dad
It's interesting to note there is a footnote saying that it is opposed in the UK..

PS: I do realize this only moves the trust into whatever government dependence happens to issue them, but you have to give in and trust someone somewhere. AFAIK, the bureaucrats there are more indifferent than anything else.

Yes, there is the risk of corruption, errors, etc. but not more than anywhere else, and I'd rather not have a private company doing it (haven't checked the main complaints from the opposers, but those were the main issues that came to mind).

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[lucas teh geek]

Of course you can leave. Passports are required when entering foreign countries, not when leaving.

i see youve never left your home soil; how do you think they catch fleeing criminals BEFORE they leave the country?

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[Anonymous Coward]

The ID card is only a requirement for residents getting a passport. If you're non-resident you can renew your passport without getting an ID card.

I only know this because a few months ago the government was claiming that it was a practical impossibility to separate the issue of ID cards from the issue of passports. And then someone pointed out that they are going to be separate for non-residents, so there was no reason they couldn't be separate for residents. And the government dropped that stupid argument.

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[Joe U]

Actually, ID is pretty much required for all forms of interstate transportation now.

All Airlines, Amtrak and Greyhound require ID and of course, you need a license to drive or rent a car.

So, unless you're planning to walk on your next trip from New York to California, you better have some ID.

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[jonwil]

My money goes directly into my bank account with no need to show ID or anything.
Also, I can withdraw it from an ATM (again, no ID other than the bank card).
I can also use EFTPOS which lets me take money out of my account directly without needing to show any ID. (or dont they have that in america)
I did have to show ID when I opened the account though.

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[YrWrstNtmr]

Of course you can leave. Passports are required when entering foreign countries, not when leaving.

So you can leave Britain, but not enter anywhere else. OK...got it.

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[takeya]

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.

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[Pantero Blanco]

"1. True, you must register, though you only need to present ID if you have provided reasonable suspicion first"

That may be the law, but I've met law enforcement officials who disagree.

"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.

"5. Retailers are not required to ask for ID, they're just liable for charges made without authorization, as they should be. Are you suggesting that retailer's don't have the right to require the card user to convince them of the user's authority with resepect to the card? Are you going to cover the credit card fraud chargebacks?"

This wasn't so much something I disagreed with as one of the best examples of how much we rely on ID now. I'm more annoyed by the fact that some businesses DON'T TAKE CASH.

"6. Are you suggesting that schools aren't authorized to know who attends? They'll just take you're word that you're Bingles Bobenheim and leave it at that? How exactly is the registrar supposed to keep records if they can't identify you? They could, in theory, set up an internal-only ID system that links you with a non-name identifier, but then how would you recover your identity if you lost the card they issued, and how would the school verify your test scores, or employers verify your attendance?"

Both colleges I went to had a system like that in addition to requiring a gov't-issued ID. Recovering the school ID required showing another ID (gov't-issued or otherwise). There was a procedure they had in case you didn't have one, but I never had to deal with it.

"7. Absolutely false. You must show proof-of-age. Is there a cheap and widely trusted system to prove age but not identity, not that I'm aware, but the requirement is for age not identity."

Perhaps that's what the law technically says, but that's not what the store-owners,signs, and law enforcement officials say.

"8. Also false. You need a certified birth certifcate and a social security card to get a state-issued ID, at least in IA and WI. Neither of those is proof of identity. Think back to when you got your first driver's license -- what documents did you present?"

My first driver's license required, in addition to the two things you listed, a parent/guardian with a state-issued ID and record of school attendance (dropouts here can't get a license until they're 18).

Once you're 18, the rules change and it's a bit more of a pain in the ass if you don't already have an ID. Proof of address and an "approved" ID are added to the list. The latter's a bit hard to get if you don't have an old ID and aren't going to school.

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[Pantero Blanco]

New Hampshire's an oddity then, though a fairly nice one in this case. Those things are universal where I've been, either by law or by consensus. To clear up a couple of things:

"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?"

I wasn't referring to the card or check as an ID. I've always been required to show ID when using them.

"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!"

There are situations where you have to show a government-issued ID in order to get a government-issued ID, like when you move to another state. Usually you can prepare for this (ie, have your old ID ready). When a pair of Mexican gangsters obtain your old ID before you get the new one, however...weird shit goes down.

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[askegg]

...does that answer the "How can you prove who you are" issue?

No. As you rightly pointed out I now have to trust the people that put the card together. All the card proves it that the issuer *thought* the name, photo, fingerprint, etc matched - assuming no corruption or (deliberate) errors.

At some point we need to break down and trust someone somewhere, but why add another (useless) layer of pseudo protection? Why should I trust the ID card department and not the passport department? Why should the passport deparment trust the ID card department? What's the bloody purpose anyway, it won't make us safer?

Here in Australia there have been a few attempts to introduce "The Australia Card". Essentially the same thing as mentioned here. Luckily the Australian public hated it and the bill was easily defeated both times.

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[TheDugong]

Me too, although my UK passport is valid.

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[dakryx]

But, when you first created said bank account you had to show a form of ID.

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[R2.0]

There is a different meaning of compulsory that all of your examples do not illustrate. To be truly, legally, "compulsory", one would have to carry an ID, PERIOD. It would be illegal not to carry one, regardless of the things you could or couldn't do without an ID.

Think the USSR and internal passports. THAT is compulsory ID.

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[RexRhino]

Yeah, and who needs a passport? Only stinkin' terrorists, thats who!

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[timmyf2371]

i submit that before 2008 we'll see people 'defecting' from britain.

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.

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[lachlan76]

dropouts here can't get a license until they're 18

So because they're not going to school you make it harder for them to work?

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[Reaperducer]

I think the idea is to make it harder for dropouts to work so they don't drop out.

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[eihab]

Let me add to that:

9. Prove residency to credit unions/credit card co.
10. Redeem all those 5 Miles from Philip Morris! (Or even get the catalogue)

The thing that's been bugging me since I got here (California) is the fact that your residency (green) card is hardly worth the plastic it's printed on!

All my problems have been with places that need an ID from DMV (Department of Motor Vehicles) to prove residency/age/whatever, and they either a) Don't recognize residency or work cards, or b) Consider residency/work card a secondary ID and demand a DMV issued ID.

I personally think DHS (Department of Homeland Security) cards hold more water than a DMV ID, but that's how the system works here.

Plus, shouldn't the passport agency be handling IDs anyway?

I find the very idea of DMV handling "personal identification" bizarre, coming from other countries that either have a special department for that, or tie it to an agency that's more appropriate for the task.

Just my 2 cents...

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[Sarisar]

I read about the actual stuff they tried to get passed into law and it stated some pretty stupid things. Like the home secretary can change stuff held on the card without getting it checked through the houses of parliament (so if they want to add an RFID chip or eye scans...). And if the details were wrong you had to pay the cash even if THEY had screwed it up.

I can't remember where I saw the link now, was through the register I believe, but went to another site (possibly this one).

With regard to Americans (like my GF) who say they already have ID cards with their drivers licence. These ones will be linked (well according to the no2id website) to almost EVERYTHING. NHS, Tax, National Insurance, various 'agencies' selected by the government.

The information it says it will hold is a load (read it all here. And I do like how the home secretary is allowed to change any of it, without your consent.

OK so I know it's been kicked out by the Lords and not all of this may make it through but this shit scares the hell out of me. I'm trying to get my ass out of the country and somewhere else!

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[brpr]

No.

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[dchallender]

Some UK airlines require passport for INTERNAL flights (e.g. London to Edinburgh) even though there is no legal requirement for this it is in their TOC!!!!

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[16K Ram Pack]

Certainly not. About half of all main holidays are taken abroad.

Unlike the USA, we don't have a Florida or a California.

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[16K Ram Pack]

Which virtually makes it compulsory.

Personally, I'm going to try and renew my passport later this year, or before the rollout occurs. At least I'll get 10 years without being a number.

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[Ithika]

That, sir, is a slur on Scarborough! ;)

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[JunkmanUK]

i submit that before 2008 we'll see people 'defecting' from britain.

At least I'll be able to get a seat on the underground then...

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[Hognoxious]

which will give me time to learn the necessary foreign language (most likely Dutch or German) and plan for a life outside the UK.

You do realise that the other countries in Europe already have compulsory ID cards, don't you?

Ignore that if it's Namibia or South Africa you're planning on emigrating to. But if you'd choose all the problems the latter has just to avoid having an ID card, you have an interesting sense of priorities.

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[Cederic]

To be fair, it's quite possible criminal proceedings are already under way on that matter.

To ensure a fair trial reporting restrictions are almost certainly going to be imposed on any such action until the end of the trial - at which point full disclosure will be possible.

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[Hognoxious]

Second that. The problem is it has a single point of failure - in this case it's very vulnerable to an "inside job" whether throuogh bribery or coercion.

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[AGMW]

i submit that before 2008 we'll see people 'defecting' from britain.

Just renew your passport before the 2008 deadline, and you've got 10 years for the Gov to come to their senses before you are forced (coerced) into getting one.

That's my plan. I'll leave the "moving to Canada" option for sometime after 2018, if we haven't booted the whole sorry idea out by then!

Of course, this doesn't mean I won't buy shares in which ever company Blair has already given the contract too! I wonder if he knows the Director?

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[AGMW]

... and to perhaps be even fairer, as I understand it, the a property was being watched because they thought some of the bombers were inside. This chap came out, and was therefore a suspect. This was communicated to the Police marksmen, incorrectly, that he was a terrorist suspect, so when he went onto the tube (subway) it could easily have been construed by the marksmen that he was going to detonate himself. If they hadn't shot him and he HAD detonated, where would we be now.

I don't blame the marksmen, as I believe they had no choice from the information (I understand!) they were given.
The people who gave them the wrong information are more to blame for his death than the people who actually shot him, but this was probably/possibly a simply mistake.

What I do find unpalatable is the way the Police seemed to rally round to try and cover it up. All the stories about him carrying a pack, running away, jumping over the barrier to get into the underground, which were allowed to propagate should have been stamped on immediately they surfaced, and the Police Chief should have stood up and said they shot an innocent man as soon as he knew. This would have been the right way to handle the unfortunate situation.

There should also be an enquiry (probably public so we know they are doing it!) to find out how the mistake actually happened, ie where did the mis-information originate, and how can we try and stop it happening next time.

But all this finger pointing really helps no one.

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[CmdrGravy]

Me too, and so are a few other people I know as well.

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[AGMW]

Quite simply, it started as a way to associate your fingerprints with a name and a photo - does that answer the "How can you prove who you are" issue?

Er. *cough*, anyone thought of faking fingerprints?

Whatever cleverness the ID Card people think of, someone will find a way round it until the only people who are affected in their daily lives by ID Cards will be the law abiding, who will also be the suckers who pay for the priviledge!

Just Say NO

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[AGMW]

I can't say I'm really worried about the government abusing the database, it will probably not work when it's supposed to be ready, and even then it will be compromised by having too many points of access, rendering it's security useless. I don't suppose for a moment that the system will work properly ...

You ain't whistlin' Dixie!

The National Gun Register, which was another knee-jerk reaction after Dunblane, is still late, and perhaps has 10's of thousands of entries and they can't connect it to the Police systems for some reason?

Frankly, it's laughable, but if they're having trouble with that (which could probably be done in Access!) there wouldn't seem to be a snowball's chance in hell of them actually getting this ID system off the ground. It's going to cost a fortune (making the Millenium Dome look like a wise investment!) and be useless!

Just Say NO!

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[Hal_Porter]

The Human Rights Act is bogus. People don't have a right to live in the UK, or a right to an ID card. They also don't have a right to house, and yet illegal immigrants have sued local governments to give them a better one.

In fact, that's the whole purpose of ID cards. If you go to Sweden, you need to have a personal number to do anything, and getting a personal number means that you have a valid residence permit. So you can survive in Sweden as an illegal immigrant, but it's a highly marginised existance.

Whereas in the UK, I can do anything without ever having to prove I'm a legal resident. This is a bad thing - it means that the UK doesn't have any control over it's boarders, unlike Sweden. And there are loads of things that should be only accessible to legal residents, like benefits and so on. Most businesses probably don't want to deal with people who are completely untraceable either. And they make a completely mockery of immigration controls.

I've actually flown from London to Sweden and heard two Nigerians talking about 'how Sweden sucks, you can't work without papers, it's much easier in London'

I realise it's an unpopular opinion here, but the State has a duty to make sure that people can't sneak into the country and blend in with the legal residents in a way that it is completely undetectable. And if they need to modify the EU rights act, or even withdraw from it and replace it with a better drafted local version, so be it.

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[not_a_product_id]

Governments know they can't introduce one, make it compulsary and make it a requirement to carry it at all times in one go.

1. Introduce compulsary ID card
2. Make it a requirement to carry it at all times
3. Profit! erm... sorry, Police State!

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[tepzepi]

Alas, South Africa also has compulsory ID...

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[laughingcoyote]

"Reporting restrictions?"

To be fair, I'm not very familiar with English law, but I thought free press was part of it!

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[AnotherDaveB]

This isn't going to do anything the passport can't do.

Yes it is.

There will be a physical ID card, but there will also be a National Identity Register.

The vision is that whenever the ID card is presented, whenever you access state services, it will be verified against the National Identity Register and a record of that transaction will be added to the register so that the benevolent state knows where you are, and have been, every minute of the day.

Nothing to fear. Move along.

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[plumby]

I'm not very familiar with English law, but I thought free press was part of it!Evidently not.

Reporting restrictions are pretty common in the UK in relation to ongoing legal proceedings, such as not being allowed to publish stuff that could not be used in the trial itself while the trial is in progress. For instance, you cannot report previous convictions if they've been ruled inadmissible in the trial. What you will often see is that the second the trial is finished, the newspapers and TV will be full of "the complete story".

I know of at least one pretty major trial that one of my friends was defence lawyer for where a mistrial was called as a result of unacceptable press reporting (and either the editor or the reporter, can't remember which, was done for contempt of court).

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[mdwh2]

As others have said, this is a big penalty - it's only "not compulsory" if you think it's okay for the Government to take away your right to a passport. Whilst I gather many Americans don't have a passport, Britain is a lot smaller - even just hopping across to Europe, we still need passports.

In addition, it is possible that the card would be needed for various public services.

So, they are in fact compulsory, it's just that the Government will punish you in less direct ways rather than prison.

I also hate the way this is being spun as a "compromise" (eg, http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4699188 .stm ) - politicians (especially Labour) don't know the meaning of the word. The Lords opposed having people put on the register automatically ( http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4699188 .stm - "But the Lords voted to ensure that entry on the register was only voluntary."), yet now they're falsely claiming that this is a "compromise" which satisfies that!

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[Hognoxious]

I hold an expired UK current and Australian passports

I'm sure someone who has a passport which is both expired and current would be mmore than capable of finding his local consulate or embassy...

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[loraksus]

so, the situation is this: you submit to enumeration by the state or you are not allowed to leave the country

Just like in the Soviet Union. In the 70s and 80s people in England and many other countries looked down (and perhaps even scoffed at how oppresive it was) on the Soviets doing the exact same thing. Funny how little time has changed and it has become completely acceptable.

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[rotor]

As is driving without a license.

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[basingwerk]

Practically all brits have passports and frequently travel about in Europe. You might be able to get by in Canada or the states with no passport, but it would be a big deal in the UK.

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[Shakrai]

As is driving without a license.

Driving without a license != having a license but not having it on your person.

I can drive anywhere I want within my own state without having my license on my physical person -- as long as I'm able to present it within 24 hours of being asked.

For all the hooplah around the "Papers Please" guy, if he had just said, "I'm sorry officer, but I don't have my license on me at this moment" instead of throwing a hissy fit and screaming then nothing would have happened.

Repeat after me: "I'm sorry officer, but I don't have my license on me at this moment. My name is [whatever]." You aren't going to get arrested for that anywhere in the United States.

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[laughingcoyote]

I see, thanks for the information and clarification on that. While I suppose I can see the rationale, I'm glad we don't have any such rules here.

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[pjt33]

80% of us have passports. Although it may partly be due to living in the south-east and studying lots of languages, I'd been to three foreign countries on school trips by the time I was 16.

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[pjt33]

A British citizen is not legally required to present a passport to enter or leave the United Kingdom. Of course, the carrier may wish to check that you have one so that they can be confident you'll be permitted to enter your destination country.

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[stanmann]

DO some reading about methods(illegal or semilegal) of avoiding bankruptcy penalties. ALL of them can be used legally to acquire credit if you aren't attempting to avoid tax or bankruptcy penalties. Also techniques used to generate Ghost identities. Credit companies will give out cards to anyone with ability to pay.

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[stanmann]

Why is this a bad thing, and why is State's duty anything other than preventing an armed foreign invasion?

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[lachlan76]

If that's a problem then why not just raise the minimum age? Just a bit hard to believe when you're in a country that doesn't have different laws for people who have different levels of education...

Over here in Australia the government tries to *help* dropouts get work, not the other way around.

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[Reaperducer]

I don't know how Australia's legal system is structured, but in the United States most laws are developed, tailored to, and enforced at the local level. The dropout age can vary from state to state, or even town to town. The United States was founded as a loose confederation. Though many regulations have been federalized in many areas, education remains something very very local.

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[plumby]

I suspect you wouldn't if you'd been accused of a crime and the media had decided that you were guilty before the trial started. Don't know where you're from (I guess the US) but if it's anything like over here, when someones accused of a high profile crime it's often more like a witch hunt than a trial in the press (and that's WITH the reporting restrictions).

In an ideal world we wouldn't need such things, but we're far from that and it's actually quite an important part of getting something approaching a fair trial.

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[Hal_Porter]

The chances of armed foreign invasion of the UK are pretty much zero these days. You'd have more chance of a small number of people sneaking in and setting off some bombs, or a whole shitload of people sneaking in and bankrupting your welfare state.

Anyhow, what the state's duty is up to the people that elect the government, and opinion polls say that they want a clampdown on illegal immigration, mostly for the above reasons. Hence the ID cards.

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[BenEnglishAtHome]

I don't have a social security number either.

OK, if you're cashing checks and, at least occasionally, buying things then you must have some sort of income. If you don't have a social security number, what do you put in those little blocks at the top of your yearly federal income tax return?

Just curious.

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[lucas teh geek]

ok, but if they dont show their passport how do they prove they have british citizenship?

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[rotor]

But if you read what he wrote, he did say that he actually doesn't have a license and does drive anyway.

Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport

[pjt33]

My Grandad managed to use his WWII Army ID card last year. In theory a birth certificate would do too.

Excuse the ignorance of an ex-colonist...

[HotNeedleOfInquiry]

But I have to ask. Is there any legal recourse if this is passed into law? Any equivilent of the US Supreme Court?

Re:Excuse the ignorance of an ex-colonist...

[trash eighty]

no but maybe a few illegal riots will do the trick a la poll tax

Re:Excuse the ignorance of an ex-colonist...

[Richard_at_work]

Yes, you can challenge the law itself in .... the House of Lords :) While the lower courts deal with application of the law, if you take the case to the House of Lords, they deal with the validity of the law as applied (if they choose to hear the case that is).

Re:Excuse the ignorance of an ex-colonist...

[Expert Determination]

There's the Law Lords who are really just a subset of the House of Lords who serve a similar function to the Supreme Court. There's also the European Court of Justice.

Re:Excuse the ignorance of an ex-colonist...

[Anne Thwacks]

No. It IS the law. We have to wait until we can vote our Bair and his "Two legs baaad - four legs good" cronies, and re-elect the totally corrupt and morally bankrupt tories instead. I doubt the gay vote is enough to get the LibDems in, but I could be wrong. (The Scots voted Gay a few days ago, and they are not noted for doing so.)

Re:Excuse the ignorance of an ex-colonist...

[CountBrass]

The first part of what you said is misleading: the house of lords cannot thwart the will of parliament, with the sole exception (and this is very recent) of those cases that impact the European Convention of Human Rights. The final statement you make ("they deal with the validity of law as applied") is kind of right of you mean they interpret what parliament ment when it passed the law.

Re:Excuse the ignorance of an ex-colonist...

[jasonditz]

I don't know that the ECoJ can do a hell of a lot in this case. Britain's already willing to pull out of the european convention on human rights so they can deport people to be tortured overseas.

Re:Excuse the ignorance of an ex-colonist...

[CountBrass]

Not true. They're the highest court in the land BUT unlike the Supreme Court in the USA they cannot strike down laws that contravene the constitution for the simple reason we don't have one and parliament is sovereign (not the court).

Re:Excuse the ignorance of an ex-colonist...

[Malc]

Britain does have a constitution. It consists of several statutes (e.g. Magna Carta & Act of Settlement), case law, laws passed by parliament, etc. It's just not one single document like the American one, and generally takes a constitutional expert and not a lay person to understand it. I think the term you're looking for is the "supremacy" of parliament.

Re:Excuse the ignorance of an ex-colonist...

[FireFury03]

No. It IS the law. We have to wait until we can vote our Bair and his "Two legs baaad - four legs good" cronies, and re-elect the totally corrupt and morally bankrupt tories instead.

By which time it's too late since the money is already spent.

As a side point, it's worth noting that even MI:5 have come out and said the ID cards are a complete waste of money... other than the government there seems to be _no one_ in favor of the things. This is just another example of why our political system is so broken - the Labour government has time and time again got away with doing things the public _do_ _not_ _want_. And the even more crazy thing is that come general election time the public vote them in again!

I doubt the gay vote is enough to get the LibDems in, but I could be wrong. (The Scots voted Gay a few days ago, and they are not noted for doing so.)

Now, I'm not homophobic, although you clearly are. You appear to be attempting to attach a homophobic stigma to the Lib Dems, and I have to ask why - they are the only one of the 3 main parties who have vaguely sane policies. And unlike Labour and the Tories, when the Lib Dems do their campaigning they actually tell you what _they_ are going to do rather than spending all their time telling you how shit the other party is.

Re:Excuse the ignorance of an ex-colonist...

[Pig Hogger]

(The Scots voted Gay a few days ago, and they are not noted for doing so.)

Well, when they run around in those skirts, one would tend to think otherwise...

(Funniest thing I ever saw was, on a fine summer evening, at the train station, there were some people waiting for a train to arrive. Amongst them, an older man wearing a kilt [we're more than 4000 miles away from Scotland].
Also, there was a totally-puzzled oriental man, who obviously could not believe not that the old man was wearing a skirt, but that everyone else found this perfectly normal...)

Re:Excuse the ignorance of an ex-colonist...

[Expert Determination]

The scary thing is that Britain has a constitution but nobody know about it. I guess it's not much different from the US where everyone knows there is a constitution but nobody knows what it means.

Re:Excuse the ignorance of an ex-colonist...

[kraut]

I do wonder.... sometimes I think Tony just turned coat completely - imagine you voted for Amnesty International, and when they get into power they turn into Pinochet..... other times, you think, Cherie is a human rights lawyer who makes a lot of money out of sueing the UK government for trampling on human rights. Either they are maximising the family income, or they must have interesting dinner table conversations.

Either way, Tony's government position on human rights and civil liberties makes Margaret Thatcher and Michael Howard look like a bunch of bleeding hippies, which is quite an achievement.

Oh, and the trains still don't run on time. At least Mussolini managed to get that done.

Re:Excuse the ignorance of an ex-colonist...

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Now, I'm not homophobic, although you clearly are. You appear to be attempting to attach a homophobic stigma to the Lib Dems

No, he implied that the Gay vote is a large part of the LibDem base. Any anti-gay sentiment is in your head.

Re:Excuse the ignorance of an ex-colonist...

[BasilBrush]

As a side point, it's worth noting that even MI:5 have come out and said the ID cards are a complete waste of money...

No they haven't.

other than the government there seems to be _no one_ in favor of the things.

And of course the British public according to the polling organisations. Every single poll going right back to the start of the debate has had the result of more people in favour than against. That's quite a lot of people then.

Re:Excuse the ignorance of an ex-colonist...

[BasilBrush]

...which is complete nonsense. Britain is not willing to pull out of the ECHR, nor do they export people to any countries where they may be tortured. They won't even allow extradition to the US for murder cases, if it's a state that has the death penalty.

There has been some cases where the US have taken prisoners to be tortured at Guantanamo Bay through Britain, but there's no indication that the British government was aware of it at the time.

Re:Excuse the ignorance of an ex-colonist...

[jasonditz]

Tony Blair served notice yesterday that he was ready to renounce parts of the European convention on human rights if British and European judges continued to block the deportation of Islamic extremists in the wake of the London bombings.

The remainder of the article, entitled "Blair to curb human rights in war on terror", can be found here

Re:Excuse the ignorance of an ex-colonist...

[mikerich]

But I have to ask. Is there any legal recourse if this is passed into law? Any equivilent of the US Supreme Court?

Britain lacks a written constitution, so it is much harder to prove that a law falls foul of any fundamental rights (see below for Human Rights legislation in the UK). The House of Lords acts as the Supreme Court in the UK and can rule on whether a law is unjust or has been unjustly applied in a particular case. However, and this is crucial, British law holds that Parliament is supreme and that the judiciary cannot overturn a piece of legislation.

Having said which... There has been at least one case, Factortame, involving European (Community) law where the House of Lords, after guidance from the European Court of Justice, ruled that an Act of Parliament fell foul of European law. EC law is considered supreme over domestic law because of the wording of the Treaty of Rome to which Britain is a signatory. The Lords placed an injunction on the government forbidding them from using the Act. The government had to repeal the offending Act and bring British law into line with European law.

That is unlikely to be the case here as there is no universal EC law covering identity cards; the closest is the Schengen Agreement for border controls to which Britain is not a signatory.

The only reason the Lords overturned the Act was because of the implied supremacy of EC law in the Treaty of Rome - and even then they were loathe to do so. I strongly doubt that they would dare overturn purely domestic legislation.

The best hope (apart from hoping that EDS screw things up as well as usual) is that there could be a challenge under the Human Rights Act 1999 which embodies most of the European Convention on Human Rights into British law. If the ID cards system were found to fall foul of the HRA (and I'm not going to say if it could - INAL) then the courts could make a 'declaration of incompatibility' between the ID Cards Act and the HRA.

In such a case the government is not obliged to change the law, but it must at least review the offending legislation. The law would continue to apply, but people would still be able to take their cases before the courts and claim damage. If the British government refused to repeal or amend the law then plaintiffs could take their claims to the European Court of Human Rights which has the power to lay down massive fines against the government in the hope of shaming it into compliance.

HTH.

Re:Excuse the ignorance of an ex-colonist...

[Hognoxious]

It can also block an attempt by parliament to prolong itself beyond its term. If they've taken that power away, it gets very scary.

Re:Excuse the ignorance of an ex-colonist...

[mikerich]

The European Court of Justice only handles breaches of European Community law - which the ID Card Act will almost certainly not affect. You're thinking of the European Court of Human Rights which is a pan-European court and not part of the EU.

Sadly, the ECHR does not have the power to strike down legislation in the UK. The long list of rulings against the British government over human rights abuses in Northern Ireland did not change domestic legislation - although they did embarrass the UK government and cost it a fortune in damages.

Courts in the UK do however usually look to ECHR rulings when coming to their own verdicts. But none of that will change the (il)legality of the ID Cards Act.

Re:Excuse the ignorance of an ex-colonist...

[AGMW]

And of course the British public according to the polling organisations.

... and this is what saddens me the most! The "Great British Public" being hoodwinked again! Did you know that the ID Cards Roadshow put up by the Government banned the NoToID people from leafleting the crowd to try and put a different view?

Most people I have talked to who were for ID cards are easily persuaded to be against them. I'm not even going to say outright that ID cards are bad (although that is, rather obviously, my view!), but if people can be so easily swayed, in the worst case, it is presumably the last opinion they heard that they will agree with! Most people don't know enough about the issues (both pros and cons) to be able to make a reasoned decision. I have never had a conversation with a Pro ID Card person (or group) which has provided me with a solid reason why ID cards will be good for Britain.

Have you not noticed how the Gov keep changing tack? First it was terrorism, fraud, but then Charles Clarke admitted they would not have help fight terrorism or fraud.
Next they jump on the distinctly right wing agenda immigration bandwagon, but if an illegal immigrant doesn't have "papers", surely, and ID card is simply another "paper" they won't have?
Next, someone in the spin-doctor think-tank picks up on ID Theft, and now ID cards are going to do away with it all together. The people who know suggest it might actually make it easier to steal someone's ID, and actually harder to get your ID back! If someone discovers your password or PIN number, you can change it, but if someone forges your fingerprint you are right royally screwed!

Each time the Gov put forward some reason for ID cards, someone (and sometimes from within the Gov!) has debunked it. They are squirming around looking for a good reason. I'd really like to know why they think it is a good idea, but I don't think they've told us what they really think yet!

Just Say No!

Re:Excuse the ignorance of an ex-colonist...

[JaxWeb]

"Britain's already willing to pull out of the european convention on human rights so they can deport people to be tortured overseas."

WHAT? That is not even nearly true!

Re:Excuse the ignorance of an ex-colonist...

[JaxWeb]

+5 Insightful.

I think it is legal, and it would be in America also. (This is not an expert opinion.)

Re:Excuse the ignorance of an ex-colonist...

[Hognoxious]

If the ID cards system were found to fall foul of the HRA

Which is unlikely since many, if not most, of the other EU countries already have compulsory ID cards.

Re:Excuse the ignorance of an ex-colonist...

[BasilBrush]

Which is not only more than half a year old, and never happened, but says nothing about "so they can deport people to be tortured overseas."

Re:Excuse the ignorance of an ex-colonist...

[mikerich]

Good point, however I think only 10 of them have compulsory cards and none have the amount of data the British are proposing to include. I can foresee a possibility for a case based on the intrusiveness of the data collection procedure and the level of fines for not being able to provide all of the data - for instance I could be HEAVILY fined just because I can't remember every address that I've ever lived at.

A more likely case would involve someone being discriminated against on the grounds that the information held about them on the database is incorrect (say they were told they had a criminal record and were unable to get a job) or that they were unable to validate their information using the database (because biometrics are publicly shown to be the vat of snake oil that security experts have warned about). If the latter case was proved in court, then the entire ID card system would collapse like a pack of cards. The government has sold biometrics (or isometrics as the Chancellor called them yesterday) as foolproof and absolute, then they have built their case on foundations that might well be made of sand. If the biometrics fail (or more likely 'when'), the government will be open to all sorts of challenges.

I'm also beginning to wonder if scheme described in the ID Card Act will violate the Data Protection Act - namely the requirements that data collection must be proportionate and data processing must be restricted to the tasks data was originally collected for.

Re:Excuse the ignorance of an ex-colonist...

[mdwh2]

And of course the British public according to the polling organisations. Every single poll going right back to the start of the debate has had the result of more people in favour than against. That's quite a lot of people then.

Sorry, this is just plain false.

Polls only show the public in favour of a vague concept of ID, which tells us nothing (I have no problem with an ID card in general - eg, I happily have a passport). But these same polls show that the public are not in favour of the details associated with Labour's ID card and database scheme.

In particular, only a minority are in favour of a card costing more than £25 (let alone the vast amount it will cost) - a MORI poll, promoted by the Government, showed only 20% in favour. Only half were willing to pay anything at all, and only 6% more than £50 (current estimates are that an ID card will increase the passport cost by about £50).

The problem is that the Government ignores the details and, like you, falsely claims support for the cards. Even the MORI poll was highly biased; they falsely concluded the public were in support, despite their own data, and they had misleading questions such as claiming the Government is merely "thinking" of making us pay, when this is in fact a certainty.

Re:Excuse the ignorance of an ex-colonist...

[jasonditz]

Actually:
Mr Blair acknowledged that, since 1996, deportations had been blocked as a result of a European Court ruling that article 3 of the convention on human rights prevented people from being sent back to countries where they could face torture

Furthermore, I'd append "never happened" to hasn't happened yet. The Blair administration tried a more politically appealing tack of trying to get individual letters of assurance from the various nations he wished to deport people to. The problem is that these letters have no real force of law behind them, they're only as trustworthy as the government that signed them... and since these are governments that routinely practice torture in the first place, that is to say, "not very".

Oh, and before you deny that this ever happened, here's another link.
So basically, what remains to be seen here is whether the British legal system is going to stand by the spirit of the ECHR, which is to say, not deporting people overseas to face torture, or if they're contented with the latest Blair tack of plausible deniability.

Oh, and as far as the British government being aware of torture. Yup, here's another link:
The former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, said it was untrue the UK Government did not use information from torture.
He had been told the UK did not use torture itself or ask that any specific person be tortured.
"As long as we kept within that guideline, then if the Uzbeks or the Syrians, or the Egyptians or anyone else tortured someone and gave us the information that was OK," said Mr Murray.

Re:Excuse the ignorance of an ex-colonist...

[jasonditz]

*sigh*

We've already gone over this in a different branch of this thread.

(I don't know why everyone keeps doubting me when I say stuff like this, it's not like I don't do this for a living.)

Re:Excuse the ignorance of an ex-colonist...

[JaxWeb]

It is the to be tortured part which made it incorrect. I suppose that means it is "nearly true", since it is true if you exclude those few words.

I suppose it also depends on how you read it. I read it as they want them exported so they can be tortured (i.e. their aim is for them to be tortured). I say I do not think that is true.

If you mean they are exported to places where they might be tortured... well, I think deals have been made to say this will not be the case. (Although many people feel such deals would not be carried out.) In this latter case you do have a point, but I think you should be more careful how you word it.

Re:Excuse the ignorance of an ex-colonist...

[Hognoxious]

A more likely case would involve someone being discriminated against on the grounds that the information held about them on the database is incorrect

Sadly I doubt it - private entities such as credit scoring agencies (you hear a lot of horror stories about Experian) seem to get away with it as long as it's a genuine mistake. Personally, I think if you're in the business of peddling information about people you should have a duty to get it right. A government department could probably also claim crown immunity.

I'm also beginning to wonder if scheme described in the ID Card Act will violate the Data Protection Act - namely the requirements that data collection must be proportionate and data processing must be restricted to the tasks data was originally collected for.

Perhaps - it wouldn't surprise me if there was an exclusion for law enforcement and/or national security usage, though.

Re:Excuse the ignorance of an ex-colonist...

[jasonditz]

OK, I admit it was awkwardly worded... I did not mean to imply that the UK was deporting people in an effort to get them tortured (as the US does on a regular basis), there's no concrete evidence that I'm aware of that has ever been the case.

Nonetheless, the Blair administration can hardly be said to oppose torture. Ultimately in this case I think the best that can be said of them is that they are indifferent to the notion of torture... they want to deport these people, and the fact that those people are liable to be tortured is getting in their way from a legal standpoint. So torture is in this case inconvenient to them.

But I don't see any sign that they're making any but the most cursory attempts to prevent it, Blair has already said if it comes down to not being able to deport people to countries that practice torture or pulling out of the ECHR he's going to choose the later. The deals you mentioned have no legal force behind them... they are, at best, an effort to get around the politically explosive move of pulling out of the ECHR by giving the courts and the administration some plausible deniability. And the first time one of the deportees gets tortured to death in some Libyan prison, you'll get a disinterested shrug from Blair, and a reminder that 'things are different now' from his staff.

Re:Excuse the ignorance of an ex-colonist...

[BasilBrush]

It's certainly not false. As I stated it, it's an absolute fact. There has not been a single poll that has had more people against the ID card than for it.

It's certainly also true that if you prefix the question with the cost, that will change the outcome of the question. But that is what's known as a leading question, satirised splendidly by Sir Humprey in "Yes Minister". Equally if you prefix the question with a statement of how much money will be saved through benefit fraud, and ID theft, you'll increase the percentage in favour, because that would be a leading question in the opposite direction. The only true result is when you simply ask the question of whether they are in favour or not, and allow the pollee to consider their perception of benefits and drawbacks.

Funny that you complain of government spin, when you are madly spinning yourself.

Personally I don't buy any argument about it being too expensive because I believe the long run benefit that it will save the government, businesses and private individuals more money in fraud prevention than it costs.

Re:Excuse the ignorance of an ex-colonist...

[BasilBrush]

Sorry, but I'm failing to see anything wrong in any of the issues you've highlighted here. The policy of not deporting people into countries where they will be tortured obviously involves levels of trust. If that involves a written agreement with countries that have used torture in the past, then that is all to the good. It forms part of bringing those countries forward into becoming responsible members of the international community. A process that to use you example of Libya has been happening for years.

As for using information that has been extracted by torture over which the UK has no control, to do anything else would be lunacy. The only filter that should be applied to any such intelligence is whether the information is is likely to be true.

Re:Excuse the ignorance of an ex-colonist...

[JaxWeb]

Yes I agree with what you are saying, and it is worrying. The scary thingy is, until the Labour party changes back into what it was around 1997, there isn't too much we can do about this =( It's all very worrying.

Re:Excuse the ignorance of an ex-colonist...

[mdwh2]

There has not been a single poll that has had more people against the ID card than for it.

It's certainly also true that if you prefix the question with the cost, that will change the outcome of the question. But that is what's known as a leading question

It's a "leading question" to include important facts about the card in question?!

Polls about a free ID card are nothing to do with the ID card we are talking about here. If people are only shown to be in favour when information about the card is withheld from them, then that is the only thing here which is misleading.

Funny that you complain of government spin, when you are madly spinning yourself.

The facts speak for themselves - the MORI poll showed that only 20% at most are in favour of the card proposed by the Government. That they might be in favour of a hypothetical form "ID card" which is much cheaper is irrelevant.

Equally if you prefix the question with a statement of how much money will be saved through benefit fraud, and ID theft, you'll increase the percentage in favour, because that would be a leading question in the opposite direction.

Well, we can question how much people are informed as to potential benefits - but equally I can question how much they are informed as to risks (eg, civil liberties, increased ID theft). But that doesn't change the fact that the polls shows people against the ID card being talked about here. A potential risk or benefit which might come as a consequence isn't the same as known facts about the particular system being introduced.

At best, we should agree that all these polls are useless - you are the one who asserted that polls showed the public are in favour - now you are running around trying to say why polls may be misleading! You can't have it both ways.

Personally I don't buy any argument about it being too expensive because I believe the long run benefit that it will save the government, businesses and private individuals more money in fraud prevention than it costs.

That's your opinion, but you're in the minority - most people are not willing to fork out a load of money for an alledged saving later on. (After all - if it was really going to save money overall, why isn't it free? Why aren't we getting tax cuts to take one, even?)

Re:Excuse the ignorance of an ex-colonist...

[jasonditz]

Well in the first place it involves trust, but it involves trust from an administration which frankly was willing to deport people to these countries without the agreements, so to me it begs the question: do they care if they're really trustworthy or not? Also, I'm not sure "making you a civilized place to dump the people we don't want anymore" really qualifies are becoming a responsible member of the international community. I mean, granted, it worked for Australia... but I digress

As far as using info gathered with torture, the very fact that the information came from torture is what makes it unreliable. I'm sure if you ask the prosecution, they'd argue that if it wasn't "likely to be true" the person would've never been subjected to torture in the first place.

If you want your legal system (not to mention your high-minded pretense towards human rights) to have any semblence of credibility, you probably shouldn't be so willing to throw away things like "gathering evidence" and "establishing a motive" in favor of just saying "He was a suspect, and he was tortured by... someone... and he confessed... case closed".

Re:Excuse the ignorance of an ex-colonist...

[BasilBrush]

It's a "leading question" to include important facts about the card in question?!
Certainly It is if you only include a fact on one side of the argument. That's the very definition of a leading question.

Polls about a free ID card...
It's not about a free ID card. There is no mention in the base question of it being free.

If people are only shown to be in favour when information about the card is withheld from them
All questions "withhold information". Your preferred variant presents a negative (the cost) but witholds all information about the positives (e.g. the savings in fraudulent benefit claims). It's impossible to draft a question which conveys all information, so you don't try. You ask the base question. The objective of a poll is to establish what a person's existing opinion is, based on what they already know, not to guide them by selecting information that will push their answer one way or the other.

This is all basic polling theory. Either you don't know the basics, or you are disregarding them because the outcome of this particular poll is not the one you want.

The fact is that the polls show the public in favour of an ID card.

Re:Excuse the ignorance of an ex-colonist...

[mdwh2]

It's not about a free ID card. There is no mention in the base question of it being free.

Okay then, they are in favour when they are not told about the cost. And the same polls also give us the information later on that they aren't willing to pay much at all.

The objective of a poll is to establish what a person's existing opinion is, based on what they already know, not to guide them by selecting information that will push their answer one way or the other.

This is all basic polling theory. Either you don't know the basics, or you are disregarding them because the outcome of this particular poll is not the one you want.

The fact is that the polls show the public in favour of an ID card.

You appear to be ignoring basic polling theory: a poll which shows favour for "some form of ID card" is not evidence that they are in favour of the ID card being proposed here.

In general, a poll which finds someone's "base opinion", when they know nothing about the matter, is useless in terms of judging whether anyone agrees with your plans or not. Imagine - if I plan to build some new prisons where people will be locked up without trial, do you think it is reasonable to ask the "base question" of "Do you agree with prisons"? If someone did a further poll giving more information about the nature of the new prisons, would you quibble that and claim it is a "leading question"?

There is nothing leading about supplying factual information - on the contrary, it is leading to withhold information. That's basic polling theory. Trying to present the "base question" as a meaningful indicator of support for these cards is simply dishonest.

The polls I have seen have made it clear that there may be possible benefits such as benefit fraud and so on, but still show that people are unwilling to pay the cost. If you can show me a poll where people where still in favour, even when knowing full details about the card, then go ahead - so far, I've just seen the opposite.

Re:Excuse the ignorance of an ex-colonist...

[BasilBrush]

This is a dead thread now. No one else is reading. And we're going round in circles. I've told you why it's a leading question, and you're clearly going to keep arguing the toss, because the poll doesn't come out the way you want it.

If as you claim there is poll a question that balances both costs AND benefits, and is thus not leading then present it. Otherwise, you have nothing.

Certainly the question that only presents the cost is leading question. Your claim that presenting factual information in a question is not leading is just plain incorrect. That's EXACTLY what a leading question is, one which presents factual information on only one side.

Remember what Franklin said?

[Anonymous Coward]

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety are probably British and should be shot at."

Re:Remember what Franklin said?

[eclectro]

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety are probably British and should be shot at."

Didn't he also say "Identity cards will become easy targets for identity thieves and hackers??"

Re:Remember what Franklin said?

[MightyMartian]

I'd like to hear how precisely this is going to even provide any temporary safety. The whole scheme smacks of government moving closer towards the goal of managing our lives from the birth to death. "Oh, it will make you safer" "Oh it will make things more convenient" and on and on it goes. I think there's a very good argument for making things inconvenient for governments. That's why we have warrants and the like, to limit the ability of the state to trample over its citizens. Sadly, though, most people are simply sheep, and will do whatever the Authorities want, rather than saying "Fuck you and your ID cards" in one large gust of indignation. Let Labour put that in their pipe and smoke it.

Re:Remember what Franklin said?

[kraut]

If two out of three people who bothered to vote voted against these morons, do they really deserve to be shot at? Any more than the 49.5% of moderately sane americans?

Re:Remember what Franklin said?

[mpe]

I'd like to hear how precisely this is going to even provide any temporary safety. The whole scheme smacks of government moving closer towards the goal of managing our lives from the birth to death. "Oh, it will make you safer"

Just about every claim along this line has been completly debunked, yet some of them continue to be parroted.

"Oh it will make things more convenient" and on and on it goes. I think there's a very good argument for making things inconvenient for governments.

The group of people having a single (high value) ID document makes things more convenient for dosn't just include government. It also includes criminals...

Re:Remember what Franklin said?

[JaxWeb]

It's not really anything to do with liberty though, is it?

I'm not for it, but only because of the cost. I do not think it takes away any of our right, or makes us less free in any way.

Am I Alone in Thinking This is a Good Thing?

[egg troll]

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.

Re:Am I Alone in Thinking This is a Good Thing?

[robertjw]

I'm all for anything that will stop terrorism.

Anything? How about summary executions or travel document requirements for movement between cities? Maybe you would prefer racial profiling and detention camps? Drastic enough measures will stop terrorism, but at what price?

Re:Am I Alone in Thinking This is a Good Thing?

[lucabrasi999]

Honest, law-abiding citizens have no need to fear this legislation passed by our benevolent and wise MPs.

I took your post seriously, until I saw this. This whole post must be sarcastic.

Re:Am I Alone in Thinking This is a Good Thing?

[davros866]

Yes you are alone.

Re:Am I Alone in Thinking This is a Good Thing?

[titzandkunt]

"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."

As of 17:44, this is lingering at -1.

I thought it was only irony that had usasians perplexed. Don't tell me that full-on sarcasm, similarly, is now a closed book!

C'mon mods - give him a couple of funnies and an underrated or two.

T&K.

Re:Am I Alone in Thinking This is a Good Thing?

[isotope23]

Anything? How about summary executions or travel document requirements for movement between cities? Maybe you would prefer racial profiling and detention camps? Drastic enough measures will stop terrorism, but at what price?

Actually, I think "drastic enough" measures will increase terrorism. The harder a government clamps down, e.g. subjecting individuals to racial profiling, etc. the greater the pool of discontented and potential terrorists become. Its a positive feedback loop. The harsher they are the worse it will become.

Re:Am I Alone in Thinking This is a Good Thing?

[Jtheletter]

The 'benevolent and wise MPs' crack made me think you were being sarcastic, but your post title would seem to imply otherwise. What exactly about a national ID card do you think is going to stop terrorism? Do you think terrorists can't forge documents and IDs? Newsflash, they already do. In fact, every 9-11 hijacker had valid ID, so a national ID card would just be one moe document to forge. In addition London has one of the most extensive closed-circuit camerra survellience systems in the world right now, yet somehow all those cameras didn't prevent the London train bombings.

What I really don't understand about people who say "government idea X, which is a threat to my rights and freedoms, is a good thing in my mind because they tell me it will stop terrorism." On what basis are they measuring these trade-offs? Most of these government schemes (on both sides of the pond) offer very few, and vague at that, promises for reducing terrorism, and in the past have rarely shown any hard-evidence results. At best you'll get a canned response like "Oh program XYZ has thwarted numerous terrorist plots but I can't provide any references, accounts, or proof since it's all in the name of national security." And yet the populace still gives up freedoms knowlingly as long as they get these empty promises and examples. Unless the ruling powers can offer some program with a thorough breakdown of how that program is worth the rights it infringes - and later provides specific examples of program successes, or else shut it down - then no citizen of any country should feel in any way obligated, safe, or well-represented in giving up rights and freedoms for that program.

Re:Am I Alone in Thinking This is a Good Thing?

[nurb432]

"racial profiling and detention camps" - Sure, why not? It worked for us during WWII.

Re:Am I Alone in Thinking This is a Good Thing?

[TeraCo]

Cameras aren't meant to stop crime, they're meant to make it easier to catch the people involved after they've already committed it.

The only way that cameras stop crime is the deterrent effect of "Oh, that camera is there, I don't want to be recorded stabbing this dude." and suicide bombers don't have the same sort of reluctance to be arrested that your average criminal does.

Re:Am I Alone in Thinking This is a Good Thing?

[robertjw]

The harder a government clamps down, e.g. subjecting individuals to racial profiling, etc. the greater the pool of discontented and potential terrorists become.

Do you really think so? I need to do some research, but it doesn't appear to me that, historically, in countries where personal freedom was completely revoked there is little record of terrorist attacks. I did quick search earlier for records of terrorist attacks in Soviet Russia, and couldn't find any records. I can't remember any in Maoist China, I haven't heard of any in North Korea. Perhaps these governments just suppress the reports.

Re:Am I Alone in Thinking This is a Good Thing?

[robertjw]

Didn't have any of our 'dangerous Japanese citizens' blowing anything up, now did we?

Re:Am I Alone in Thinking This is a Good Thing?

[swilver]

Executions would be good, that would probably wake up a few people.

Re:Am I Alone in Thinking This is a Good Thing?

[nurb432]

It was a joke.

Re:Am I Alone in Thinking This is a Good Thing?

[rdoger6424]

bb is doubleplusgood

Re:Am I Alone in Thinking This is a Good Thing?

[robertjw]

I figured it was. Thing is racial profiling 'worked' during WWII.

If 90% of crime in any given region is committed by race X targeting that race will reduce the crime. Problem is 99% of race X are hard working honest citizens. Treating those 99% differently because of their race is wrong.

Many of us in the western world have a twisted view of why some of our freedoms are protected by law. Law enforcement would be much more effective if it wasn't for all of these pesky rights; sometimes these rights work in the favor of the criminal. We only see the incidents where criminals get away with their actions due to their rights, the times where innocent people are protected is much less visible. Many of the common arguments like 'this will only hurt people with something to hide' and 'I support anything that stops terrorism' fail to take into account the big picture.

Re:Am I Alone in Thinking This is a Good Thing?

[EiZei]

They sure did not have significant terrorism in the eastern bloc despite the massive opposition to the soviet rule. Well, except for Afghanistan and they really did every human rights violation there. So, on at least on the short term that kind of goverments do reduce terrorism but it will bubble under and someday burst out worse than before.

Re:Am I Alone in Thinking This is a Good Thing?

[jibjibjib]

In Soviet Russia, terrorists attack YOU!

oh wait...

Re:Am I Alone in Thinking This is a Good Thing?

[jrumney]

in countries where personal freedom was completely revoked there is little record of terrorist attacks.

In countries where personal freedom was completely revoked, there is little record. Of anything.

Re:Am I Alone in Thinking This is a Good Thing?

[meringuoid]

Actually, I think "drastic enough" measures will increase terrorism. The harder a government clamps down, e.g. subjecting individuals to racial profiling, etc. the greater the pool of discontented and potential terrorists become.

And there'll come a point, the way we're going, when they won't be Muslim extremists. Anyone got a Guy Fawkes mask?

Re:Am I Alone in Thinking This is a Good Thing?

[cyclomedia]

unfortunatley this is NOT about terrorism, ID cards have been floating about for over a decade, post 9/11 the "terrorism" tag was conviniently added as the defacto reason for introducing them, prior to that it was for tackling illegal immigrant workers and benefit fraud.

prior to THAT it was environmental/anti-capitalist/hippy protestors who cant be arrested or charged becasue they refuse to talk or carry id and are generally a pain in the ass to economic advancement (see: "newbury bypass" and "manchester airport" circa mid-late 90's).

before THAT it was drugs and raves for similar reason, how do you arrest and charge a warehouse full of people if you dont know who they are? make them carry id, and make it compulsory, then if they dont have said id you have a "legitimate" reason to lock them up anyway.

Re:Am I Alone in Thinking This is a Good Thing?

[isotope23]

Do you really think so? I need to do some research, but it doesn't appear to me that, historically, in countries where personal freedom was completely revoked there is little record of terrorist attacks.

Its not personal freedom per se, but the economics of the situation as well.
I think it is also tied to your previous perception of your wealth.

Historical examples:
America
French Revolution
Russian Revolution

The first two show interesting parallels to the USA today. Both had an unmanagable debt burden.

Re:Am I Alone in Thinking This is a Good Thing?

[legirons]

"I'm all for anything that will stop terrorism."

Nuke Britain from orbit.

(yes, I live there...)

Re:Am I Alone in Thinking This is a Good Thing?

[pjt33]

Where's the "-1, Missed the joke" mod when you need it?

Is it 1984 yet?

[Tackhead]

> "I think we've won the argument on it. People have this idea that there's a problem in civil liberties with people having an identity card and an identity registered today when across all walks of our life this is happening.
>
> "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.

"I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The US Government will lead the American people - and the West in general - into an unbearable hell and a choking life."

- Osama bin Goldstein, ca. November 2001

Re:Is it 1984 yet?

[perky]

Having your identity card stolen != having your identity
stolen.

Re:Is it 1984 yet?

[Diego_27182818]

Except if it now if everyone has identity cards - if you don't have you, then obviously you are a terrorist. You need to be arrested until your "real" identity can be determined.

Re:Is it 1984 yet?

[Tackhead]

> Having your identity card stolen != having your identity stolen.

Neither is having your driver's license, credit card, bank statement, passport, or social security number stolen. Any one of the above would make for a pretty fucking good starting point for an identity thief, though.

Kindly explain to me how putting all of the above onto the same card makes it harder, instead of easier, for an identity thief to do his work.

Re:Is it 1984 yet?

[EvilMonkeySlayer]

Well, you see it's quite simple really. All you need to know on this is...

Hey look! A three headed monkey!

Re:Is it 1984 yet?

[dartarrow]

Neither is having your driver's license, credit card, bank statement, passport, or social security number stolen. Any one of the above would make for a pretty fucking good starting point for an identity thief, though.

Exactly the point. If the only way to seriously ID a peson is with his ID card and the card is encrypted and guarded better than Billy G's home vault...... it may just make things a lil more secure. I noticed the picture showed a card had a chip which presumably makes it more difficult to break into then - say - a credit card. If it is difficult to clone, or break into, then it's actually good. If it isnt then I for one will not welcome our card-stamping, liberty-deprieving tea-drinking overlords.

this is not about giving up liberty for temporal security. It is about getting much needed security. And to gain, one has to give. Let's not FUD this implementation.

Re:Is it 1984 yet?

[BasilBrush]

The words you're looking for are biometrics, encryption, digital certificates. Google might help.

Re:Is it 1984 yet?

[mpe]

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.

Even if the card couldn't be stolen it dosn't address the problem. Since the information stored on the card and the machinary to make a card is elsewhere. "Identity theft" does not require the theft of a physical object in the first place.

Re:Is it 1984 yet?

[Dom2]

Even better, how do I change my retina and fingerprints when it is stolen?

Re:Is it 1984 yet?

[minus9]

"I noticed the picture showed a card had a chip which presumably makes it more difficult to break into then - say - a credit card."

Funny you should say that, from midnight tonight, any payment by credit/debit cards in shops will have to use the chip and pin system, ie: a chip embedded in the credit card. If you have a disability which prevents you from inputting a pin number you can apply for a special card which will allow you to use a signature.

I'm sure all credit card fraud will cease immediately tomorrow.

Re:Is it 1984 yet?

[dchallender]

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).

Re:Is it 1984 yet?

[AGMW]

Even better, how do I change my retina and fingerprints when it is stolen?

Luckily, this has already be solved for the fingerprints, and there has been some experimentation with iris patterns printed onto contact lenses which has had some success.

Just Say NO!

Re:Is it 1984 yet?

[legirons]

"Kindly explain to me how putting all of the above onto the same card makes it harder, instead of easier, for an identity thief to do his work."

Or how any card can solve identity theft when the DVLA requires you to send off every piece of identification you have to obtain a new driving license, then sends it back in standard unsecured unsigned-for post.

Ditto with online banks. Thanks to new "anti money laundering laws", kiss goodbye to all your most valuable documents for 3 weeks while they check them, and just hope nobody intercepts them on the way back.

Well, not quite

[Spad]

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.

Re:Well, not quite

[chrisblore]

To my mind, they will be compulsory because there is a sizeable majority of people who have passports and therefore will be obliged to join this 'Big Brother' scheme. This now makes it more difficult for those such as myself that can't wait to emigrate and leave this country that now truly deserves the name 'rip-off Britain'!

Re:Well, not quite

[deacon]

Especially chilling considering how the police are retaliating against people who make official complaints about police brutality.

Here is a page of peaceful, middle-class English protesters who have been beaten bloody.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/gall/0,8542,1305225,00.h tml

Here is an article documenting their continued persecution, due to their daring to speak out against police brutality:

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:ccgGv54ab-wJ: www.horseandhound.co.uk/competitionnews/article.ph p%3Faid%3D62246+Hunt+supporters+who+made+complaint s+against+the+police+officers'+behaviour+in+Parlia ment+Square+last+September+are+now+being+arrested+ for+public+order+offences&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

Another example of police terrorizing their critics:

http://prisonerjw7874.blogspot.com/

Despite all the jokes about "McChimpyBushHitler", it is interesting to see how US critics of the US State get rich and famous, while critics of the British State get their heads bashed in...

Hopefully something will change before it is too late.

Re:Well, not quite

[lgw]

So you're not required to carry one, and only required to have one if you want a passport (which, admittedly is a lot of people)?

I like your "vulnerable database" argument, but realistically, eveyrone's government will accumulate this sort of data eventually, and the real argument is that such databases need better security.

The slippery slope argument that others are making (and make everytime this topic comes up) that "good ID cards are the first step to governments abusing ID cards" I find unconvincing, however. If I'm worried that my government will make me *carry* an ID around with me everywhere (already the case in some states in the US), I'd rather it were a *good* ID - the harder to fake, the better. Is there a scenario in which the givernment mis-uses ID cards in which we're better off with a *bad* ID card?

Does anyone really think that good ID cards are somehow required before the government can do stupid tricks with ID cards? The government will do stupid things whether the ID cards are harder or easier to forge - having a better ID card doesn't do anything to bring those abuses closer, because the goverment will abuse you in *either case*.

Re:Well, not quite

[gilgongo]

> having a better ID card doesn't do anything to bring those abuses closer, because the goverment
> will abuse you in *either case*.

So are you for or against ID cards? If you are for them, what problem(s) do you think they will solve?

Re:Well, not quite

[AndyboyH]

worryingly, it'll also be available to what the ITN news just said was 10000 private interests. I assume these would be things like credit card companies, banks etc.

Because of course, no-one's ever been silly enough not to trust a credit card company when it asks for ID, like those 70 odd emails I get a day from banks I'm not involved with, asking for me to log into a webpage to update my details...
*sigh*

Re:Well, not quite

[lgw]

We use ID cards for all sorts of things today: proof of age, proof of license, proof of identity. For all the things we normally use an ID card for, a better (harder to fake, or harder to obtian on false pretenses) card is, well, better. I suspect half of the resistance from US Slashdotters is just that: a better ID card means it will be harder to buy alchohol with a fake ID when underage.

Some people object that since any system for making IDs cards better wo't be a *perfect* system, we should never make them better. What kind of sense does that make? If it's harder for a criminal/terrorist/whatever to get a fake ID, that's a plus, it doesn't have to be a perfect system to be a better system.

Re:Well, not quite

[jimicus]

To be fair, in order for them to become compulsory, they'll have to go back and get legislation passed through both houses.

True, but you're confusing "in theory, according to Government" and "in practice, according to Reality".

Examples:

"As of 1 July 2008, we will only serve alcohol to people who can produce ID, regardless of their apparent age. The only acceptable form of ID is a UK ID card or passport".

"As of 1 July 2008, this company will be taking positive steps to ensure illegal immigrants aren't employed. To that end, anyone applying for a job must show a UK ID card before they will be offered a role".

"In order to combat Identity Theft, as of 1 July 2008, you will be required to show your ID card when paying by debit/credit card".

"In line with Money Laundering Regulations, we will only open a bank account for people who can demonstrate their identity. As of 1 July 2008, we will only accept an ID card issued by an EU member state."

Re:Well, not quite

[jimicus]

I'd rather it were a *good* ID

With a few thousand pounds cash in a brown envelope and someone who works in the office issuing these things, any "good" ID rapidly becomes bad.

Re:Well, not quite

[lgw]

An ID that requires 1000 pounds and a corrupt government employee to fake is still better than one that requires 10 pounds and photoshop to fake. No ID will be perfect, but is that an objection to making them better?

Re:Well, not quite

[jimicus]

An ID that requires 1000 pounds and a corrupt government employee to fake is still better than one that requires 10 pounds and photoshop to fake. No ID will be perfect, but is that an objection to making them better?

That's the price for a perfect fake. An imperfect fake (when you don't expect them to cross-reference the ID with a database) will ultimately be available far cheaper.

Re:Well, not quite

[FireFury03]

No ID will be perfect, but is that an objection to making them better?

My main objection to the ID cards is that they are next to useless (Even MI:5 has said this) and will cost *vast* amounts of money. This isn't some corporation choosing to spend their money, this is the government choosing to spend _my_ money. Either taxes will go up to pay for it or money will be diverted away from more essential things (choose: do you want an ID card or your cancer treated?).

I don't believe the benefits of "better" ID cards outweigh the cost, and quite frankly I'm getting sick of the government getting it's own way on things the public really don't want and justifying them because they allegedly "stop terrorism" (they won't).

The best way of preventing terrorism would've been to not go to war another country just because the US told us to (especially using a lie as justification). These days I continually feel like the UK is in the shower in jail and reaching down for the soap.

Re:Well, not quite

[lgw]

Well, cost/benefit analysis is always a reasonable argument. I do think that a better ID system will help detect run-of-the-mill illegal immigrants, even if it does nothing to detect well-funded terrorists, but the cost may well outweigh such benefits.

On your aside, do you really think the London subway bombings were about the UK's participation in Iraq, and not about local politics, as the riots in France clearly were? Do you really think that anything short of adopting Sharia will make radical Islamic fanatics living in the UK happy?

Re:Well, not quite

[kraut]

As a German living in the UK for far too long, I'll happily sue each of these companies.

>"As of 1 July 2008, we will only serve alcohol to people who can produce ID, regardless of their apparent age. The only acceptable form of ID is a UK ID card or passport".
Here's my EU passport. Will you serve me my lukewarm cervisia, or should I sue you for racial discrimination?

>"As of 1 July 2008, this company will be taking positive steps to ensure illegal immirants aren't employed. To that end, anyone applying for a job must show a UK ID card before they will be offered a role".
Any reputable company already takes a copy of your entitlement to work in the UK - i.e. passport or EU ID card. Or foreign passport and work visa.

> "In order to combat Identity Theft, as of 1 July 2008, you will be required to show your ID card when paying by debit/credit card".
Pull the other one, it's got bells on.
In big shops in the UK, you can pay for £0.20 worth of chewing gum on your credit card if you want; they're not going to want to ask for your ID. Why would they? Together with the banks they've just swapped the "If we can't prove you made the payement, you're not liable" system for the "If someone can observe or guess your 4 digit pin, you're fucked" chip and pin system. More ID would only hurt the retailers and the banks.

"In line with Money Laundering Regulations, we will only open a bank account for people who can demonstrate their identity. As of 1 July 2008, we will only accept an ID card issued by an EU member state."
That's already pretty much the case. Of course you could get a birth certificate instead, which is obviously fairly useless. But you'll need that to get the ID card in the first place, so it's basically a coverup.

What really needs to be addressed with the UK Scheme is that:
1. It's ridiculously expensive. Whether you pay upfront or through taxes is really irrelevant.
2. It is completely ineffective against all the things it is supposed to solve:
2.1 Benefit fraud: The government admits that 95% of it is "misrepresentation of circumstances", not ID fraud. You can throw biometrics at me 'til the cows come home; if I say my back hurts you still can't prove me wrong. Until you catch me playing sqash, but ID cards don't help much on that.
2.2 Terrorism. All the tube bombers would have been able to get their squeaky clean ID cards. As would Richard Reid. Ok, so identifying bodies might be a tad quicker, so clearly that would be 19.2 billion well ( spent, Not like we need that money anywhere else.
2.3 Immigration. If you're an illegal immgrant without any documets, will you fret about not having another document? No? Exactly. Earth to Labour, Earth to Labour - bugger, they're not receiving common sense anymore.
2.4 Health Care. Health care. At the moment, if you show up at a hospital with a non-life-threating problem, it will take hours before you're seen. Fair enough, in a nasty sort of way. On the other hand, if you're actually about to die, you will get treated, with the full whack that modern medicine can deliver. And it's not cheap. I know an old gentleman of foreign extraction who managed to rack up about £40K before leaving the High Dependency Unit. Are they going to let old men die on the street for lack of ID?

Anyway, the UK government has no respect for human rights. In some former governments, that would have been expected; in a nominally labour government, it's shocking. Intercepting people's private communications without warrant; locking people up indefinitely without trial; making the political system even less accountable. Shame I can't blame them for the first past the post system, but they only benefit from it rather than introducing it. On the other hand, they repl

Re:Well, not quite

[Unordained]

I agree with your logic that a better but imperfect system is still better than the old system; but people (particularly managers) seem to easily fall prey to the idea that whatever is better is automatically best, and that whatever is best, is automatically perfect. You can't let them forget that there are problems that still need to be solved, if iteratively. If you just let it go, they'll forget, and when problems creep up, they'll claim it's the first they've heard of them, and the whole cycle starts up again. So yes, go for a better system, but don't let anyone forget about the gaps that still need patching. If they can be patched now, maybe it wouldn't be so bad to go ahead and do that: you need to weigh the cost of delaying deployment of a single better solution against the cost of deploying several incrementally but marginally better solutions one after another, with conversion costs, etc.

But I still see it going the way every other project goes: managers will claim it's a perfect success, they'll ignore dire warnings, retire, and let later managers clean the mess up -- but they won't blame their predecessors, they'll say the problems are new, and collect their reward for fixing an old but ignored problem. And so forth, forever. Those who complain, meanwhile, get nothing. And if they're very lucky, they'll be blamed when someone makes use of the faults they pointed out -- because they helped the terrorists.

Either that, or I've got a bad case of the Mundays.

Re:Well, not quite

[metamatic]

Here is a page of peaceful, middle-class English protesters who have been beaten bloody.

Yes, but they're in favor of bloodsports, so what's the problem?

Re:Well, not quite

[hr raattgift]

Liberty needs you too, Kraut.

Re:Well, not quite

[BasilBrush]

I have no problem with any injury being inflicted on pro-hunting protestors, up to and including being ripped apart by dogs.

Re:Well, not quite

[mpe]

We use ID cards for all sorts of things today: proof of age, proof of license, proof of identity. For all the things we normally use an ID card for, a better (harder to fake, or harder to obtian on false pretenses) card is, well, better.

A single document for everthing isn't actually better. It's actually far less secure than having a set of documents each with a single specific purpose.
One of the issues related to "ID theft" is feature creep in existing documents, e.g. using a document indicating competence to drive vehicles on the public roads as proof of identity (even requiring it to purchase alcohol) and the misuse of SSNs as identifiers in the USA.

Re:Well, not quite

[mpe]

My main objection to the ID cards is that they are next to useless (Even MI:5 has said this) and will cost *vast* amounts of money.

In some cases they may even be worst that useless.

Re:Well, not quite

[mpe]

Here to identify myself I have to have a drivers license and a phone bill with my address (or something like that). It's just stupid, why is a permit to operate a machine used to identify someone? Makes no sense.

It gets even dafter when you consider that in some parts of the world that "permit" is required to purchase alcohol. Even though operating said machine is against the law when intoxicated with alcohol...

Re:Well, not quite

[16K Ram Pack]

That's why I'm planning to renew my passport this year, about 5 years early. I want to be off this scheme. Hopefully, the more people that do likewise, the more likely this will be doomed.

Re:Well, not quite

[tengwar]

As I understand it, they were demonstrating in Parliament Square, which I understand to be illegal because of the danger of rioting. Given that the photographs in the sites you refer to show protestors actually on the floor of the House of Commons, I'm inclined to think that for once this is a reasonable precaution rather than anti-democratic repression.

Re:Well, not quite

[Vanders]

The issue is not the card itself. The problems are:

1. The huge shared database that is tied to your ID card that will follow you from birth to death, and the plans for who will be allowed to access that database.
2. The massive cost (Billions of £'s) involved in creating this huge database.
3. The additional cost to each person, each of whom will be required to pay £90 (That's the current figure, expect it to rise!) out of their own pocket for the card.
4. The Governments laughably poor track record in implementing any IT scheme of any notable scale, usually by giving tax revenue to a useless shower of bastards such as EDS.
5. The fact that no matter how many times they've been asked how exactly these cards will help to combat identify theft or terrorism, not a single Government minister or employee has ever given a satisfactory answer.
6. Both the majority of the Lords and a large percentage of the Commons oppose the Bill (It only passed it's second Commons vote last night by 30 votes!).

Any one of those is a good enough reason to not like these cards, as the current scheme stands.

Re:Well, not quite

[Shivetya]

Well here in the states we have had politicians use information gleaned from the IRS to harrass political opponents. I am quite sure they use other government agencies.

The argument against loss of privacy is false for the most part. People willingly give up personal information on an almost daily basis. Every financial transaction short of those paid in cash is tracked. Worse some information about your financial well being is available through government agencies through "openess laws". One of my ex-girlfriends tracked me down using a publically available database on housing tax assessments. She could not find me any other way, this I know because she told me how she did it. When I went and checked it as very annoying as to how much information was available. From the date of purchase, price of purchase, to my current assessment and status of payment of my taxes.

My biggest worry about compulsory id cards and the tracking of data they entail is that there are groups who will find a method, legal or illegal, to obtain this information. If anything, those in the government may find themselves even more exposed. Worse are those in government who will create laws to exempt themselves from what is required of regular citizens. The Congress of The United States has a wonderful and colorful history of excepting itself from some of the legislation it imposes on the citizens.

Some are more equal than others.

Re:Well, not quite

[AGMW]

As I understand it, they were demonstrating in Parliament Square, which I understand to be illegal because of the danger of rioting.

Actually, demonstrating is legal if you get permission from the Police. The Gov (lord bless 'em) passed this outrageous law to try and get rid of Brian Haw who has been a thorn in their side since we started the war in Iraq. They blew it, unfortunately for them, and whilst any new protest is covered by the new law, Brian is OK, because his protest started before the law became, well, law!

Now, let's just talk about the other replies saying it's OK to beat up people who support hunting shall we. I don't agree with hunting, but I STILL don't think anyone should be hit with batons and riot shields just because they oppose the Gov. I have seen footage of the riots and it seemed pretty obvious that the Police were being a bit pushy.

If I turned up to protest about, let's say ID cards to bring it back on topic, and some Police person started pushing and shouting at me, I might feel inclined to push back (esp. as in the Hunt protest case, there were people being trampled!) in defence. Does this mean it's OK to beat me up too?

I can see there may have been an element of "tongue in cheek" accompanying those comments, but in the same way "humourous" comments about race or religion can offend, I find them wholly unacceptable, and who ever the Mods were who gave them "interesting" should also be ashamed.

Just Say NO!

Re:Well, not quite

[AGMW]

We use ID cards for all sorts of things today

Actually, I can't remember the last time I needed to prove my ID, other than for travel abroad, for which I have a Passport. With ID Cards, I will still need to use my Passport for travel.

a better (harder to fake, or harder to obtian on false pretenses) card is, well, better.

I'm not sure this is actually true, though I will go with it for now. If it is just "harder to fake" it is still fakeable. If it is fakeable, it is next to useless, as the people who want fakes will doubtless get them.
The more "trusted" the card is, the more damage can be done when someone works out how to fake one (or otherwise obtain a duplicate).

I suspect half of the resistance from US Slashdotters is just that: a better ID card means it will be harder to buy alchohol with a fake ID when underage.

A cheap shot that does you a dis-service, my friend.

Some people object that since any system for making IDs cards better wo't be a *perfect* system, we should never make them better. What kind of sense does that make? If it's harder for a criminal/terrorist/whatever to get a fake ID, that's a plus, it doesn't have to be a perfect system to be a better system.

OK, let's assume for a second that we can produce a perfect ID Card system. No leaks of information from the DB, impossible to fake, or coerce the employees to provide fakes, impossible for the Government to misuse the information, etc, etc.
OK, if you could 100% identify someone, it would stop (or at least seriously curtail) fraud
It wouldn't stop illegal immigrants, though it may make it harder for them to find work, and the work is likely to be even less palatable, and even less well paid!
It may remove ID based crimes, but it isn't going to stop crime, unless you insist on a valid ID card before being mugged, burgled, or raped.
It won't stop terrorism, as we know the Madrid train bombers, London tube bombers and the US 9/11 attrocities were carried out by people with legitimate "papers"

So I'll admit there would be some benefits to society, but what if we spent some of the billions this will cost everyone on, for example, extra Police on the beat. Would that help curtail more than just ID based crime, maybe deter terrorists and illegal immegrants too?

I just don't see the benefit for the cost, and I don't swallow the concept that if we don't try to setup a faultess ID-card system now (and presumably fail), we'll never be able to perfect the technology for our children in the future.

Just Say NO!

Re:Well, not quite

[AGMW]

An ID that requires 1000 pounds and a corrupt government employee to fake is still better than one that requires 10 pounds and photoshop to fake.

If the ID card is assumed to be 100% safe, but someone can obtain one for £1000, then for a grand I can become you. I can clean out your bank account and sell your house. A grand doesn't seem like such a lot of money now.

No ID will be perfect, but is that an objection to making them better?

If it isn't "perfect", then the people who want fakes will get them. That's how criminals work. Setting up a costly "imperfect" ID Card system is NOT the way to improve the technology in this case. That scenario works well when brewing beer or making bread, but this is, IMHO, more akin Nuclear plant safety systems.
Half-Arsed just won't do!

Luckily, "Completely-Arsed" seems to be something our Tony is good at! (and that can be my "cheap shot", as I simply couldn't resist!)

Just Say NO!

Re:Well, not quite

[AnotherDaveB]

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.

The gov't is quite open that the ID cards scheme is intended, long term, to be compulsory.

Even the opponents of the scheme say that once begun, there will be political pressure on any future gov't to make the scheme compulsory, to justify the sunk costs (estimates vary from GBP 5 billion to GBP 19 billion).

Re:Well, not quite

[CmdrGravy]

If people wish to hunt foxes then that's up to them and although I don't think I'd enjoy it myself I can't see any reason why people who do shouldn't do it.

Foxes in the countryside are killed as a matter of course anyway, whether they're hunted with dogs or just shot. There's no danger of foxes becoming an endangered species so I really fail to see why anyone would have a problem with this.

If you ask me anti hunt protesters are the thin end of the rabid, slavering, hypocritical and moronic animal rights movement which seems to be so trendy nowadays.

Re:Well, not quite

[CmdrGravy]

I were to hand all my current ID capable of being faked with £10 photoshop to a criminal now then I might have problems using the library at some point in the future but my bank accounts, my ability to travel outside the country and my credit card would be safe.

If my credit card is forged then I still have my bank account and my other credit card and my passport to a) get money and b) prove that I am the owner of my account and that I haven't been in Spain spending vast amounts of money.

If my passport is stolen then I'm likely to notice almost straight away and have it cancelled and get a new one before anyone can wreak too much havoc with it and any of my current bank, credit card etc identities will most likely not be known to the theif and unaffected.

The danger with an all purpose ID card is that you will have to use it often and if it's stolen and cloned or whatever then everything built on it is wide open to criminals and you will have trouble proving it's not you who is the criminal.

Re:Well, not quite

[lgw]

There can never be a "faultless ID card". That's a red herring. No competent engineer in any field waits for a perfect solution, ignoring solutions that are better than what's in the field merely because they aren't perfect.

There may be good reasons not to move to a better card (such as the total cost of such a system), but the fact that it isn't "faultless" simply isn't one of them.

Re:Well, not quite

[BasilBrush]

By the same argument, protesters die anyway, and there's no danger of them becoming an endangered species, so there's no reason for them not to be beaten or indeed hunted with dogs.

I have no problem with people having no respect for animal welfare, so long as those people don't expect their welfare to be respected either. Let's declare open season on fox-hunters.

Re:Well, not quite

[metamatic]

Apparently you can't see the difference between doing something for food, and doing it for fun. Moron.

Re:Well, not quite

[AGMW]

No competent engineer in any field waits for a perfect solution

Hmmmm. Given that I agree that it is nigh on impossible to create a "perfect solution", certainly for any reasonably complex system, I suppose I may have to concede that point, but I think it is also true that if a solution isn't "good enough" (where "good enough" can obviously range from one end of the scale to the other, depending on the system - ie the system has to be pretty darn good for a nuclear power station, but not perhaps so rigourous for HMV's stock system), then the compentent engineer tends not to implement a computer system, when (suitably trained) humans can do the job better.

Only a small minority of people will want fake ID cards, and these are the very people who we are trying to catch out by introducing the ID card in the first place. If they can be faked, they WILL be faked. It is also my contention that fakes will be easy to obtain, much like guns are "easy" to obtain now, if you are in the criminal "underworld".

If people have complete trust in the ID Cards, and there are reasonable fakes about, the system becomes useless. Actually, it makes the system worse, because now anyone with a reasonable fake won't be questioned further, as they have an ID Card.
If people don't have complete trust in the ID Cards, we are no better off.

To me, it just seems a waste of money at best, and outright dangerous at worst!

Re:Well, not quite

[lgw]

If people have complete trust in the ID Cards,

That, I think, is the *real* problem people want to call attention to. A card that's ten times as expensive to fake will cause fewer people with fake cards - everything has a demand curve with price. The danger of creating the illuions that the cards can't be faked, when they've only been made slightly more dificult to fake, is real. But are people really stupid enough to believe that an ID card is beyond doubt just because the government says it is? I think that people in the sorts of jobs where you check ID cards often are probably more jaded than that.

Re:Well, not quite

[AGMW]

A card that's ten times as expensive to fake will cause fewer people with fake cards - everything has a demand curve with price.

I'm not sure it will necessarily be more expensive to buy a "difficult-to-make" fake than an easy fake. The same people who create fakes of other items (driving licences, passports, etc) will make fakes of ID cards, and I'd suggest that there is a 'price' for such fakes. Once you have the technology to create such a fake, creating the fakes wouldn't be that expensive, it's not like they will be hand made. On top of this, one of the dangers is that it would be possible to bribe the people who create the real ID cards into giving you a bogus one, and the price for that wouldn't necessarily rise (see previous link to DVLA info incident in previous reply).

The danger of creating the illuions that the cards can't be faked, when they've only been made slightly more dificult to fake, is real.

If people who are going to be checking these ID cards don't trust them, surely they are worthless, or at least no more useful than the current setup of having to provide two bills and your passport or driving licence?
We so seldom have to prove our identity that the extra burden of taking a few documents once in a blue moon is far better than the spectre of having to always prove who you are for everything, and let's not kid ourselves that once we are forced to carry the ID Cards (and that is the obvious next step), they will be checked at every opportunity, with large fines or prison time if you forgot it!

But are people really stupid enough to believe that an ID card is beyond doubt just because the government says it is?

Well, obviously I'm biased, but "the people" believe we need ID cards just because the Gov says we need them!

I just don't see the need or the benefit, let alone the massive cost and any of the worrying aspects of big-brotherism that I have tried to keep our discussion away from (I left my tin-foil hat at home today!).

Bad movie script?

[Nevtje(hr]

"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).

Re:Bad movie script?

[Anne Thwacks]

This is England you are talking about. Real illegal imigrants and criminals will buy fake ID cards on e-bay. Organised crime will mass produce them, and the related database will be hacked by almost everyone before EDS can get it working properly.

Only honest citizens will be jailed.

But dont worry. If they complain they can be charged with the new offence of "Glorifying someone other than Tony Bliar" and jailed for 90 days without trial - More if Muslim or Christian or not actually unemployed, slightly less for farm animals and lawyers (if there is a difference).

Re:Bad movie script?

[biglig2]

Hack? Who needs to hack? Terrorists in the UK have already gained access to our driving license database for a period of years thru a symathizer in the DVLA (our version of the DMV) and used it to target victims. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/3 951945.stm for more details.

Re:Bad movie script?

[pilgrim23]

To defeate this, all one need do is what many in New Orelans seem to have done; Apply for it under various names many many many times. In New Orelans many poor had up to 20 SSNs. Today we hear about this in terms of FEMA payments but it is not a suprise to those who know.
  I have seen this in other places too. SSNs are stupidly easy to obtain. Other "identification" is almost as easy. -in most US states, there is usually someone in DMV who is not above a small personal paycheck to issue a nice legal driver's license.
The old Fredrick Forsyth novel The Day of the Jakyl gave a blueprint on how to obtain ID. It is still a workable system to this day.
All any new ID system does is increase the cost of obtaining fake paper.

Re:Bad movie script?

[Pantero Blanco]

"You don't need an ID card to get a job"

If you want to do anything more than odd jobs around the neighborhood, then yes, you do. And if you do find someone who will employ you without checking, good luck cashing that paycheck.

Re:Bad movie script?

[kraut]

> Animal activists stole the remains of a dead old lady?! To set the bitch free?
If you firebomb people to "save" rats & guine pigs, then you are either
a) a terrorist
b) craxy
c) both

Regardless, your sorry ass needs to be locked in an institution 'til kingdome come.

So yes, I'm speciesist. So fuck off.

Re:Bad movie script?

[BasilBrush]

Great. With biometric ID cards, applying for more than one is a quick way to jail when the system notices that your iris prints, finger prints and facial geometry are all identical within the tolerance of the system.

Of course that wasn't the case when Day of the Jackal was written so you may not be aware of it.

Mind you, you could apply just the one time for an ID under a false name. But since you would then have to use that one ID for everything from then on, the fact that it wasn't the name you were born with is of limited consequence. Even if you do manage to get away with it.

Re:Bad movie script?

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

Okay I'm way late to the party and will probably never be read, but I do have to speak. There needs to be a line drawn under terrorists and a different line under everyone else. The Irish Republican Army are an organised, extremely well trained and funded group whose sole goal is to effect political change by means of causing fear in the UK populace. These qualify as terrorists. A bunch of yuppies and weekend warriors do not qualify as terrorists. Al-Queada, responsible for the 9-11 attacks (although the whole affair stinks to high heaven if you ask me) are terrorists. Criminal gangs, even as far north as the Russian mafia, are not.

Trying to lump all of these groups into one group "terrorists" is like trying to fit all classes and types of thieves into the category "armed bank robbers", with a similar disparity in punishment and response. The only effect it will have is to polarise moderate groups into extremes, and create the very problem they are seeking to remove. Since we are being treated like armed bank robbers, may as well get armed and rob a bank!

Not that this means anything to politicians. They just wave the terrorist label around to have a boogey man to pass whatever laws and measures they like. At the risk of godwinning myself, it was Hitler that said something like "if only criminals can be punished, make everyone a criminal". You get the idea anyway.

Re:Bad movie script?

[Mavakoy]

> Terrorists in the UK have already gained access to our driving license database

Erm, 'terrorists'?? Animal rights activists more like.

They've thrown bricks through windows, painted cars and put a hosepipe through a letterbox.

I know terrorism is the word of the decade and all, but that's really pushing the definition of the word!

Re:Bad movie script?

[dchallender]

You assume the biometrics are far better than they actually are.
Within the tolerances used they will have total chaos if they try and flag up "clone" attempts.

Re:Bad movie script?

[Hogwash McFly]

Actually, they are text-book examples of terrorists:

terrorism n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

terrorist n. One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.

It's ironic, 'terrorism' has become so overused and diluted that when you have a group that is worthy of the label, people think it's a gross extension of the definition...

Re:Bad movie script?

[iainl]

Um, no. It's trying to put all thieves under the class "thieves". The fact that you don't like calling people terrorists because they only commit acts of violence against people you don't like doesn't change that.

Re:Bad movie script?

[CmdrGravy]

They do if they going around committing acts of terrorism, e.g. firebombing peoples houses, intimidating people with threats of violence, digging up dead people to initmidate their families etc etc etc

Re:Bad movie script?

[CmdrGravy]

They're trying to push their desires on other people using intimidation and terror tactics which in my eyes makes them terrorists. Just because they're not foreigners or ethincally different to you doesn't mean they can't be terrorists.

Re:Bad movie script?

[biglig2]

They've also committed arson, planted incendiary devices on cars, and stole a farmers dead mother from her grave. There are lots of more serious terrorists in the world, and clearly the vast majority of those who believe in Animal rights and Animal welfare activism want nothing to do with these types of acts, but I don't think that negates my argument.

Even if they were just putting bricks through windows, if they can get access to Govt. databases, surely those who are prepared to carry out suicide bombings will be able to!

Re:Bad movie script?

[mpe]

Terrorists in the UK have already gained access to our driving license database for a period of years thru a symathizer in the DVLA (our version of the DMV) and used it to target victims. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/3 951945.stm for more details.

Yet he only gets a 5 month prison sentence and dosn't even appear to have been charged under anti-terror legislation.
One of the fundermental problems with the "War on Terror" is that governments involved appear to be highly selective which terrorists they persue.

Not to Ask For Flamebait, But...

[adavies42]

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.

Re:Not to Ask For Flamebait, But...

[Spad]

I think you're confusing 'Labour' with 'New Labour' - making the BNP look decidedly left wing since 1997

Re:Not to Ask For Flamebait, But...

[john83]

Not to respond to flamebait, but their fascists are to the left of your lefties. Gun control is a civil liberties issue in England? I think not. CCTV is a (non-)issue everywhere, and this is probably going to be rejected by the Lords.

Re:Not to Ask For Flamebait, But...

[lucabrasi999]

Gun control

You obviously don't realize that the United Staties is almost the only country in the world where "gun control" is an issue. 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.

Re:Not to Ask For Flamebait, But...

[Anne Thwacks]

Conservatives are for civil liberties

I think you will find their policies involve taking liberties.

Re:Not to Ask For Flamebait, But...

[GlassHeart]

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?)

Depends. Are you Jewish? If so, you're likely going to be somewhat worse off. Is it possible to be angry at the loss of freedoms in the UK or the US without resorting to hyperbole?

Re:Not to Ask For Flamebait, But...

[sysopd]

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.

That is exactly the problem- a democracy is mob rule, rights be damned. If the masses can be purchased or persuaded into giving away their rights or the rights of a minority, piecemeal, for safety or noble ideals you end up with a dictatorship. After all the people no longer have any rights.

The founding fathers of the US constitution warned against democracies for this reason, which is why they created a consitutionally bound limited republic. A republic which has been gradually moving towards a democracy which can be controlled by a people that have been tricked into caring about false left/right debates and gladitorial circus grandeur.

Re:Not to Ask For Flamebait, But...

[GenKreton]

The ancient Greeks invented the modern society essentially. Sparta had the first real social contract for its citizens. Athens is set on a pedestal of the herald of democracy. England in the eyes of many is merely seen as a constant oppressor to the advancement of these ideals throughout their history. Sure they made some progress, but one step forward and two steps back is hardly anything to give them credit for.

Re:Not to Ask For Flamebait, But...

[GigsVT]

It's not like this is the first thing you've heard about UK oppression. There was that memo sent out... about 220 years ago.. you must have not gotten it. It's even in my sig!

Re:Not to Ask For Flamebait, But...

[cornface]

You obviously don't realize that the United Staties is almost the only country in the world where "gun control" is an issue. 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.

There is an excellent historical reason for this, although sadly, most people have forgotten it.

Re:Not to Ask For Flamebait, But...

[silentbozo]

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.

Re:Not to Ask For Flamebait, But...

[iamlucky13]

A shotgun is a poor example to begin with. Pretty much nobody commits crimes with shotguns, although Dick Cheney seems to be close in that department (news.google his name today if you don't get it).

Re:Not to Ask For Flamebait, But...

[Goodgerster]

Don't blame me and the useful populace of England. I didn't vote for Blair, and neither would I have done so if I were allowed to. The only reason that Labour have got in yet again this time is that our electoral system is based on constituency-counting and not vote-counting. Their anti-terror laws have made it effectively illegal for me to go into London wearing a coat, and we've got no other option. New Labour is exactly the same as the New Tories (i.e. middle-ground) and neither of them are terribly charismatic: Lab led us to war based on a lie that your government told your country, and the Conservatives still have all of the bad-arse Thatcherite days of fascism, ruthlessness, low unemployment and effective economy to answer for. Do you blame the US for the Bush administration? Our "democracy" is so screwed up that no actual people got a vote in this matter. It's not our fault.

Re:Not to Ask For Flamebait, But...

[iamlucky13]

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard." ~H.L. Mencken

Re:Not to Ask For Flamebait, But...

[operagost]

This may sound like a joke, but-- exactly why is that a bad thing?

Regardless, your impression is wrong, as a background check, at minimum, is required in all states before purchase.

Re:Not to Ask For Flamebait, But...

[korekrash]

While I am decidedly not anti-gun, you forgot that in some states you can go to gun shows and buy almost anything; and without the requisite background check.

Re:Not to Ask For Flamebait, But...

[Cal Paterson]

Would be funnier if Conservatives didn't favour the rights of the individual.

Re:Not to Ask For Flamebait, But...

[m50d]

I think it's precisely because the Nazis never won - and no-one like them or the communists ever gained a political foothold - that we don't have much respect for civil liberties. We don't know what it was like to live under a government like that, so we don't worry about it.

As for labour, they realised they weren't getting elected being labour, so adopted the conservatives' policies, kept the name so as to have party loyalty on their side, and got into power.

Re:Not to Ask For Flamebait, But...

[91degrees]

Rights are relative. Most of Europe has the right to free healthcare, and the right to protect personal data from corporations. The right to freedom of speech is often slightly lower, but this is generally because it's balanced against other rights. In the US, the government can deny your right to life (which they do in the case of murderers).

Re:Not to Ask For Flamebait, But...

[Tim Browse]

Obligatory Simpsons quote:

Salesman: "There's a mandatory 5 day waiting period for that gun."
Homer: "5 days?! But I'm mad now!"

Re:Not to Ask For Flamebait, But...

[justasecond]

the US is also practically alone in the world in having the right to self-protection being enshrined in its constitution.

Re:Not to Ask For Flamebait, But...

[sysopd]

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." ~Thomas Jefferson

Re:Not to Ask For Flamebait, But...

[FireFury03]

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

No, the government is flushing it down the drain, not the people. Once the government has been voted in they can pretty much do what they want until the next general election (the current government were voted in originally because they lied about their policies).

Of course the really criminal thing is that despite repeatedly lieing to the electorate (tuition fees, iraq, etc) people _still_ vote for them. Both Labour and the Tories are completely crazy but people feel that voting for another party such as the Lib Dems is a wasted vote so they never get in. The sad thing is that if all the people who don't want to "waste their votes" actually voted for the Lib Dems they would win by a landslide.

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.

Well given the amount of fatal shootings in the US compared to the UK, quite frankly I'm happy for guns to be controlled. It's not as if you can't get one if you legitimately need it, but the whole place feels somewhat safer not having everyone wandering around with a gun to protect themselves from everyone else who's also wandering around with a gun.

Re:Not to Ask For Flamebait, But...

[cyranose]

It's not too often I hear someone argue that the problem with America is too much Democracy.

While I'd agree that a dumbed-down, manipulated populace can undermine a democratic system, I don't know if that's what we're dealing with. I think we may be dealing with the opposite: the illusion of Democracy for the purpose of manipulating the people. I wouldn't say that except that the "wedge" issues that are supposedly being used to manipulate our growing democratic powers are things we don't often change our minds about. We're being sorted, stamped, and labeled, rather than having our minds changed or manipulated (except for the illusion that we have some control over the "non-wedge" issues).

And I don't think we've ever seen a true example of a Democracy of informed citizens in action in the real world, so I'm not quite ready to put it down to "bad idea."

Frankly, those elements of our Republic which you (and our founding Fathers) espouse are being washed down the drain as we speak. We're going/gone right back to having an Emperor and a Senate of wealthy self-interests. It's all very democratic, if you happen to be a Senator or Emperor. It seems somehow more Feudal than Republican.

Re:Not to Ask For Flamebait, But...

[Nick Gisburne]

UK citizens have the right to self protection. Just not with guns. You can bash someone over the head if they get into your house, no problem. And because hand guns are illegal, and very hard to come by, burglars don't tend to carry them, and they know that householders also won't shoot at them, another reason that burglars don't need to carry a gun to pretect THEMselves. I'm perhaps making a really bad case for this, but basically, fewer guns equals VERY low gun deaths in the UK. Compare the figures with US gun deaths (look elsewhere for those) - remembering that the US has only 4 times the population I will bet my dog's hind legs that US gun deaths are WAY more than 4 times the UK level. And that's a good thing, right?

However I've now checked the stats and it seems that gun crimes have increased in the UK, so that really pisses all over my argument! Oh well, I can only assume that gun crime would have increased anyway - you were NEVER allowed to own handguns at home for personal protection use, so the banning of them would have made little difference.

I hereby award this little effort an F in debating class. Sigh.

Re:Not to Ask For Flamebait, But...

[JesseMcDonald]

There is no right to free health care. There is the right to choose who you will seek health care from, or a government program which forces you to pay for the services of a specific health care provider whether you want that provider or not. Either way, you're paying for it; it's not "free". I'll leave it up to you to decide whether "free health care" counts as a right or not. I'm not intentionally being confrontational; it just bothers me when people think of wellfare programs as a "free lunch". The hospitals aren't charities; someone still has to pay the bills, and in a welfare state that someone is the taxpayer.

Re:Not to Ask For Flamebait, But...

[Keebler71]

There is a "right to free healthcare" in the US as well. The trick is finding someone to give it to you for free. I think what you mean is the entitilement to free healthcare.

Re:Not to Ask For Flamebait, But...

[mormop]

"What the hell is wrong with England?!?"

There's nothing wrong with England beyond the fact that the lunatics really have taken over the asylum.

"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."

I can't say that I've really felt that my civil rights have been flushed away during the 40 years I've lived in this country until the current Blair Brigade fired up their war on privacy. The annoying thing about New Labour is that they really don't give a shit what the people think or want. For instance, during the build up to the ID card idea the government called for feedback from the public. The web based survey overwhelmingly showed a no vote for the idea of ID cards. The government then discounted all the web based votes on the grounds that they were the result of an organised group of anti protesters and effectively binned the wishes of those who'd taken the time to fill out the form.

The British people don't kick up a fuss nowadays because 20 years of this shit has proven that no matter how loud the people shout, they will be ignored as the purpose of government has shifted from representing the people to managing them in order to maintain the economy.

(Would you really be any worse off at this point if the Nazis had won?)

I've often wondered this myself. There's a line of thought that suggests that Hitler would not have invaded Britain had the UK kept out of Germany's affairs. There even appears to be evidence that Hitler admired Britain because of it's empire and the fact that in a country with such a high population density, people were controlled enough to not turn on each other. If this had been the case, Britain would have been less likely to have lost it's empire, would not have been bankrupted and would probably have remained one of the worlds top powers.

On the other hand Hitler was a nutter who had no problem with murdering entire races on the basis that he didn't like them and on balance I can't help but think that it was a worthy trade off to get rid of him.

"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."

It's true. Given the sacrifices above that this country has made in the name of freedom it is fairly staggering that we've been battered into giving up so much so easily. Another problem is that the UK government is obsessed with technology but blessed with not a clue as to its limits. You can therefore guarantee that any scheme that MPs go for will be riddled with holes that render it useless. With the number of access points to the central database that the government are planning it seems unbelievable that any dedicated terrorist organisation would be incapable of either hacking it or getting a sympathiser on the inside. Once this occurs, fake ID's will be legitimised purely by the fact that they're confirmed by the database and the work of criminals and terrorists will be made easier.

"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."

New Labour is a Labour government in the same way that Stalin and Mao's were communist. You can call a dog turd a gold nugget but that doesn't stop it being a dog turd and New Labour is Labour in name only.

Re:Not to Ask For Flamebait, But...

[Pentagram]

What the hell is wrong with England?!?

Small point -- it is the British government that it is introducing this legislation. We all get to suffer, not just England :/

And what kind of politics have you got going now where the Conservatives are for civil liberties and Labour are the fascists?

Sadly the situation is worse than this. Labour are acting like fascists and the Tories are only for civil liberties so far as it embarrasses Labour.

Re:Not to Ask For Flamebait, But...

[kraut]

>> Conservatives are for civil liberties

>I think you will find their policies involve taking liberties.

That's the old fashioned way of thinking. In the old days, Labour used to be for civil liberties; New Labour has taken away more freedom than all of the conservative governments combined.

Re:Not to Ask For Flamebait, But...

[kraut]

> Well given the amount of fatal shootings in the US compared to the UK, quite frankly I'm happy for guns to be controlled. It's not as if you can't get one if you legitimately need it, but the whole place feels somewhat safer not having everyone wandering around with a gun to protect themselves from everyone else who's also wandering around with a gun.

Given the amount of guncrime in the UK, it seems that criminals don't find it too hard to get their hamds on guns. So gun control seems to be effective only insofar as it stops the UK athletics team from training in the UK, which somehow doesn't make the world that much safer.

Not that I'm advocating US style laxness on gun issues, but the publicity focused "gun control" measures in the UK in recent years have done zilch to stop gun crime. Just like banning fox hunting has done zilch for animal welfare, or the human rights act had done fuck all for human rights in the UK, since the government feels it can opt out of whatever is invonvenient.... but I digress.

Re:Not to Ask For Flamebait, But...

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Would you really be any worse off at this point if the Nazis had won?

Well, the jews certainly are. Actually, the Nazis make Blair's crowd look like choirboys.

Re:Not to Ask For Flamebait, But...

[kraut]

> (Would you really be any worse off at this point if the Nazis had won?)
You mean apart from the fact that he would have killed all the jews in britain as well?
If you ask that question in earnest, you must be so detached from reality that further debate is pointless.

> I've often wondered this myself. There's a line of thought that suggests that Hitler would not have invaded Britain had the UK kept out of Germany's affairs. There even appears to be evidence that Hitler admired Britain because of it's empire and the fact that in a country with such a high population density, people were controlled enough to not turn on each other. If this had been the case, Britain would have been less likely to have lost it's empire, would not have been bankrupted and would probably have remained one of the worlds top powers.

Once he was finished with the rest of Europe, do you really think Adolf would have stopped at the channel for the sake of civility? As for "population density" - Holland? Belgium? Face it, the only viable option was to team up with the US and Russia and get rid of Hitler, Just thank God you had Churchill and not just Chamberlain; I do,

Re:Not to Ask For Flamebait, But...

[toiletsalmon]

No. We've learned it from our leaders.

Re:Not to Ask For Flamebait, But...

[sysopd]

To be clear, I was arguing the problem with England is their democracy which is not a democratically elected representative based republic with checks and balances created by the people to protect their natural rights. Abandonment of these ideals is a large part of the problem in America.

Although I didn't mention it, I agree with you that there is an illusion of democracy that is used to manipulate the masses. But this ties in directly with an uninformed, lazy, decadant society which lends itself to manipulation.

It's all very democratic, if you happen to be a Senator or Emperor. It seems somehow more Feudal than Republican.

The senate has become a cabal of elites controlled by special interest groups and nonprofit think tanks. But I would argue this is largely due to the fact that the 17th amendment created direct election of the senators. Before which they were elected by their respective state legislatures. The state legislature has a vested interest in keeping the state's and people's rights. And with this original design the senators don't have to worry about giving something to the voters in terms of more safety, protection, programs, etc every term in order to keep their job. Just compare the number of laws (and unconstitutional laws) and pork from pre-1913 and post-1913 which was when the amendment was ratified.

Mind you this didn't insure absense of corruption it was merely another check and balance of powers.

those elements of our Republic which you (and our founding Fathers) espouse are being washed down the drain as we speak.

I couldn't agree (and thus weep) more.

Re:Not to Ask For Flamebait, But...

[sysopd]

UK citizens have the right to self protection. Just not with guns.

Nor with knives starting on May 24th. There is a Nationwide Knives "Amnesty" plan for the summer in the UK.

What good is having the right to self protection and then banning all of the tools needed to protect oneself?

That would be like saying "You have the right to remain silent" and then turning around and saying "...but we have the right to torture you, your children, and rape your wife until you talk." What kind of rights are those?

Re:Not to Ask For Flamebait, But...

[Nick Gisburne]

Well no, not really, because in the UK gun related crime has gone from a very low point to a slightly higher, but still very low, point. I don't think Americans get this point - UK gun crime is low and we don't have guns, whereas US gun crime is off the scale and you do. Or are you saying that because everyone in the US has a gun, that has led to an incredibly low incidence of gun related crime in America?

Sample page (first one I pulled up from Google):

http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF05.htm

Total homicides using all types of guns in 2004/05 - 78. That's 78 deaths in a whole year in the entire COUNTRY. How many gun related deaths in the US during the same period? Remembering there are only 4 times the number of people so your target to aim for is 78 x 4 = 312 deaths. You'll not be surprised when I tell you that the US has around 30,000 gun-related homicides - that's about 100 times more per head of population.

If there are some figures to support your claim that more guns equals less crime, I'd be more than willing to take a look.

Re:Not to Ask For Flamebait, But...

[Nick Gisburne]

You're not allowed to carry knives, or any offensive weapon, and have not been allowed to do so for many years. The amnesty is for illegal knives such as (from the article) stealth knives, flick knives, gravity knives, disguised knives, which are illegal to manufacture, sell and import. Nothing there about kitchen knives or any other household implement - you can defend yourself with anything to hand in your own home. Just remember that the point at which the intruder starts to run is the point at which you can't touch him, otherwise you become the attacker - the law will only defend you if you were defending yourself. Not sure what relevance your torture/rape analogy has - it has no bearing on anything said here.

Re:Not to Ask For Flamebait, But...

[GlassHeart]

No. We've learned it from our leaders.

Then I would say you deserve them. :)

Re:Not to Ask For Flamebait, But...

[adavies42]

You don't really have the right to self-defense, you know. You may think you do, but if you're not extremely careful to hit the burglar no harder than he hit you, you're liable to end up in jail yourself. (God help you if you kill him.) I've heard the "crime" described as "disproportionate response" (don't know if that's an official term or not).

As for "never" having been allowed to "own handguns at home for personal protection", you have a rather limited perspective for someone in a country a thousand years old--I suggest you go read some Sherlock Holmes stories. :-)

Re:Not to Ask For Flamebait, But...

[heypete]

There are numerous other contributing factors than the presence or absence of a certain type weapon.

Criminals have no problem acquiring and importing vast quantities of drugs and other contraband. If firearms were somehow officially banned, I suspect that criminals would still be able to acquire them with relative ease.

Or they could commit crimes with knives, clubs, pointed sticks, fists, chains, tire irons, lead weights, swords, noxious chemicals, or any number of dangerous items commonly found in modern society. Several can be quite a bit more dangerous than a gun.

It would be interesting to map out where various crimes take place, and what parties are involved. From the brief amount of research that I've done on the topic (and by no means exhaustive or error-free, I'm sure), it would seem that a majority of crimes committed with guns in the US involve inner-city, low-income, black males that a) are involved with drug trafficking/sales, b) members of criminal gangs, or c) both. Not surprisingly, most of their victims fit into the same categories. Many of those committing gun-related crimes are already convicted criminals, and it's already illegal for them to own or possess firearms.

Your average law-abiding Joe Sixpack is not, statistically speaking, a danger to himself or others when it comes to firearms. There's something like 90 million gun owners in the United States, with about 500 million privately owned firearms. Only the tiniest fraction of these guns are used by criminals.

It would seem that the most obvious and effective method of dealing with this issue would be to a) stop people from becoming criminals, and b) punish those who do become criminals. "a" is a bit difficult, with prior-restraint laws and other various freedoms (which I fully support). As for "b", that's for people more well-versed in law enforcment and the justice system to figure out -- all I know is that something isn't right when people charged with assault, armed robbery, and so forth get the revolving-door treatment, while people convicted of non-violent offenses frequently serve longer sentences.

Re:Not to Ask For Flamebait, But...

[RexRhino]

So, what is the point you are trying to make? An armed public was thought to be fundamental to democracy by all sorts of people, from George Orwell, to Malcom X, to Mohandas Gandhi.

Traditionally in Europe, only the upper classes were allowed to own and be trained in weapons, and the serfs and lower classes were disarmed. As Europe evolved from serfdom to social democracy, the government technocrats replaced the hereditary elite, but it was a matter of tradition to keep people disarmed (except amoung certain traditionally independent groups of Europeans). Gun control seems as natural to Europeans as having a picture of a hereditary monarch on money, or having a recognized state religion.

However, the United States fought a people's revolution against a Monarchy... having an armed population not only made practical sense, but it was a symbolic way of saying "you are all part of the upper class now!". Of course, the egalitarian ideals have been eroded over the years, or were never quite implemented in the first place - but we still have that attachment to the concept of "every man is a nobleman" ideal.

But none of that contradicts the relevancy of gun control or the lack of it. An armed population is the last defence against despotism. Every totalitarian leader has disarmed the people who he intended to oppress. If gun control isn't an issue in Europe, it is Europe's mistake. I am also pretty sure the acts of genocide and mass murder common in Europe (even as late as the 1990s), would be far less common if oppressed people were disarmed and helpless.

(Also, on a note, I know there are European countries that have gun ownership similiar to the United States [Austria], and some places where gun ownership is a respected duty to the country [Switzerland], and people who were historicaly disarmed because of foriegn invasion [Ireland]... and so my generalizations about Europe don't apply everywhere in Europe)

Re:Not to Ask For Flamebait, But...

[BasilBrush]

But the taxpayer paying doesn't mean that it's not a right. If it so happens that I don't pay any tax, and therefore haven't contributed a penny to the health service, I still as a UK citizen have a right treatment from the National Health Service at no cost.

It's a great feeling to know that if something is ever wrong with you, the ambulance that comes to pick you up won't ask you how you're going to pay. And nor will you be taken to a different hospital depending on the result of that question.

Re:Not to Ask For Flamebait, But...

[BasilBrush]

The law says you are allowed to use "reasonable force". So, if you have a gun, and you are in fear for your safety, and he's entering the house, reasonable response could be shooting him, even if he has no gun. However shooting him in the back as he's trying to get away, or beating him after you've tied him up isn't.

So yes, we do have a right to self-defense. But we don't have a right to take the law into our own hands. Self defense, yes. Revenge, no.

Re:Not to Ask For Flamebait, But...

[brpr]

Just because guns aren't the only offensive weapon in existence doesn't mean that banning them doesn't make it more difficult to kill people. Despite what you say, there are very few weapons as dangerous as guns generally available in a modern society.

You should also be aware that gun crime in the UK is going down. It's just that crimes with fake guns are normally included in the statistics, and there has been a sharp rise in fake gun crime (presumably because, contrary to what you suggest, making guns illegal makes it much harder for small-time criminals to get hold of them!)

Re:Not to Ask For Flamebait, But...

[brpr]

An armed population is the last defence against despotism.

Except when the gun freaks tend to be supporters of the most despotic government in recent American history, that is.

Hey, why not go the whole way and let everyone own tanks and ICBMs. It would be unconstitutional to prevent them, of course.

And yes, gun control in Europe is a massive feadalist conspiracy (and we thought you wouldn't notice!) Although that you might want to consider the fact that it's actually the more wealthy people in Europe who tend to be in favour of gun ownership, not us salt-of-the-earth serf types.

Re:Not to Ask For Flamebait, But...

[brpr]

Oops, "feadalist" -> "eudalist"

Re:Not to Ask For Flamebait, But...

[16K Ram Pack]

It's that old thing of not studying history.

The new republics in eastern europe are going to be the countries with the strongest civil rights because they had them taken away most recently.

Many of my countrymen in the UK have no idea where this could lead. Semi-voluntary ID today, mandatory ID tomorrow.

Most people are glad to support a smoking ban in pubs which is an infringement on someone's property rights. Because they don't think in those terms.

Re:Not to Ask For Flamebait, But...

[dchallender]

Interesting to see that the Dutch ID card scheme played a big role in helping the Nazis round up (with inevitable consequences) the Jews (as ID card indicated if someone was Jewish).

Re:Not to Ask For Flamebait, But...

[Nick Gisburne]

That probably encompasses my feelings on the subject. Making it more difficult to kill people is a key point - if I'm going to be mugged, I'd rather be beaten up than shot. I have much more chance of surviving. Banning guns takes away the weapons from opportunists, the people who are desperate, get drunk, and go out to rob the local shop. You can get guns, yes, but it is VERY difficult, and you have to be extremely determined to do so, and given the network of people you'd have to be involved with, the contacts you'd need, the average 'street punk' probably wouldn't even know where to go to get one in the UK.

The fact that fake gun crime seems to be rising is probably why there is more and more legislation being introduced which makes it both harder to buy imitations, and is tougher on people who own/carry them. The same goes for air guns - more laws on the way.

Even kids don't play with toy guns any more, unless it's fantasy 'laser rifle' things which are obvious toys and bear no relation to real-world weapons. It's not socially acceptable to play 'cops and robbers' or 'cowboys and indians', at least not with toy pistols and rifles. Obviously a lot of outdoor play has been replaced by video games, but shooting pixels is a lot safer than shooting bullets!

Re:Not to Ask For Flamebait, But...

[mormop]

"Once he was finished with the rest of Europe, do you really think Adolf would have stopped at the channel for the sake of civility? As for "population density" - Holland? Belgium?

I don't know as I wasn't there. There are however people whose job it is to sift through archives looking for information and I have read several times that the original comments were possibly true. Whether they are based on facts drawn from the archives or the ramblings of right wing historical revisionists is open to debate but in my original post I started with the statement that "there is a line of thought that suggests". To blindly accept any one interpretation of history without thinking "what would have happened if", particularly when you're dealing with a mind as twisted as Hitlers, is not a good thing. Also remember that the British establishment at that time including the aristocracy contained many Hitler worshippers and it seems possible that some kind of arrangement would have been made that prevented Britain from being forcibly invaded. OK so I cocked up in phrasing the last bit. It was population desity + class structure and the fact that the working classes hadn't turned on the rulers in a French revolution style that impressed Hitler.

Face it, the only viable option was to team up with the US and Russia and get rid of Hitler, Just thank God you had Churchill and not just Chamberlain; I do,"

Yep, I'm glad we had Churchill as well although I feel that Chaimberlain is unfairly maligned for his appeasment based as it was on a desire to avoid a repeat of the bloodshed that occured in WW1 rather than an act of cowardice. Also note that at the time of Chaimberlain's declaration of war on Germany teaming up with Russia and the US was not an option as Russia had a non-aggresion pact with Germany and America expected the RAF to last 3 weeks before the Germans invaded while the US population opposed entering "another European war".

Make no mistake, I'm not claiming Hitler was right, nor am I saying that I wish he'd won. Indeed my dad spent the war years in North Africa and the Med flying anti-shipping and ASR missions and I'm proud of the part he played in nailing the Third Reich but the original question was would the British people have been any worse off had Hitler won. That's open to personal interpretation as well but as a constant criticism of dictatorships during WW2 and the Cold War was the constant surveillance of its citizens through cameras, phone taps and informants and the use of a compliant media to reinforce the status quo I often, in my more paranoid moments, start to wonder. I mean really, I don't think Tony Blair is that interested in watching my every move but the hard part of setting up an opressive regime is getting the mechanisms for enforcing that opression place without anyone noticing or complaining about it. Should a British government come to power that does want to rule by force New Labour has installed everything they need to make it easy from day one.

Re:Not to Ask For Flamebait, But...

[johansalk]

I used to dislike CCTV till I watched one of those TV shows about the police and how they used footage from a CCTV camera in the street to capture a tall and huge guy who was kicking the head of a young kid that was already unconscious at that point. My blood boiled at the sight of that. I'm glad they caught him. I have since supported CCTV cameras.

Re:Not to Ask For Flamebait, But...

[JaxWeb]

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. America's problems are much worse, and in fact the UK is ahead of America in civil rights and such. We are just both behind places like Sweden.

Labour are not fascist. Conservatives are not for civil liberties either; they are just not against them.

I think Americas problems are actually much worse than the UKs, and we are certainally not doing worse things. You are just blind of the problems of America and uninformed about the problems of the UK if you think that.

Re:Not to Ask For Flamebait, But...

[isorox]

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).

I take it that The main story of today didn't happen then?

CCTV has reduced crime a lot, and we don't like crime. It doesn't affect our civil rights at all.

Well at least some of the ones that abuse it get jailed

ID cards do not affect civil rights either at all.

Of course not. They are little pieces of plastic. The things that do affect civil rights are what happens when the massive central database is abused, by insiders or outsiders, or even sold off to dodgy criminals

Of course once you are required to carry them arround it will be easier to find out who is at a peaceful demonstration and quietly arrest them a few weeks later

America's problems are much worse, and in fact the UK is ahead of America in civil rights and such. We are just both behind places like Sweden.

Well Duh

Labour are not fascist. Conservatives are not for civil liberties either; they are just not against them.

Torys are against things that Labour are for. Labour are for Spin, PR, the credit economy, "Being seen to do something", Pleasing George, Pleasing Europe, or just Pleasing campaign contributers

I think Americas problems are actually much worse than the UKs, and we are certainally not doing worse things. You are just blind of the problems of America and uninformed about the problems of the UK if you think that.

Yup. America has a lot of problems, however it seems you're blind to the UK's problems, including unprecedent consumer debt, overvalued housing market, london-centric population, shaky stock market, collapsing pensions etc.

Re:Not to Ask For Flamebait, But...

[JaxWeb]

1. Some gun crime still occurs, but less than if there were no control. It is interesting that nearly every shooting gets on the news, isn't it?

2. That would've occurred even without CCTV. That is a human problem, not a technology one.

3. Companies already know a lot about us. So do political parties even when they are not in power. There is already lots of data which can be abused. The page you link to via Google is out of context - see replies in this same story. Insiders are worrying, but it is not a new problem.

4. (Nothing to add)

5. It is very easy to take the opinion that "Labour are all spin!" when it is what the comedians, the newspapers and the cartoonist all say. There is some truth in it, but it is perhaps better to be reasoned.

6. I didn't say anything about those problems! Consumer debt is particularly worrying actually. Very worrying. And add on to all of that the world problems, like global warming (if you believe it) and peak oil (again, if you believe it. Although this is perhaps more questionable) that we must worry about.

(This has nothing to do with this thread in particular, but some people have said that the MPs are stupid. They certainly are not, there are a lot of intelligent ones there)

Re:Not to Ask For Flamebait, But...

[JesseMcDonald]

Here in the States, we typically call that "ethical behavior" on the part of the hospital, not a fundamental right. Rights generally don't include externalities, cases where someone else is forced to pay for your benefits. Also, property rights tend to be more fundamental to society than health care "rights"; your "free" health care won't mean anything if your economy can't support the necessary taxation, and productive economies are not sustainable when private property rights are not recognized (see "Communism"). In a system primary made up of government programs funded through taxation, though, property rights would be completely meaningless, since no one can truly be said to own any property that can be taken away from them on the government's whim. Communism is basically the ultimate aim of the welfare state -- 100% taxation, all services provided through universal social programs rather than private enterprise; perfect equality for all citizens. Incidently, it's never worked out all that well in the past; do you really think it would tend to work any better for a single industry than it did for entire economies?

The level of medical security you appreciate so much could be provided with a simple insurance system, or a (voluntary) trust fund chartered to pay up front (as a charity-based loan) for those whose savings and/or insurance won't cover the hospital's costs; there's no need to resort to taxation when private solutions exist. That's essentially what we do in the States, and despite the occasional exaggerated horror story, U.S. hospitals generally don't make people wait when time is an issue, just as I'm sure your "free" medical care isn't as poor as some people have reported it to be.

Re:Not to Ask For Flamebait, But...

[Luscious868]

Frankly, those elements of our Republic which you (and our founding Fathers) espouse are being washed down the drain as we speak. We're going/gone right back to having an Emperor and a Senate of wealthy self-interests. It's all very democratic, if you happen to be a Senator or Emperor. It seems somehow more Feudal than Republican.

Really? Given the fact that the majority of our founding fathers were wealthy land owning white males I'd say that not all that much has actually changed. Yes we've seen the rise of the middle class and equal rights under the law for women and minorities but when you look at who really has the power it is still primarily wealthy land owning white males.

The founding fathers of the United States of America succeeded in developing a system of goverment that, for the most part, allows us to resolve our differences without resorting to violence and gives us just enough freedom and opportunity to keep us busy and well off enough not to really give a shit about how badly we're getting fucked up the upper 1%. It's an engenious system if you think about. The rich stay rich, the middle class keeps working for the rich insipired by those tales of fellow members of the middle class who were lucky enough to become rich and the poor are there just to scare the shit out of the middle class should they get any funny "ideas".

Hey, it's a deeply flawed system but it still beats the shit out of 99% of what's out there. If you work hard and either get an education or educate yourself, you can move move up in our system. In America if you work hard enough and have a little luck you can go from the guy getting fucked to the guy doing the fucking. Isn't it grand?

Re:Not to Ask For Flamebait, But...

[PCPete]

Only the Jews would be worse off

Re:Not to Ask For Flamebait, But...

[RexRhino]

Except when the gun freaks tend to be supporters of the most despotic government in recent American history, that is.
What makes you think that supporters of an armed public support the current government? The Republican party is one of the biggest supporters of gun control ever. No national gun control law would be possible without significant support from the Republicans.

You would like to imagine that all people who support gun ownership are gun toting, Bush supporting, Rednecks. That stereotype is complete fiction. For example, when I lived in Detroit, the primarily Democratic, urban, African American electorate overwelming voted in a referendum to allow concieled carry of weapons for any reason (previously in Michigan, concieled carry was only allowed for people who had a "good reason", such as jewelry shop owners, professional bodyguards, etc.). The Democratic party tends to be for gun control, but when Democrats are offered a referendum where they can vote directly themselves, they are almost universally against gun control. The Democratic party gets a lot of money from the gun control lobby, so they go against the views of their constituents. In Brazil, the recent referendum to ban the private ownership of guns was a total failure - the gun control lobby thought that the left-leaning poor would garantee an almost total victory since leftist parties tend to favor gun control - Instead people from all walks of life thrashed the gun control measure. It was an utter and complete political disaster for the gun control lobby. Now there is a popular movement to constitutionally garantee the right to bear arms in Brazil.

Your "understanding" of the gun control issue comes mostly from propoganda by governments and political groups that have a vested interest in keeping the people disarmed and helpless.

Although that you might want to consider the fact that it's actually the more wealthy people in Europe who tend to be in favour of gun ownership, not us salt-of-the-earth serf types.
I have to disagree... Almost universally the urban bougiouse support gun control. The urban bougoise like to think they are "progressive", and so when they support gun control they convince themselves that it has the support of the poor... when in fact the poor are voting for the "progressive" parties for economic benefits, not for anything to do with gun control. When the issue of gun control is actually put to a referendum to be decided by the people, the masses are almost universally against gun control.

Hey, why not go the whole way and let everyone own tanks and ICBMs. It would be unconstitutional to prevent them, of course.
In the U.S. many private persons do own tanks (although usually they are historical preservationists and have no intention of using tanks for combat - regardless, even historical tanks could still cause some pretty serious mayhem, don't you think). And private companies are developing satalite launch vehicals - and as you know, anything that can launch a satalite can be used as an ICBM. Of course, tanks and ICBMs are different than say, an assualt rifle, in that virtually no private person could afford a tank or an ICBM. Tanks and ICBMs are prohibitivly expensive for your average person.

Re:Not to Ask For Flamebait, But...

[cyranose]

No. I think a lot has changed. There are certainly Senators around today who argue for a greater good that doesn't necessarily benefit them, their constituents, or supporters. But I can't imagine today's Congress coming up with anything like the Constitution or the Bill or Rights if given the chance.

I think today's Congressthings would, if not for the constitution, abdicate to a dictatorship as long as they keep the ability to wrestle over more dollars for their home districts and their financial supporters (who are increasingly remote, which I think would have seemed treasonous 200 years ago).

And are you sure it's better than 99% of what's out there? And if there's room for improvement, why not try?

Re:Not to Ask For Flamebait, But...

[stanmann]

Well, there are almost no legally owned private weapons in Washington DC, and Baltimore, and those two cities have the highest gun crime rates in the country. Nearby in Arlington VA, There is a very low rate of gun crime and a very high rate of legally owned private weapons.

Re:Not to Ask For Flamebait, But...

[stanmann]

On the exact other direction, in MANY jurisdictions in the US, someone is "legally" attacking you as long as they are inside your residence, fleeing or not, unless they are restrained or detained, they can legally be acted against.

Re:Not to Ask For Flamebait, But...

[stanmann]

Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. How's that again? I missed something. Autocracy is based on the assumption that one man is wiser than a million men. Let's play that over again, too. Who decides?

Robert Anson Heinlein

Re:Not to Ask For Flamebait, But...

[91degrees]

I wasn't bitching. It's not a criticism. It's a fucking observation. Like I said...

RIGHTS ARE RELATIVE Got it?

Re:Not to Ask For Flamebait, But...

[BasilBrush]

So your argument is basically that a state funded health service is communist and communism doesn't work. Sorry, but that argument carries no weight whatsoever with those of us that have enjoyed a free National Health Service for decades without a hint of communism. Yours is an American misconception.

Is the UK health system better or worse than the US health system? Well, if you can afford to pay for private health insurance, then there is no difference whatsoever. You are quite free to go private here too, and you'll get whatever you pay for, either directly or in terms of insurance cover. However for people that are too poor to afford private health care, and that's a lot of people, the British system is far superior in quality. It's also cheaper. The US spends twice as much per capita on health care as the UK. Those insurance and private heath providers profits have to come from somewhere you know.

Watch the documentary 30 Days: Minimum Wage if you want to see the reality of how appalling and expensive US health care is for the poor. It's a situation we haven't seen in the UK since WWII.

Re:Not to Ask For Flamebait, But...

[91degrees]

The level of medical security you appreciate so much could be provided with a simple insurance system, or a (voluntary) trust fund chartered to pay up front (as a charity-based loan) for those whose savings and/or insurance won't cover the hospital's costs; there's no need to resort to taxation when private solutions exist. That's essentially what we do in the States, and despite the occasional exaggerated horror story, U.S. hospitals generally don't make people wait when time is an issue, just as I'm sure your "free" medical care isn't as poor as some people have reported it to be.

Indeed. Education should be funded in the same way.

Papers, please.

[mrchaotica]

I don't get it. Did the British learn nothing from World War II?!

Re:Papers, please.

[NoMercy]

Least this time the'll have our DNA on file, so when the goverment goes against an ethnic group, the'll be no escape *hopes geeks don't have a genitic group*

Re:Papers, please.

[JeanBaptiste]

Do you really believe that during WW2 that suspicious citizenry were not required to prove their identities in order to prove they weren't German spies?

British counter-intelligence was incredible during WW2. There are reasons for that. Many, many times 'privacy concerns' were flatly ignored by both the Brits and the US. Stuff that would make this current 'wiretapping' business, or ID cards look like nothing.

It's easy to look back on WW2 as a battle of freedom vs dictatorship, but in reality it was far more complex than that, and basic human rights regarding privacy, torture, etc were broken on all sides, not just by the nazis.

Re:Papers, please.

[Richard_at_work]

The UK had ID cards during WW2, so your point may not be as valid as you think.

Re:Papers, please.

[biglig2]

Yes, and we stopped having them when the war ended, and we didn't need them when the IRA were blowing things up left right and centre. Explain again exactly what has changed since then?

Re:Papers, please.

[nbert]

That's a typhic black-white reasoning scheme at it's best. Just because ID-cards were introduced in the Third Reich (and have been used for doing a lot of bad things) doesn't mean that they are evil by definition.

By that kind of logic we should get rid of the olympic torch right away, because it was introduced in 1936 in Berlin (look it up if you are in doubt).

Re:Papers, please.

[m50d]

You've got to remember that we were never invaded, never under Nazi power, and never under control of the Soviets afterwards. So did we learn anything about what it's like to live under an authoritarian government? Of course not.

Re:Papers, please.

[Tim Browse]

Yes, GB had ID cards during WW2, for reasons you imply. On the other hand, I believe it was in the early 50s that they were abolished, a move that was in part sparked by an incident of the police demanding to see a taxi driver's ID card, and arresting him when he didn't/couldn't show it. The case went to court, and the court ruled that the police had overstepped the mark, and that this was very much not how they should be dealing with ID cards, and especially not in peace-time.

As far as I recall the details, anyway. I am open to correction :-)

Re:Papers, please.

[91degrees]

We learned "Don't trust the government". There is gong to be a lot of public resistance over this. The government may think ID cards are a good idea, but the public don't, whatever screwed up polls might suggest.

Re:Papers, please.

[jez9999]

Countries like the USA are requiring biometric passports for foreign citizens to get in. :-\ Doesn't seem to apply to US residents, though, so McVeigh could get in no problem.

Re:Papers, please.

[jez9999]

In fact, vote in and have a look at the poll on BBC News right now. Seems 80 of the public think this is a shit idea. So-called 'MPs' only voted for it because the ones that voted were Labour MPs under a three-line whip and too ready to kiss Blair's ass.

Re:Papers, please.

[Jerk City Troll]

And your mention of the Olympic torch is a stawman. (And it's on fire!) The torch in question is just a symbol which not only has limited scope, it's significance exists entirely in perception. It cannot be used to oppress people. It does not invade their privacy. It is, for all intents and purposes, benign. A compulsory identification card is another matter altogether. This changes things and usually for the worse.

Re:Papers, please.

[kraut]

> I don't get it. Did the British learn nothing from World War II?!
yeah, they learned that they need to call on the US to protect civilisation. Ah. Bugger.

Re:Papers, please.

[jonwil]

I challenge the CIA, DHS, FBI, ASIO, MI5, MI6, AFP etc etc etc to show one valid example or case study where having biometric passports, manditory ID cards or any of these other measures will stop a terrorist from getting into the country (be it USA, UK, AUS or wherever) and carrying out an attack. (i.e. an example where a terrorist would be caught because of these measures but would have gotten through without them)

Re:Papers, please.

[kraut]

> By that kind of logic we should get rid of the olympic torch right away, because it was introduced in 1936 in Berlin (look it up if you are in doubt).

Motorways and the VW beetle were also spawns of Fascism. So was the Saturn-V, albeit indirectly.

ID cards are neither bad nor good in themselves; after all, all countries have passports which is just a fancy form of ID for international travel. The specific problems with the UK ID card are:
1. It's ludicrously expsnsive
2. It doesn't address any of the issues it is purported to address - Terrorism, Immigration, Benefit Fraud - so what are the real motives?
3. It won't work; the UK govnmnt has never managed to get any moderately complicated IT system to work on time, or on buget, or on scope. In fact, their modus operani is to sue people for the last version while taking them on as preferred bidders for the next.
4. Any ID card system that is not compulsory is, ipso facto, pointless. Not that a compulsory ID card system makes a lot of sense (e.g. Germany and Spain have one, and they aren't noted for lack of terrorism, ID theft, illegal immigration or fraud), but an ID card is simply pointless unless it's compulsory. "Who are you?" "I won't tell you!" "OK then". Give me a break - If they wanted to solve an actual problem, they'd make it compulsory to carry your driving license and insurance details while driving, instead of letting you makeup a name on the spot.

Re:Papers, please.

[MooUK]

The original Olympics in ancient Greece had a torch, too, according to most histories.

Hence, it was only reintroduced in Berlin.

Re:Papers, please.

[igb]

Although it's not at all clear what the benefit was, aside from making the public feel that something was being done. There are plenty of documented cases of people going through the war without ID cards, and I'm not aware of cases of German spies being caught by virtue of ID card challenges. They weren't physically secure, and the Twenty Committee 0wned the wireless and crypto regime effectively enough that most spies had a reception committee waiting for them when they landed. ian

Re:Papers, please.

[nbert]

We're talking about two different things here: The olympic fire seems to be a concept the ancient greeks already had, albeit not being situated in Olympia, but in Athens. The idea of a fire was reintroduced at the summer games in 1928, which were held in Amsterdam.

But the ancient greeks never lit a torch on mount olympus to bring it to the site of the games like it has been done ever since '36. Afterall the distance between the classic site and the mountain is too short to be of much symbolic use anyways...

Re:Papers, please.

[mikael]

That was the court case involving Clarence Willcox

Since the 1939 National Registration Act was repealed in 1951 after Clarence Willcox, the manager of a dry cleaning shop, challenged the principle that a policeman could demand to see his wartime identity card,

The Guardian: ID Cards

Re:Papers, please.

[biglig2]

I think the only way they can work in preventing terrorism is if they are deeply invasive. Suppose MI6 work out that CowboyNeal is a desperate desperado that they need to stop. For the ID card to be useful to them, it means they have to put a flag on his card and get a report every time the card is used. For this to work, they need to make everyone use their cards all the time. If he only uses it when he has to get on a plane, well, that's cutting it a little fine, isn't it?

Note that despite what some ministers imply they can't do this the other way round - put a flag on Biglig's card saying "good guy" and thus making people not scrutinize me - because of course this is insanely dangerous, as the terrorists will go to considerable lengths to get such a flag on their card.

And of course either way comes back to my earlier point that since biometric recognition is not perfect, it will generate a slew of false negatives (people whos biometrics don't confirm their identity) that will clog up the system.

Re:Papers, please.

[pjt33]

Actually, the government did experiment with them in Northern Ireland during the Troubles. The experiment was a failure, because anyone with a card was waved through the checkpoint. IIRC Lembit Opik has brought this up in the current debate.

Re:Papers, please.

[biglig2]

"Nor do I see advantage in a system of identity cards, which apart from creating difficulties for ordinary people would be extremely expensive and largely ineffective," wrote Labour Home Secretary Roy Jenkins in 1974, immediately after the IRA had killed 21 people in the Birmingham pub bombings.

Re:Papers, please.

[pjt33]

My memory was faulty: it was in fact Patrick Mercer rather than Lembit Opik. Hansard.

Re:Papers, please.

[nbert]

Maybe I wasn't using the best example in the world in this case, but it doesn't take more than a strawman in this case to prove grandparent wrong. If you don't like the torch think about the beetle or rocket science or a good portion of sub-sonic flight aerodynamics.

Coming to think about the reactions on /. I'm starting to wonder if Germany has learned the most from WWII.

Commons?

[airship]

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?

Re:Commons?

[Spad]

Yes and no. The lords will almost certainly strike down any crazy legislation that the government tries to put through, however, as Tony Blair proved with the Fox Hunting Ban, if the Lords block him repeatedly he'll just force the legislation through under the Parliament Act.

Re:Commons?

[joe 155]

unfortunately (or not depending on the law) the House of Commons has the suprime authority over all issues and can use the Parliament Act of 1947 to push a law through that the Lords reject after 3 tries to get it through regularly. the system is different in this respect; the house of representatives can't over-rule the Senate.

Still if you think thats a bad system the Prime Minister could pass the law overnight, all he'd need is to get the Privy Council (which is made up of cabinet ministers - some past and present - and a few others) to agree and then the Queen to sign it (still the Queen can refuse to sign any law and then it doesn't become law - a power which hasn't been used since queen Anne - but still exists). Then it'd be law tomorrow... and the best thing is we don't need to worry about the seperation of powers or people's rights... oh, wait...

Re:Commons?

[Anne Thwacks]

The process as it is now:

First reading: Commons propose the bill.

Second reading: Lords point out that the bill is generally undesirable, and much of the wording is either ambiguous or meaningless.

Third reading:Bill returns to the commons, where the Lords are overruled on the grounds that they are old codgers.

"if" it passes the third reading, it becomes law. (There is no "else").

Re:Commons?

[GigsVT]

We have executive orders which are probably worse in many ways. Executive orders are issued by the president, with no other approval required. They can only be issued to governmental agencies, but since federal law enforcement is a government agency, it basically gives the president nearly unlimited, mostly unchecked, power.

Sure congress can rewrite the laws to specifically forbid the action in the executive order, but the president has supreme veto power, so he can veto the amendment.

There's not even public notification for executive orders that concern "national security", so there's an entire body of secret laws out there, that no one can know if they violate or not until the FBI shows up.

You can challenge them in court, but the supreme court has only rarely struck down executive orders.

Re:Commons?

[operagost]

I can't look at guys like Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy, and John Kerry, and say they're older and wiser with a straight face.

Re:Commons?

[Cal Paterson]

Erm, no. The Commons is the elected house. The Lords in appointed.

Re:Commons?

[Cal Paterson]

If you have any idea what you were talking about, you'd know the second reading is taken in the House of Commons. Further, the Lords not only don't hear the 2nd reading, they don't hear until after the 3rd.

For your infomation, the system works something like this:
House of Commons: 1st Reading
House of Commons: 2nd Reading
House of Commons: Committee Stage
House of Commons: Report Stage
House of Commons: 3rd Reading
House of Lords: Reading (if they don't pass it, the whole thing starts again)
Royal Assent: The Queen signs it.

Get a fucking clue before you start spouting off shit you clearly don't understand.

I just hope the House of Lords kicks it back again

[dan dan the dna man]

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.

Poor British citizens, their government's watching

[Lord Satri]

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."

Got Mine!

[slashbob22]

.. and it looks great. What's this antenna sticking out of it?

Re:Got Mine!

[Hogwash McFly]

That's no antenna, that's a Freedom Pole.

Now, if you'd care to focus your attention on that funny monkey outside the window, I'm sure that you will be quite amused by his comical antics.

Stupid paranoia with ID cards.

[Blaskowicz]

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.

Re:Stupid paranoia with ID cards.

[Spad]

It's not the card, it's the vast amount of personal data that the government is going to be linking to the card.

Re:Stupid paranoia with ID cards.

[jandrese]

Actually, if you don't have a license in the US, you can get a non-drivers license government issued photo ID as a replacement. Lots of old people who can't drive anymore have them. Of course it's not compulsory, and most places go out of their way to give you alternate means of identification if you don't have one for whatever reason (you'll see wording like: Provide one from column A (which has passport, drivers license, government photo ID, military ID, etc...) or two from column B (bank statements, credit cards, etc...).

That said, there are some things that will stop you dead if you don't have a government issued photo ID. Entering most military bases for one. Buying alcohol or cigarettes or going into an R rated film for another.

Re:Stupid paranoia with ID cards.

[Da Zeg]

The point is I already have a drivers license, and a passport. These ARE enough to prove my identity. Not only is it an infringement of civil liberties and a stealth tax, to force me to pay for an id card. It's a pointless excersise where the risks far outweigh any possible gains.

Re:Stupid paranoia with ID cards.

[kyb]

You may find this page useful in understanding why it's perfectly reasonable to be suspicious of ID cards.

It's the nature of governments to continually increase their power, and it's the responsibility of the people to limit a governments power to the absolute minimum required to fulfill its function.

Remember as well, when you give a government that you trust powers, you aren't just giving them the powers, but also all the future governments that you may or may not trust.

Why should I need to show papers to authorities when I'm walking down the street? Is the street theirs and I get to walk on it only at their sufferance, or are they my servants that exist to make sure that I can walk down the street freely?

Re:Stupid paranoia with ID cards.

[EzInKy]

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.

Re:Stupid paranoia with ID cards.

[dago]

to the card ? Do you think the US or the UK government is waiting on ID cards to link informations about individuals ???

The social security number is uniquely (well...) identifying people in the USA for decades ... I guess you can find the similar in UK.

Re:Stupid paranoia with ID cards.

[mikael]

In the UK, we are suspicious of:

(1) The cost - that this is going to be a cash cow for the biometrics companies. The majority (if not all) of all UK government IT contracts, have costs that end up spiralling out of control, and have hefty cancellation fees. There is a fear that the government will charge an administration fee every time your address changes, and fine anyone who fails to update their address. Consider students, homeless people and contract workers who change address regularly.

(2) The invasion of privacy - governments departments such as the DVLA are already in trouble for selling personal information (names and addresses) to questionable private car clamping firms (with owners who have criminal records) who have sent threatening letters to car owners.

(3) The arguments for the need for ID cards have included: the ability to fight terrorism (although the home secretary admits it would not have stopped the London bombings), and the ability to fight social security fraud (although certain members of the public will be allowed to have two ID cards). If fraudsters are able to forge utility bills, passports, bank cards, what is going to stop them from faking ID cards?

(4) A good percentage of the population believe that the UK government has lost control of illegal immigration and is spending money on ID cards because they can't control the borders. And they can't target non-Christian religions, because that would be racist.

(5) Function creep - that the ID cards will be used for more basic services, such as booking flight, national train journeys and maybe even shopping purchases.

In any case, it would seem that France is also getting French ID cards

Re:Stupid paranoia with ID cards.

[AndyboyH]

because they're pushing it for the wrong reasons. saying it'll prevent terrorism and immigration.

At best it'll cut crime because they'll have everyone's fingerprint on file, however, that's dubious, and leads to the question whether you're happy that certain features that uniquely identify you are stored in a computer and accessible to government and certain private interests? I don't like the idea of being fingerprinted just because I'm a citizen of the country (and I actually did participate in the biometric ID card trial 2/3 years ago when I was in my final year at university, and have the card to prove it)

Re:Stupid paranoia with ID cards.

[soft_guy]

Buying alcohol or cigarettes or going into an R rated film for another

I call bullshit here. I have bought alcohol without anyone asking to check my ID ever since I turned about 28 - I'm 34 now. When I did smoke, I was hardly ever carded for cigarettes - even when I was 15. I have *never* been carded for an R rated film and I've been going to see R rated films since I was ten.

Re:Stupid paranoia with ID cards.

[Cal Paterson]

Um, because the French ID card is completely different. Also: the British ID card is pretty much just a stepping stone on to more draconian things.

Re:Stupid paranoia with ID cards.

[jtogel]

I have to agree with the above poster. We've had ID cards in Sweden for ages, and I've never noticed any significant breach of privacy. What I have noticed is how difficult it is in the UK (where I'm living at the moment) to e.g. open a bank account. Proving your identity here requires obscene arrangements like producing a "utility bill" (gas, electricity etc.) which mean tough luck if your name is not on the contract. On the other hand, once you've got your foot in the system, you can register for a lot of things in the wrong name. The system without ID cards is perverse and I'm frankly amazed that it somehow works after all.

Re:Stupid paranoia with ID cards.

[shutdown -p now]

It's the nature of governments to continually increase their power, and it's the responsibility of the people to limit a governments power to the absolute minimum required to fulfill its function.

Yes, but its function varies from country to country, depending on what people say it should be (assuming we only speak of democracies here). If the majority of people think ID cards are a good idea, by all means, let them have it - that's democracy for you.

Re:Stupid paranoia with ID cards.

[91degrees]

And if the government were to introduce a simple voluntary ID card with a photo, to be administered by local government, at a cost of £5 or so, then I'd see a certain benefit to it. I might even approve.

Why though, do we need a £3 billion scheme with a huge database, biometrics, and countless other security measures just to open a bank account?

Re:Stupid paranoia with ID cards.

[ClamIAm]

In the US, we already have government-issued ID cards, although I don't think they're mandatory in most places. They are issued by each state (and you can get one even if you don't need to or can't drive).

The thing I would be most worried about is the concentration of data into one database, and the potential abuse. If we all are forced to have this one card, then many government organizations would need access to this number and the data associated with it. Governments also contract work out to private corporations. This means that there are an unknown number of people who have access to everyone's information. Can I trust each and every one of these people with all my personal information? Will they sell off my data because they want some extra money, or maybe because they have a grudge against me? Identity theft just gets a whole lot easier.

And if they have any of the computers where all this data is stored connected to the Internet, nearly no security can be assured (especially with the beauracratic track records of the US government).

Re:Stupid paranoia with ID cards.

[lga]

Do you think the US or the UK government is waiting on ID cards to link informations about individuals ???

Yes, actually.

Currently government departments are prevented by law from linking databses and sharing data. The Identity Card bill not only establishes an Identity Register, it also changes the law so that it can be shared with every branch of government.

Re:Stupid paranoia with ID cards.

[Ph33r th3 g(O)at]

Doesn't look like things are turning out a whole lot different than if they were, though.

~~~

Re:Stupid paranoia with ID cards.

[teaX0r]

Skip to a Purely Biometric System

Why bother with the cards? We could just go down to some office, have them perform a retina, finger print, or face scan, and database us using those as keys. No card, no chip, no bar code, no "mark of the beast." Just your smiling face and baby blues. You'd never forget your driver's license because your hands and face are the license. I can't say I like the idea (I enjoy my fleeting delusions of privacy), but I expect it to happen in my lifetime.

Re:Stupid paranoia with ID cards.

[mikael]

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.

Re:Stupid paranoia with ID cards.

[A beautiful mind]

Exactly. I don't understand the protests about that ID card.

In Hungary, I had an ID card since I was 14. In the last TEN years I've never been asked by a police officer or any law enforcment personnel to show my ID (In Hungary it is required by law that you have at least one document officially capable of proving your identity and to carry it with you).

I have an ID card, a driving license, a passport, a student ID card, a tax ID card and a social security ID card oh and I have an online account which I can use with an online portal to deal with my official business like filling in taxes, etc. (I could use any of the first four to identify myself).

I don't understand the people recalling WW2 and nazi death camps and SS when talking about ID. It is perfectly normal for me to have one.

I most certainly understand if you are worried about the abuses with a computerized database, but it is a whole different issue! Fight the huge Orwellian database handling and not the ID cards...

Here is a snippet from wikipedia that sums up my view about the issue: "Argumentation about identity cards is largely limited to anglo-saxonic common-law countries. In most countries where an ID system is present, it is seen as a commonplace item that nobody argues about."

I have never even heard before of abuse related to ID cards in Hungary.

Re:Stupid paranoia with ID cards.

[DietEvil]

ID Cards are good for the UK and the US for a couple of reasons: 1) Easier to implement automated immigration and customs http://www.immd.gov.hk/ehtml/20041216.htm 2) Easier to know when and if someone on a limited stay has left the country. As it is now, the UK and the US do not have immigrations/customs formalities upon leaving the country. 3) Easier to catch over-stayers and illegal immigrants. The police here (Hong Kong) have the right to stop me at any time and ask my for my ID. They then radio in my ID card number and check if there are any oustanding warrants and if my immigration status is valid. Wouldn't it be nice if the same thing could be done with the massive illegal immigration in the US? btw, the ID card here was implemented by Britain, NOT China. so don't try to "communize" this comment.

Re:Stupid paranoia with ID cards.

[dago]

So, the UK government is prevented by law from linkind DB & sharing data ... just as the US one is prevented by law to spy on its citizens, or the swiss secret services to have files on half the country, or the french presidential services to spy on journalists in the 80's, or....

Quick disclaimer : I've an ID card since I'm 12, there's also a federal identity register and I couldn't care less about that. They already have all the infos, from school records to pension records + health, ... at least that has the potential to avoid useless nonsense paperwork.

Re:Stupid paranoia with ID cards.

[gsslay]

And they can't target non-Christian religions, because that would be racist.

Well that statement makes no sense.

What has religion to do with immigration or race?

Are you suggesting that they are targetting christian religions?

Re:Stupid paranoia with ID cards.

[tengwar]

As I understand it, if the police request your ID card in France and you are not able to produce it, you can be imprisoned for up to three days while someone brings it to you even though there is no other reason to detain you. Can you understand how strange and objectionable this seems to us?

Re:Stupid paranoia with ID cards.

[Cederic]

Maybe it's because the British government are rapidly passing ever more legislation that gravely alters the relationship between individuals and the state.

Later this week there's a bill in parliament to raise the time you can be held by the police without charge, without justification, without recourse to a lawyer, to 90 days.

Add that to "show me your ID" "I chose not to have one" and suddenly perfectly innocent people are behind bars for three months.

It will happen.

Reference the man that was arrested under anti-terror legislation for engaging in non-violent political debate. At a political conference.

Reference the heavy-handed police tactics at the pro-fox hunting protests - which included boarding busses nowhere near the city involved and telling the driver he had to turn around and was not allowed to stop for any reason - including toilet breaks.

Reference the existing shoot-to-kill policy in operation in London.

Maybe ID cards in themselves aren't such a big deal. Add everything together, and it all starts to look like non-violent civic protest is not going to be sufficient to protect the freedoms of this country.

Re:Stupid paranoia with ID cards.

[mikael]

Exactly. There are large muslim populations in the inner suburbs of many of the large cities in the North of England. They came across from Pakistan when Britain had a textiles industry, but now that all industry has left, they focus on religion as a means of keeping in touch with their roots. Since they form a substantial percentage of the local communities, MP's are desperate to keep on their good side to stay in power. This is where the London bombers came from.

Also, it's taken the police around 10 years to arrest Abu Hanza for charges relating to terrorism, while all the time they knew he was providing terrorism training courses. Now, the victims of the London bombings (around 500) are planning to sue the government for incompentence for failing to arrest him sooner.

In the past, the royalty and TB were desperate to keep on their side (Prince Charles retitled himself "The Keeper of the Faiths". Until the bombings that is.

Re:Stupid paranoia with ID cards.

[jandrese]

The cops around here crack down on non-carding every couple of years or so. The fines are really stiff too. Most businesses around here card everybody who isn't an AARP member (much to the delight of my mother when she comes by to visit). The movie theatres have to seperate out the screens showing R rated movies and put a velvet rope between the sections with an usher who checks your ID again to make sure you're over 17 or accompanied by a parent. NC17 and X rated films would probably get the same treatment if they were allowed at all.

Re:Stupid paranoia with ID cards.

[CmdrGravy]

Immigrants to the UK already have to carry an ID card, illegal immigrants obviously do not bother with this which is unfortunate since it's the illegal immigrants who we want to control.

The ID Card scheme as it's currently proposed here will be extremely expensive and not provide anyone with value for money or any benefits to justify it's cost.

Everything the government says will benefit from us carrying ID Cards would benefit a lot more from a share of the money we would spend pn ID cards to be allocated to it and spent in a targetted useful fashion rather than relying on an ID card system which is apparently not designed with any clear aim in mind but rather hazily targetted at a number of very different issues.

It's hard to see exactly what benefits we would get from ID cards because any politician who is asked to tie himself down to a discussion about specifcs or facts will dodge the question.

Re:Stupid paranoia with ID cards.

[gsslay]

Since they form a substantial percentage of the local communities, MP's are desperate to keep on their good side to stay in power.

Outrageous! How unlike other MPs in other communities who pay no heed of what their constituents think! It's this kind of sneaky "keeping on the good side of your voters" that's ruining our country!

Also, it's taken the police around 10 years to arrest Abu Hanza for charges relating to terrorism, while all the time they knew he was providing terrorism training courses.

That would be the kind of "knowing" that meant nothing about training courses was used to prosecute him.

Now, the victims of the London bombings (around 500) are planning to sue the government for incompentence for failing to arrest him sooner.

This is an unfounded statement. What evidence do you have that this is planned, and what evidence exists to connect Hanza to the bombings? Curiously, Scotland Yard believes there is none. What kind of conspiracy are you suggesting here?

I'm not supporting Hanza, he's a nut-case, but this kind of knee-jerk reaction and mindless smearing of entire communities and religions is exactly the kind of bollocks that causes paranoia and support for ID cards, as if they were some kind of solution to a poorly defined and unsubstantiated fear.

Re:Stupid paranoia with ID cards.

[soft_guy]

There is no such rating as "X" anymore. NC-17 replaced "X".

Re:Stupid paranoia with ID cards.

[mikael]

Outrageous! How unlike other MPs in other communities who pay no heed of what their constituents think! It's this kind of sneaky "keeping on the good side of your voters" that's ruining our country!

The problem is, the MP's or the local government have appeared to react quickly to a complaint from a mosque, than from a church. One example would have been explicit advertising beside a bus stop shelter. Members of a church complain - nothing happens. Members of a mosque complain - the identical advert is immediately taken down.

This is an unfounded statement. What evidence do you have that this is planned, and what evidence exists to connect Hanza to the bombings?

Here's the BBC news report. The police themselves believe he was linked to many terrorist plots:

BBC Home Editor Mark Easton said police believed the mosque, which is now under new management, was "linked to literally dozens of terrorist plots around Europe and beyond".

And another news report

BBC Home Affairs Correspondent Margaret Gilmore said: "If you look at those transcripts, you will see what a close relationship Abu Hamza had with MI5. ...

The Times has reported that the cleric had links to those responsible for the 7 July bomb attacks. ...
But BBC Security Correspondent Frank Gardner said Whitehall officials did not have any intelligence to suggest that any connection existed.

The Times
Another article

How quaint

[big c0ward]

ID cards? How pleasantly old fashioned. Wouldn't compulsory RFID implants make so much more sence?

Re:How quaint

[tradiuz]

I'm just afraid of my subcutaneous RFID card ringing up as a pack of Ho-Ho's at WalMart.

Re:How quaint

[jazman]

Yeah, but then you open that whole "mark of the beast" can of worms...

impractical

[geoff lane]

Given the population of 60 million people and taking some very conservative estimates there will be about 20 million card updates a year (people move, people die, new cards for kids, replacements for lost cards and there is a requirement to renew each card every 10 years no matter what.)

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?

Re:impractical

[Alioth]

Of course there will be stringent checks, and due to the backlog, will take 6-8 weeks to be completed. In the meantime, you are an unperson.

Re:impractical

[legirons]

"Given the population of 60 million people and taking some very conservative estimates there will be about 20 million card updates a year... That's about 100,000 card updates per working day."

Congratulations, you've just spent more time calculating the costs of this scheme than the UK Home Office has...

Re:Stupid paranoia with ID cards. Redux

[mpapet]

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?

Doesn't the US Real ID act

[Fuzzball963]

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.

Re:Doesn't the US Real ID act

[Kuvagh]

"I for one," you say? Someone who really does welcome our overlords!

progress

[rd4tech]

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.

Re:progress

[nagora]

it's called progress, it has good and bad sides, get used to it.

If it's bad it's not progress; it's just change.

TWW

Can someone catch me up?

[RyoShin]

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.

Re:Can someone catch me up?

[_Pablo]

If someone did swipe your NID, then you'd prove that you're you, get a new NID, and have the old one invalidated.

Simple when you say it like that...and ignore the issue of proving you are you. Maybe that's what the huge DNA database is for.

Re:Can someone catch me up?

[biglig2]

Some points to think about:

1) We in the UK have a very long history of not having to "show our papers" to policemen. We did it in World War 2, but not during the IRA bombing campaigns. Is the "War on Terror" more like WW2 or more like a viscious terror campaign on UK soil?
2) Single database = Single point of attack for hackers/terrorists/infiltrators
3) Biometric identification reduces security. Suppose Iris recognition is 99% accurate. (it's nowhere near as good as that). Heathrow processes 185,000 people a day. That's 1,850 people who fail the recognition every day; almost one a minute. Each one of whom you have to take away and examine in detail. After a month or so how hard do you think they'll be looking at these people?
4) In any case, the terrorists will not be in those 1,850 people, because they'll have perfectly good ID, just like the Madrid bombers all had, and so will be waved through wothout extra scrutiny. First rule of using false ID properly (i.e. not to get into bars in the US at 19) is never travel with forged ID; use forged documents to apply for a real ID and use that.
5) How much will they pay clerks at the new National ID processing centre? How much money does Osama Bin Laden have?
6) What if someone has your NID with their biometiric information on it (see above about applying with flase information). How do you prove who you are? How hard will banks look at someone with a valid ID that matches their biometrics before giving them a credit card in your name? How much liability will the bank have for the money they spend with it?

Re:Can someone catch me up?

[RyoShin]

I meant that you'd prove you're you with your SSN card/number, which would become much more private than it is now.

I didn't know that the UK ID card would include biometrics. That makes me think twice about it.

Re:Can someone catch me up?

[rizole]

Off the top of my head:

1. The Uk government is well known for introducing technological systems that are badly thought out, implimented and costing several magnitudes more than originally stated.
2. These are being promoted as fighting terrorism. Terrorism does not affect me and statistically has a vanishingly small chance of doing so. Why should I and millions like me have to buy into a system that offers us nothing whilst costing money and a degree of liberty.
3. I know who I am. I can prove it in several ways and I don't need/want another.
4. Surely more ID provides more opportunities for ID to be stolen.
5. A proliferation of data about me across systems and a proliferation of departments that have access to that data creates more points that that data can be compromised, either by incompetence or design.
6. I don't want this and I didn't agree to it.
7. Grrrrrrrr!

Re:Can someone catch me up?

[GrumblyStuff]

See, that's the funny thing. They won't hand out the cards like candy because that would negate the whole "security/safety" thing. So, you lose your card and some gets it and, using fake driver license and birth certificate, they get one in YOUR name.

Wow, you just got fucked with no legal way to get your name back. Have a good life!

But wait, how about DNA? Well, it's the same damn thing except for those just born and intergrated into the system. Everyone else would have to line up with whatever ID they got, HOWEVER they got them, to submit a bit of blood and TALLY HO you're in the system. Unless, of course, someone beat you to the punch and got their DNA on YOUR name.

And well, nevermind what havok potential screwups would do to people's lives or what someone working for the system could do with malicous intent.

The whole point is that the more permanent ID (and so secure ID) you get, the greater chance to get royally fucked over.

Re:Can someone catch me up?

[rabbitfood]

OK. The UK Government are going to build a huge National Identity Register, with around 50 things on it, from Social Security Numbers to biometrics (Yes, that's right. Everything in one place.)

To pay for this, they're going to compel passport applicants to buy a special ID card, too, which will be quite expensive.

The reason this is worrying is that the UK Government has a bad record on databases (it recently had at least £15m nicked because 'hackers' got hold of the personal details of several thousand civil servants, which were then used to, among other things, authorize welfare payments to nefarious parties.)

The flaw in your argument is that you're assuming that, should the entry in the National Register be changed by accident or otherwise, you will be able to prove it's wrong. As the card is merely a reflection of the register, and outside Government control most of the time, I reckon they'll believe the register over the card every time and, because Everything's in the same place, you won't even be able to wave a mitigating fuel bill (which is the current Identity Document of choice in the UK).

Re:Not impractical!

[mpapet]

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.

Re:Stupid paranoia with ID cards. Redux

[geoff lane]

"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.

It has begun

[IIH]

Operation "Barcode Britain" has begun

Re:I just hope the House of Lords kicks it back ag

[IAAP]

FTFA: "The only way in which people will be able to opt out of the system is by giving up their right to travel abroad.

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.

Re:Not impractical!

[geoff lane]

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.

Now if they would just place it...

[bill_kress]

on our body somewhere, say on our foreheads and make it machine readable--like a tatto or something.

That would be cool.

Re:I just hope the House of Lords kicks it back ag

[Vanders]

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.

Vacation time!

[isotope23]

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....."

Re:Vacation time!

[slothman32]

No, it is:

We have always been at war with terrorism. I was the one who said a lie that we were at war with communism.

Yes I did get it from 1984, the movie, it probably matches the book though.

I came up with that a while ago.

It's an ID card.

[salparadyse]

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.

Re:It's an ID card.

[Yer Mum]

"The problem comes when they claim it will stop terrorism."

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=227442006

Re:It's an ID card.

[Yer Mum]

"No one has ever gone to jail for not showing his/hers ID card, and policemen don't go around asking "PAPERS!" and beating everyone they come around."

As they were an invention of Franco's dictatorship (who incidently reserved ID number 1 for himself and 2 for his wife), I really doubt this.

Re:It's an ID card.

[salparadyse]

Oh well, if Gordon says it will make me safer then I feel safer already.

No, it's no good, it doesn't work. If Gordon wants me to feel safer then perhaps he would like to have Tony arrested and handed to the UN for trial and he can hand himself over at the same time for financing terrorism and robbing pension funds.

House of Lords, et al

[jd]

The Government has been itching to abolish the House of Lords and replace it with elected (read: identical) officials. The last thing we need is for the one last group of semi-independent observers to be kicked out in favour or a bunch of clones and sheep.

(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.)

Re:House of Lords, et al

[MightyMartian]

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'm fairly certain that the Queen does indeed sign legislation, and the Prime Minister is required to consult her. She is certainly privy to almost all if not all state secrets, for instance.

Of course Labour would love to get rid of her, but an odd thing happens every time the republican movement gets going again. The goddamn subjects of HRH Elizabeth II pretty much demonstrate they don't want her gone. I don't think, for instance, that even at the monarchy's worst moments in the 20th century (Edward VIII's abdication and the death of Princess Diana), that the republicans were ever really all that close. The closest I think they ever got in modern times was Queen Victoria's near-absolute seclusion after Prince Albert's death.

I don't necessarily know if the romantic notion that Cromwell's short-lived experiment is the cause of English anti-republicanism (it was, after all, a long bloody time ago), but it certainly seems that the English at least, entertain republicanism as long as it's in no risk of actually coming about.

Re:House of Lords, et al

[Tony Hoyle]

The queen can summon the PM at any time and demand to know what is going on, - this has actually happened in recent times (btw. an aside is any british citizen can go to parliament and summon their MP for an audience - they are public servants, and have to comply. Few people do though, alas...).

In theory also the army swear allegience to the queen - not the government - so she could have a rogue government removed by force. I can't imagine a situation where this would actually happen though.. even Blair isn't *that* bad.

Re:House of Lords, et al

[Haeleth]

The Government has been itching to abolish the House of Lords and replace it with elected (read: identical) officials.

Um, no. The opposition has been itching to replace the House of Lords with an elected body, but what Labour want to do is replace it with an appointed body.

Quite how this is supposed to be "democratic", I don't know.

Re:House of Lords, et al

[cortana]

Who can I vote for who will keep the system as it is at the moment? :)

Re:House of Lords, et al

[kraut]

>The Government has been itching to abolish the House of Lords and replace it with elected (read: identical) officials. The last thing we need is for the one last group of semi-independent observers to be kicked out in favour or a bunch of clones and sheep.

No, the government wants to appoint the Lords. I would be happy if they were elected (ideally directly if the Commons was proportional). Failing that, I prefer the grandson of George V mistress to Tony's son's godfather as an appointee. But what do I know, I just pay taxes in this country.

Re:House of Lords, et al

[jibjibjib]

What we need, is a good dictatorship.
Unfortunately, good dictators are hard to come by...

My Worry.

[Galston]

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?"

Re:My Worry.

[titzandkunt]

"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."

I too live in the uk but I had rather different worries about the proposed card system.

Thanks to our courageous(1), wise(2) and benvolent(3) MP's musings I don't have to worry anymore. I definitely will be getting a card.

T&K.

(1) Spinless lickspittles.
(2) Can't see boyond the next cabinet reshuffle.
(3) Shameless self-serving opportunists.

Rationalise Gov't Departments

[JonathanR]

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...

England invented democracy?

[maynard]

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!!!

Re:England invented democracy?

[Handpaper]

A sobering thought, then, that this Bill has been pushed through by the elected House of Commons, when the unelected, archaic, undemocratic, etc. House of Lords, constitutionally unable to kill it outright, attempted to amend it into toothlessness and mire it in feasibility studies?

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

Re:England invented democracy?

[maynard]

One might argue Plato, Aristotle, and the Roman Republic set forth more of a democratic model than the minor power sharing offered by the Monarchy after the English Civil War. Why was it that America broke off from England's King Edward and his tyranny? Or would you like to forget Calvin's and Luther's Protestant Reformation in Germany as a precondition to the whole Enlightenment shebang?

Re:England invented democracy?

[bohemian72]

America didn't break off from King Edward. It was King George III. The monarch at the time being a much more powerful person in the colonies than he was at home. That was one of the royal duties, to manage the colonial entities. The monarch had much more direct control of the colonies than he had of England itself which was run by Parliament.
This is likely why the American Colonies had a much rougher time of it with the king than England itself apparently did. The mad man wasn't running THAT country.

Re:England invented democracy?

[bohemian72]

Well, I exagerated a little bit. It wasn't like George III had no say in running England, but there was a fairly capable Prime Minister in the person of William Pitt.
When he wasn't mad, George though, was rather popular in England.

So what if?

[Bizzeh]

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?

Re:So what if?

[AndyboyH]

You get an ID card when you renew your passport, as i understand it.

So then you get taken and fingerprinted, iris scanned and your facial metrics taken. Wonderful huh?

Re:So what if?

[jimicus]

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?

Then, my friend, you have another card with the exact same information. Dontcha just love repeating yourself?

Only now, the Government has written into the legislation that as far as this card is concerned, all sorts of organisations, both public and private, may demand to see it and cross-check details with the centrally-held database at any time.

No big deal -- and yet!

[Mutatis Mutandis]

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.

Re:No big deal -- and yet!

[mattpalmer1086]

You argue your case very persuasively, but I can't agree that the proposed UK identity card scheme is only a minute change from our current forms of identification.

A goal of the UK identity card scheme is to be a gold standard for identification that other forms of identity will ultimately hang off. The joining of multiple biometrics and biographical history checking and other identity verfication will make it quite hard for the normal citizen to have more than a single identity in relation to the state. This will probably stamp out some classes of obvious fraud, and push some of it elsewhere. How expensive it is for fraudulent identities to be created depends on a whole lot of things, anyone's guess really at this point.

The real problem comes when all the previously isolated government departments join up what is known about us, and an audit trail of our complete activities exist. Now all sorts of speculative, behavioural data mining can take place. I think this sort of thing has been going on in the States recently. These programs are increasing in scope, occasionally changing names, but the desire by government is there to finally know their people, in ways we might not want them to.

There may be benefits we can gain in security from this, with proper checks and balances, or there may not. But they're not just going to have it for free without some kind of debate.

Re:No big deal -- and yet!

[jimicus]

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.

Don't know about the USA, but in the UK I can regularly make cash withdrawals (up to a certain amount, though generally fairly large) and debit card purchases (unlimited) without any ID over and above the relevant bank card.

Re:No big deal -- and yet!

[Petrushka]

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. ...

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.

The last paragraph quoted provides the answer to the puzzlement you express in the first two. This isn't about symbolic value; it's about centralising every detail about you in a single repository to which every branch of government has instant, full access. The entire aim of the UK ID card system is to make sure that it's not just your name, gender, etc. that are associated with you.

It's about surveillance -- specifically, surveillance for the sake of surveillance. And that's an aim important enough to Blair's regime that the law will be passed, come what may, no matter what the Lords or the public think.

bit sensationalist...

[spacefiddle]

Article clearly states, right of the bat, that it's when you apply for a passport. So that's a point against hysterics.

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 :D.

(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.

Re:bit sensationalist...

[dcw3]

(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...)

Disclaimer: I know nothing of the politics involved, and this is neither a pro or anti-Blair commentary.

Ok, so are you suggesting that the "Prime Minister of Anywhere" would be flying on just any plane? Wouldn't his normal transportation include communications suites, and electronic warefare equipment (to help defend it against SAMs, and air-to-air weapons)? Or, would you expect that they'd just rent an airliner for the day? Do you suppose that if he was already at some location, that security just might have already taken necessary precautions for his safety before he even arrived? Do you suppose that those same security folks just might have an escape plan or two in the event of a real emergency? Somehow, I'm doubting that he'd be a "sitting duck", though I do wonder if he's carrying his new ID card.

Re:bit sensationalist...

[legirons]

"Article clearly states, right of the bat, that it's when you apply for a passport. So that's a point against hysterics."

You need a passport to open a bank account in the UK (unless you happen to have a Police Warrant card, one of the few alternative IDs accepted)

Why the fuss?

[PineGreen]

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).

Re:Why the fuss?

[AndyboyH]

It's because people value privacy.

I think the best way to compare it to is sperm donors: some men will happily meet up with the children they fathered, despite the fact all they did was donate some swimmers. Other men will not have anything to do with it, as if they aren't responsible for the life they created.

Despite that being an apples and oranges comparison - some people (like myself) are skittish at the idea of the government holding information about them as a person that they have no real right to hold while the individual remains upstanding and law abiding. It could just be paranoia, but I have civil servant friends, and I know damn well what they get up to when passing the time, and I don't feel comfortable with my details being at the mercy at some bored individual.

Re:Why the fuss?

[jabelar]

You have to be creative to understand the kinds of misuse that can occur. For example, in Canada there has been allegations that gun registry information is being used by thieves to specifically target houses known to have guns (yes, kind of ironic). It is not irrational to be scared of computerized personal information because computers make the scale of theft much larger and allow for efficient analysis and merging of personal information. Lastly, while we know we expect employers to respect employees private lives, would employers really treat someone as fairly if they had all the information about views, relationships, hobbies, recreational activities, etc.? It is safer to simply not have the information available.

Re:Why the fuss?

[N1AK]

Take a look at what is happening in Zimbabwe if they find out you vote against Mugabe's party. How about what happened to the Jews because the Nazi's knew there religion. Or how about Cambodia where the wrong shape head could get you killed? This isn't a Utopia, thing about how the information could be used in good times and in bad.

What's depressing about your point of view, is your think everyone is being worried for no reason. Simply because you didn't take the time, or use your brain to think things through.

Re:Why the fuss?

[viashno]

I think a lot of the reasons that people are so against things such as this are mainly psychological, which as far as I can tell means they are irrational. What is the first thing that a goverment/group/person usually does when they are preparing to get involved in a conflict. They try to get their hands on as much information about the other party as possible. While I am by no means saying that I think our governments are preparing to declare war on us, it does seem to imply that our government does not trust us, which may strike a nerve for some people. My personal reason, which is also mainly psychological, is a desire for privacy. The vast majority of our society are generally law abiding people, who at worst drive too fast or cross roads when there isn't a cross walk. However, people do have an inherent craving for privacy, we feel safer when have that privacy. The average person who does not commit any crimes, may for instance not want anyone to know about their secret highschool crush, their first kiss, etc. and things such as RFID tags and compulsory ID threaten to take our society to a place of constant monitering where nothing is secret, none of our special memories, thoughts, etc. are sacred. just my thoughts.

Re:Why the fuss?

[windowpain]

Because anything the government can abuse the government will abuse.
Because anything the government can screw up the government will screw up.

I don't even have an EZ-Pass (multi-state automatic road toll paying device for your car) because I try to keep my entanglements with the government to an absolute bare minimum.

Re:Why the fuss?

[Kenshin]

For example, in Canada there has been allegations that gun registry information is being used by thieves to specifically target houses known to have guns (yes, kind of ironic).

That's a possibility that hasn't even remotely been proven.

Re:Why the fuss?

[spacefiddle]

Good question. Some quickies to ponder:

"Identity theft is out of hand and we don't know what to do about it. The thieves are more technically savvy than we, and have gotten pretty good at using random bits of into to fake, infer, or gloss over what's missing. So therefore, clearly, let's make a technological solution that puts all the eggs in one newfangled basket when we can't even tell which foxes are in what henhouses today."

And of course,

"This is to prevent ID theft and to prevent Terrirrirststts from entering our fine country. Therefore, if you already live here, make sure before y'go outside the border to take a copy of your entire life story with you for easy stealing and replication."

Not to mention,

"We're going to register your ass and stuff and undisclosed amount and type of information into a Sekrit Gummint Database that'll be used to guide the gentle hand of Law Enforcement to punish those the system (that we don't know how to work properly; see first point above) identifies as Bad Guys."

which leads nicely into,

"We're the Government. Don't worry about it. Trust us."

Re:Why the fuss?

[crabpeople]

"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"

Please kindly reply to this comment with the following:

1) your full name and home address
2) a history of your shopping record, including times and dates so i can pattern match to see when your most likely to be not at home
3) Detailed purchase information from your local big box store so that when i come to your house and murder your wife, i can do it with a recently purchased like model knife or blunt object.

Honestly, the only people who are for mass databases really have no imgination.

Re:Why the fuss?

[rizole]

I had an interview some 15 years ago with a council funded organisation who took my details and which were protected under the data protection act. Because of the way departments and organisations have changed, shuffled and merged over the years I now work for an organisation who has access to the records of that other org and so have access to my own records. So do my work mates and thousands more people than 15 years ago.

Now these records are trivial but I gave this information on the understanding that it would be confidential to the organisation that I gave it to. It isn't and as far as I'm concerned this means my data is not protected. Again, this is a trivial and inconsequential instance but it illustrates how data is moved around and how access to that data becomes fluid over time, priorities change and definitions can be erroded.

I don't trust those in power with trivial data. Imagine my horror when I HAVE to give over stuff to them I believe to be valuable.

Re:Why the fuss?

[Sithech]

People get bothered because a National ID creates a single key that can be used across all databases to enable "Total Information Awareness". While now you might have many driver's license numbers in your lifetime, innumerable credit cards, several passport numbers, health insurance number, plus your tax ID (which is illegal to use outside of very specific contexts), now there would be a way to tie them all together.

How long before it gets used as your library card, video rental card, purchasing card? How long before you have to show it to put a child into daycare? How about your health records? School grades?

No sense in keeping all this secret. So your potential employer gets to see how many times you go to the massage therapist for your back problem. Ditto what your favorite videos are, and how much your rent is. Who is sharing the house with you? What about the dust-up you had in school when you were 12? Sure, we don't care if you go to a bar every Friday...

Re:Why the fuss?

[slothman32]

Since you obviously have nothing to hide then upload your naked self for all to see.
Record every conversation and post it on the internet.
That diary that is locked up, well you may not have one, show us.
I will lend you a camera, well a criminal can be found that will, and you can broadcast your life to us.
Every time you do go to the bathroom go outside and yell it to everyone what just transpired and show your wonderful stuff to the world.

P.S. Why is you email address not on the slashdot header?
Did you just forget?

Re:Why the fuss?

[metamatic]

Basically, my question is, why do people bother if their personal infromation is stored in a computer somewhere? [...] 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!

So, why don't you put your address and phone number in your .signature then?

Re:Why the fuss?

[foreverdisillusioned]

"Silly abuse arguments?" Well if you've made up your mind that any examples of potential of abuse are silly, even in the face of countless historical examples, then I guess there's no changing your mind. But, I shall try anyway...

The problem is the government will always gravitate towards what is easiest, and ultimately what is easiest for them is to gain as much power as they can and use it however they can. Many (most?) are not aware of what they are doing. They believe that they are serving the greater good; they honestly believe that they are helping to defend freedom. What happens is in carrying out their jobs "defending freedom" they look for shortcuts, ways to fight more efficiently, but ultimately it is by these shortcuts they have taken that freedom begins to die.

A good example is racial profiling. If you are black and you are an American, stastically you are more likely to commit felonies--particularly violent and drug related felonies. It's as simple as that. Doesn't matter how good or evil any particular black person is; the police, the ones who have to deal with criminals on a day to day basis, notice these trends and quite naturally take them into account. If police in this country had the right to arbitrarily detain and search black people and their homes, we would see very dramatic drops in violent and drug related crime.

But this is a horrible horrible horrible thing for them to do. We can't treat all black people this way; we can't make their lives a living hell just in the name of safety, just in the name of efficient law enforcement. Yet police officers continue to take race into account when viewing a potential subject, whether they admit to it or not.

Large databases of cross-referenced information presents the opportunity for law enforcement to profile like never before. They will be able to look at where you live, where you shop, where you went to school, where you travel, the histories of your friends and family, and they will be able to calculate a percentage chance showing the possibility that you are a terrorist/criminal/whatever. This is an extraordinarily dangerous power for law enforcement to be given. Now they can and will hassle perfectly law abiding citizens who're indicated to have, say, a 60% chance of being a criminal. And if financial agencies get their hands on your data, you'll find that living a life that is in any way unique or exciting will make your insurence and interest rates skyrocket. In short, such databases allow both law enforcement and corporations to declare war on every minority conceivable. And they will indeed do this, not because they hate gays and Latinos and System of a Down fans and anyone living in a trailer park, but because it makes their jobs easier. Following statistical trends simply makes life easier for them, yet we must rail against this tendency with all our might because our safer, more efficient society will come at a terrible price--our uniqueness, our individuality, our soul.

There exists another danger, one more subtle and one you're less likely to agree with or even understand, but I believe that it is even more dangerous than our loss of individuality, though it is strongly related. Simply put, it's a bad thing if it becomes impossible to break the law. Crime must be fought, but it must not be completely prevented. To do so gives absolute power to our government, and even if you agree 100% of the laws of today and believe that it's OK if they're enforced with an iron fist, you cannot guarantee that the government of tomorrow will not pass laws that you strenuously disagree with. When rebellion becomes impossible because the government controls and/or monitors all methods of communication, when potential criminals are put under surveillence and locked away the moment they do so much as jaywalk, the government ceases to serve its citizens and its citizens will live only to serve the government.

Very few people today set out to destroy liberty

Re:Why the fuss?

[16K Ram Pack]

It largely depends how much you trust government and the civil service. Me, I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them. You want government to know what party you vote for and have it on record? Now what happens if a majority of the people decide that they want a draconian government who don't like the religious/social/political group that you support.

Still, I guess you think that it couldn't happen to you, so it's OK. Personally, I give the bastards as little as they need to do my bidding. Anything more can be used against you.

Re:Why the fuss?

[joaobranco]

Notice that all of these examples are of some sensitive information being recorded on the databases/ID cards. In many countries (including my own) we have ID cards, but also have constitucional laws that forbid some kinds of information (including race, religion, ethnicity) to be recorded in those databases...

Re:Why the fuss?

[JaxWeb]

I agree, it is irrational. All responses to your message have also been stupid. It is almost as if the slashbots against it are irrational.

This is an odd thing about Slashdot. Surely it is supposed to be the most clever of the USA, but in fact a lot of the people on here are idiots. Now there are some very clever people on here, where it is always great to hear their reasoned opinions, but on the whole it is not. A paradox!

Re:Why the fuss?

[The Cydonian]

Sorry, didnt get you on this: Cambodia archives the shapes of its citizens? Or are you saying the Khmer Rouge tortured people because it had access to some secret data-dump?

What is truly asinine...

[C10H14N2]

...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.

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 /. falls into that category.

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.

enumeration by the state?

[samjam]

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

Re:enumeration by the state?

[Pig Hogger]

The census is enumeration.
The national health number is enumeration.
My passport is enumeration.

The census is not tied to your identification.
The national health number is not for identification, but for health-care purposes.

What problem is it that the id card is supposed to solve?

The absence of a warm and fuzzy feeling towards security? The lack of control by politicians?

Re:enumeration by the state?

[AnotherDaveB]

The national health number is not for identification, but for health-care purposes.

The National Insurance number is used by the health service, the Treasury and many other state services. It is unique to an individual.

When the welfare state was established the existing, wartime, ID Card scheme was used to bootstrap the new system.

Re:enumeration by the state?

[Tango42]

NHS number and NI number are completely different things.

Re:enumeration by the state?

[AnotherDaveB]

NHS number and NI number are completely different things.

News to me.

Re:enumeration by the state?

[Tango42]

NI number is used for handling tax things mainly, NHS number is little more than a primary key for your medical records - it's rarely used, although it can speed up changing doctors when you move house (one less form, probably).

Re:Oh No!

[mpapet]

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.

Not so funny now...

[Espressoman]

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...

NuLabour verses BNP

[Morosoph]

Looks like you're right!

Drastic enough measures...

[Morosoph]

are terrorism, surely?

Re:Drastic enough measures...

[loraksus]

It's not terrorism when we do it.

what's the big deal?

[penguin-collective]

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.

Re:ID Card vs. Bank Card?

[mpapet]

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.

My only concern

[funkatron]

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.

I think I know what the problem is

[barakn]

You keep getting modded down because you keep labeling people's legitimate concerns with terms like "irrational" and "silly."

Re:Poor British citizens, their government's watch

[Tony Hoyle]

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.

Funny how people talk about goverment

[SmallFurryCreature]

It always seems to be some distant apparatus over wich mere mortals have no control. Yet obviously we in the west are better then dictatorships because we can elect our goverment.

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

Re:Funny how people talk about goverment

[kadathseeker]

We do have control, it is just inconveniently slow. 20 or 30 years to casuse massive social change is pretty quick compared to the centuries it took many nations of history, but it is a pain in the ass for an individual to wait that long. So it may not seem immediately like we are in control, but the majority will triumph over a court decision in the long run. This is just too long for some - 20-30 years is a big hunk of someone's lifespan.

Also, he US isn't a pure democracy. We vote on representative, who then vote for us (and don't have to vote the way they said that they would). There's the whole Electoral College thing, too. The original idea of this was to balance out the same thing you complained about - people tricking the stupid sheeple into voting for whatever.

I really don't know if we need a more direct democracy, which may have tipped the last election like the Democrats say and/or possibly have less just-as-stupid-people in the system, or a more layered system to stop the stupid people from mattering (though my gut tells me this will lead to corruption and not get rid of the stupids).

The difference between a driver's license and a nat'l ID car, to me, is that one will remain optional (yes I know the UK cards are only for passports now, but for how long?). I may have trouble doing some things without a DL, but I can choose to not get one or get an alternative identification if I choose. A credit card is really hard to live without in this day and age, but it is possible, and you get to pick the company and plan you want, and can terminate it at any time. What privelege would one have that would come with the reponsibility of a National ID? Being a citizen? Living?

Re:Funny how people talk about goverment

[kbielefe]

I don't normally cite one of my previous comments, but I really liked the idea I had the other day which is sort of a balance between voting directly for issues and voting for representatives, which creates some accountability for elected representatives.

Re:Funny how people talk about goverment

[kadathseeker]

I think it will sound too confusing to most people, but they don't really understand the system anyway. Other than that it sounds like a neat idea to experiment with.

Re:Funny how people talk about goverment

[ShakaUVM]

>>The older I get the more I come to believe that democracy is fundementally flawed.

'Democracy is the worst form of government, with the exception of all others.' -- Winston Churchill.

I think time has shown him right.

>>The majority of voters are to stupid to truly consider the results of their voting

Hmm, indeed.

>>Of course with just 1 vote every four years how can I make my views known?

Polls. Clinton was a master of telling people what they wanted to hear, as determined by the polls.

It's debatable if that's a better system than someone like Bush, who sticks to his guns. On one side, you're a leaf that blows in the wind. On the other, you're not getting as much democracy for your buck.

>>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.

I was about to say, you could move to the European Union, since they are unabashedly socialistic. But then I saw you live in Denmark.

Personally, give me any day, a country where none of the politicians are socialists.

>>Same with imigration, if you ever complaint about illegal immigrants then you vote for indentification since that is the only way to find them.

Not true. Countries have been deadling with immigration for ages without compulsory ID cards. And certainly without biometric cataloguing of the entire country.

>>Yes the world will be less fun wheneverone carries an ID all the time. It could even be very dangerous BUT I don't think we can avoid it unless we learn to accept the costs of freedom.

I think that if there's widespread rioting / protests / noncompliance, the policy will be scrapped.

Re:Funny how people talk about goverment

[16K Ram Pack]

In the end, you need democracy, and you need rights. You also need a people who value their rights. Sadly, here in the UK, most people don't look at things with a "rights based" view. Something like 80% of people wanted the government to introduce 90 days imprisonment without charge.

Why? Because what they perceive is that they will be safer. What people don't do is project how they would feel if their son, innocent of a crime was locked up for 90 days without charge. Because I know that they'd switch sides in an instant.

Re:Funny how people talk about goverment

[16K Ram Pack]

Just to add. This is often why people who have come out of fascism often value rights higher.

They don't have to project fascism because they lived through it. One of the most pro-market governments in europe is in Poland.

Vote against Labour

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I live in the UK and that is the last time I vote for a Labour government.

Good luck Blair.

What exactly has this news got to-do with nerds?

[malsdavis]

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?

+1, insightful

[maynard]

Hat tip to you, Sir!

Reasoned arguments against this

[MacGod]

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.

Re:Reasoned arguments against this

[aaza]

First point: I am Australian, so this doesn't affect me (yet!).

1. It is compulsory.
2. You need to pay for it.

Those two statements taken together cause a problem for me. If the government wants me to have the ID, they can pay for it. Most of the other forms of ID I have or want, I pay for in various ways: Driver's License - Pay about $60 a year (not sure of exact cost any more), Bank card (of any description) - Bank fees to support it, etc.

However, the most interesting way of looking at a problem like this is not "what's so bad about this?" but "what could I do if I got hold of someone else's card, and had no moral qualms about using it?".

The most interesting one that was come up with was closing someone's bank account. That is, draining the account of money, closing it so no more could be put in, cancelling linked credit cards, preventing any direct debits from occuring, and preventing pay being deposited. How would you cope with the complete loss of money now, money later, and lack of credit cards until you could prove who you are? How do you prove who you are, other than to show the card (which by this time, you already know to be stolen or no longer valid as it was cloned)?

More importantly, it becomes the single point of failure. One document loss currently, and you are in for a bit of inconvenience. One ID card loss, and you are so inconvenienced that it's just not funny.

The other major concern for this card (this bit actually answers your question), is that currently, the government departments can't share information about you between them. The database behind the card not only allows, but actually forces, them to. Suddenly anything any department of the government has about you is available to any public servant with the desire (or boredom) to look it up, for any reason, or no reason at all.

If there was strict access control to the database, with detailed audit logs, and as a citizen, you had the right to see who accessed it; there might be fewer concerns, but not many. People want the illusion of privacy, even if they don't have privacy in fact.

I think that answers most of your questions, so I just have to add:
You must be new here :-)

Re:Reasoned arguments against this

[Anthony]

The other major concern for this card (this bit actually answers your question), is that currently, the government departments can't share information about you between them. The database behind the card not only allows, but actually forces, them to. Suddenly anything any department of the government has about you is available to any public servant with the desire (or boredom) to look it up, for any reason, or no reason at all.

Sorry. Data matching between Centrelink and ATO las been going on since the "Data Matching Project" initiated around 1990. TFN is generally what they use but I'm sure there is some other matching (Hidden Markov) as well. There are a couple of other agencies as well IIRC.

That being said, is interesting how Labour govts in Australia and UK are the ones to put up these ideas. Public servants love the idea because it makes their computer systems more efficient.

On the other hand, as other posters have pointed out, UK, US, Oz and NZ might be the few countries that don't have ID cards. Either they are out of step or are onto something significant. I would suggest valuing personal liberty and trusting the majority of its citizens to do the right thing might be at the top of the list.

Re:Reasoned arguments against this

[dchallender]

A key issue is the infrastructure behind this - think ahead. All card uses - when / where will be recorded. The ID card will become de facto compulsory ID for so many things and so will be logged a lot.
Think ahead a few years....
Say by chance you happen to have visited some of the same places, near the same times as a suspected terrorist - and this is logged on ID card transactions.
Expect the 2 AM police raid and the 28 days imprisoned with no access to legal help, family etc (under new anti terrorism rules).
Expect racist policing - if you are "non white" you can bet your house that you will be asked for ID more often than a "white" person.

etc, etc - just use your brain theres so many possible abuses its chilling.

Re:Reasoned arguments against this

[Builder]

Here are some of my issues with this scheme...

1. I've heard a lot about WHAT this card would do, but no HOW. Apparently this will stop illegal immigration. How? Most employers of illegal immigrants are in on it anyway, so this won't stop them. Apparently his will stop terrorism. How? The bombers on 7/7/2005 all used their own identities. The bombers in Madrid all had ID cards. Apparently this will combat crime. How? If they are so sure of this, why don't the police commit to an X% reduction in specific kinds of crime over a certain period?

2. The government refuse to be transparant about the costs. Their argument for ID cards is that if you have nothing to hide then you won't mind having one. On this basis, they MUST have something to hide.

3. The card is backed by a database containing all of your information. This WILL be used inappropriately. Even if you totally trust our current government (in which case, please contact me ASAP - I have this money from this deceased dictator that I need to move and only you can help!), by agreeing to this, you agree to trust every future government from now onwards to not abuse this system. Just see the illicit and immoral investigation into the lady who led the action group for rail crash victims. With all of this data in one place, it will be easier for them to run these 'dirty tricks' campaigns, and we are less likely to find out about them because with less places to look, there will be fewer leaks.

4. When I lose a number, I can get a new one. When I lose the digital representation of my right index finger, I can't get a new one. So if the data that represents my finger is compromised and used by someone else, how do I combat that ?

5. If I lose a finger, am I going to be treated as a pariah because I can no longer use your official identity scheme? Will I be treated with suspicion by know-nothing till operator morons who think I lopped my finger off just to beat their system? My wife recently lost a digit in an accident, and just travelling to the US while her hand was bandaged (lost finger, multiple stitches across hand) became a nightmare. I've never seen anyone treated so badly in my life, and I've spent time behind a South African police station counter.

6. Many experts in various intelligence, military and criminal fields have made public statements that this card will not address the issues that the government will say it will. Who should I believe? Experts who have proved themselves through their work, or MPs who lie to me about major issues on a regular basis?

Re:I just hope the House of Lords kicks it back ag

[jez9999]

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.

Hmmm.

[jd]

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.

Odd, can someone explain me what's at stake?

[lbbros]

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?

Re:Odd, can someone explain me what's at stake?

[Richard_J_N]

The problem is that the UK card is intended (by stealth) to become a card without which you cannot live (it will be checked whatever service you wish to access), and which will contain an enormous amount of data - both on the card and the database. Furthermore, it will increase the risk of terrorism, make database abuse much easier, and may render civil disobedience (which is vital to our democracy) impossible for most people.

Re:Odd, can someone explain me what's at stake?

[What me a Coward]

US here

    We have ID cards to theirs the regular ID card If you don't have a driver license and a Drivers License or DL. Then their's the Social Security card or SSC and the old mainstay the Passport all of which have certain info about you.

    The ID and DL contain Name, Address, date of birth, height, Weight, color of eyes, sex, Date issued and experation as well as a ID number. Further the DL contains the class of license

    The SSC contains your Social Security Number which is used for employment to put money away for your retirement (and some argue more but thats another issue). The passport all of you should know so i wont go into it.

    These three cards have for many years been suficent for use in identifying people but in recent years have made us more prone to identity theft which i wont go into now. However Here in the US they now want to replace the ID, DL, SSC and Passport with Biometric ID cards which contain not only genetic link to you via you're DNA but also will have to be presented to buy anything and i mean anything and that info goes into a central Database that is maintained permanently.

    Why? What does my purchase of Toilet paper or a burger fries and a shake have to do with preventing terrorizim? Why do they need to keep a permanent record of that?
    Their is also talk of having to carry and present this ID traveling from state to state and has been talked about putting board posts up at each state boarder to check the ID of people traveling by car. Plus in my state they have started putting up cameras at intersections which can record our cars traveling through them as well as ID our license plates which will be linked to this card as well allowing them to track our movements throught the city and record that info of where we went and what we did in this database. Now im sure they wont nor can they do it for everybody every second of every day not yet anyway theirs not enough proccessing power nor coders to do it manually but the framework will be their in place once it is if it ever is.

    Not only that but the single card to indentify you with all your info on it will be a identity theafs wet dream come true esspeically when fewer and fewer transactions are done face to face allowing them to steal from you that much easier or for a terroist to fake being you so much easier.

    Then their the potential for abuse of the data collected by the government as well as potential for the system containing the database to be hacked and the data stolen which has already happened here in the US more than once in the last couple years with credit card data and data colletions co. Credit companies can't secure their information from hackers Data mining compaines can't And even Microsoft has said that such a database wouldn't be safe from hackers so what makes the US or UK for that matter think they can protect it when MS doesn't belive it and Credit companies and data collection companies can't? So what's the ID and data collections really for why do they need it? Whats so important to them that they need to know so much about what the people are doing, where their going, what their buying and spending their time on? Sounds more like a control and money making device for big buisness and big government to me.

    Whats worse is this ID scheame has potential to go global and could end up their in italy as well.

    Do you start to see whats at stake now?

Now I'm really scared...

[mallaigboy]

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*.

Unconstitutional

[kbielefe]

That's completely unconstitutional. They're acting like the 4th and 10th amendments don't even apply to them.

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.

Re:Unconstitutional

[wes33]

They're acting like the 4th and 10th amendments don't even apply to them

I'm afraid the laugh is on you: doesn't your president act as if the constitution does not apply to him?

Re:Oh No!

[Draknor]

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).

Missed the point

[lga]

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.

Re:Missed the point

[infolation]

Your points are valid, but unlike /. readers most of the UK general public do not understand the principle of a relational database. Your average brit who approves of 'tough on terror and asylum-seekers' style legislation thinks of the ID register as a flat text file of data held about them, and does not understand the far-reaching implications of how their data can be related to other data.

For example, the government have promised that no link will be made between the ID register and the criminal record database but a member of the general public will not realise that no direct link will not guarantee that the information held on each database cannot be related.

Re:Missed the point

[queazocotal]

It _could_ have been done in a way to protect privacy.

Card contains biometric information.

The only time a central database is checked is when issuing cards, to ensure you get only one per individual.

The card contains a means of taking external biometric information, and comparing to stored model

You can if you wish add other tokens to the card, in addition to the ID function, for example credit card, or door access.

There is no compulsion to carry, or show, and verifying the card does not require a hit to a central database.

Re:Missed the point

[16K Ram Pack]

I'm not going to go that far, but I'll support the cause against them with funding. The first court case, I'll be offering some money to the defence fund.

I am intending to renew early to get my 10 years off the grid. I also want to work out what I can do legally to ensure that my ID doesn't match, except to the human eye. I'll do what I can to have long lashes, watery eyes, facial hair, and bad prints.

The more people that can create failed IDs, the sooner we will see the end of this.

Gun control is good

[Nick Gisburne]

Gun control, CCTV, now ID cards

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.

Re:Gun control is good

[Col. Bloodnok]

I don't like our gun control. Thanks very much.

I used to enjoy shooting guns, handguns particulary. Innocent fun. The legislation was extrenely badly drafted and flied in the face of traditional British fair play. The fact is, massive overreaction to incidents like dunblane didn't reduce gun related killings, they've gone up, helping nobody, but something was *seen to be done*.

Apparently, they're after my air pistol next.

Re:Gun control is good

[Anonymous Coward]

"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,"

Wow. That's laying it on the line. You (England, not you personally) gave up the right to self defense, the oldest and most basic right there is, in order to keep a very small group of loons from getting hold of a gun (forcing them to substitute with explosives in London, no doubt). You had no intention or even much interest in reducing crime, which is the reason the anti-gun crowd is always spouting about in the US.

Talk about a difference in values. I'm going to think about this for awhile.

PS, I own rifles, shotguns, and handguns (note the plurals of each) and am not a member of the NRA. In make a point mentioned above, I just bought a box of shotshells the other day, and was not asked for ID. Just paid cash, and left. Granted I'm obviously over 18, but this is been the way it works everywhere I have lived.

Culture Gap

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

And the costs

[Jaknet]

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

They were looking for the J (Jew) stamp.

[Colin Smith]

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.

Re:Poor British citizens, their government's watch

[lga]

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.

Re:Poor British citizens, their government's watch

[FhnuZoag]

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.

Of course they will make ID cards compulsary

[Garry Anderson]

As I wrote on another forum: they will make ID cards compulsary by clever manipulation of thicko MP's and public.

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=notn ews&showtopic=671&st=0&#entry16962

I think...

[jd]

...that would be the Official Monster Raving Loony Party.

heh

[cortana]

My irony meter just blew a gasket.

Re:That's different

[Pantero Blanco]

No, I'm referring to a Government-issued ID. In fact, many of them (ie, getting on an airplane, opening a bank account) require two IDs and one of them must be a Government-issued ID.

Re:That's different

[Kadin2048]

1, 4, 5, and 6, while probably generally true, aren't universally true. There are states that have intentional exceptions to them, for one reason or another. E.g., in some states you can get a driver's license without a USG issued ID; this is how illegal residents get them.

Likewise, they can also enroll in school with nothing but proof of residence in a particular area, for which a piece of mail to a particular address can be used, and even in the absence of that the school district is still required to educate them.

I've been to banks in areas that had substantial illegal resident populations, and they had systems for allowing people without ID to open bank accounts (although I believe this is no longer allowed), using a fingerprint reader. It proves that you're the same person, but not necessarily identity, since I doubt it's linked against an external database.

2, 3, 7 and 8, in my experience are the only ones that I would want to say are true almost everywhere.

Valid association

[alienmole]

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.

Re:Valid association

[kraut]

> 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.

My apologies for labouring (sic!) the point, but a government that's elected with less than a third of the popular vote is not legitimate, even if it manages to get a majority in parliament due to archaic electoral rulse.

Re:Valid association

[nbert]

So who are you going to blame? It's not like the Nazis had fingerprints on their ID-cards. Maybe SA used them to identify people, but that doesn't make the concept of identifying people evil itself. In my country (Germany - gasp!) we never had problems with ID cards since '45. The card is only needed whenever you have to prove your identity - things which are done by energy bills or drivers licenses in most countries which don't have this kind of concept. Having a piece of paper issued by your state to verify your identity isn't a bad idea at all. I usually keep it in my wallet just in case, but it's not mandatory. The worst thing that could happen is that the police suspects that I've been involved in a crime and puts me in prison to identify me (not different to most countries). However, if they don't manage to do this within 12 hours they have to set me free (which isn't a problem anyways, because I usually carry my ID with me as I already mentioned).
Being forced to sell a kidney to obtain those new shiny IDs with heaps of biometric data is a different story though.

I might be off-topic on this, but I keep wondering: Did it take "ID Books" to keep up a system discrimating the black population? Or was it all about foreign workers? I've got to call my relatives in South Africa if you don't enlighten me...

PS: As an added bonus I used my ID recently to go to Poland, Spain and the UK - if it wasn't for non-EU countries like the US, SA or Australia I wouldn't even consider paying for a regular passport...

Re:Not impractical!

[mikael]

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).

It's always easier to crack down on honest people

[yoprst]

than on criminals. What else should be blown up to make UK fight domestic terrorists/religious radicals?

The problem at the bottom

[lsw]

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.

Re:The problem at the bottom

[idkk]

A point of information: you do not have to be a British citizen to have a Britsh passport. I, for example, am a British subject and have a British passport. My wife, though, is a citizen - and both of us are as English as it is possible to be!

Papieren, bitte.

[pete-classic]

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

Re:Papieren, bitte.

[16K Ram Pack]

If you look at the history of Britain in the 1930s, we were, in the majority, the same short-sighted people then that we are now. Churchill was considered as a dangerous nutjob when he was warning people about Hitler and the Nazis in the 1930s, even though the evidence was all there if people wanted to take their hands away from their eyes and ears.

People didn't want another war (WW1 was still fresh in their memories), and what's rarely reported is how Chamberlain was welcomed to Buckingham Palace by the King and Queen to celebrate his "piece of paper", with crowds cheering. Certain newspapers like to talk about their britishness, and rope in Churchill, even though at the time, they were sympathetic to appeasement and gave consistent support to the Nazis.

I try to understand

[Pope Raymond Lama]

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.

Re:I try to understand

[What me a Coward]

DL and SS card currently have no biometrics and no big hulking DBase behind them recording everything you do with the card nor reliably track your movements.

      You also don't currently have to present them to purchase every little thing something that has been put forth as a requirement at least here in the US which would allow for tracking and recording of your spending habits and personal preferences etc.

    Starting to get what the fuss is about now.

    If current DL and SSCards were enough or as far as it went it wouldn't be a fuss here but they want to replace both with biometric cards that track spending and travel habits and the like and keep all of the records of that on file for what? To help prevent terrorizim?

    I would really like somebody to explain to me why the government needs to record my purchase of a sode fries and a burger or a package of toilet paper and keep it on permanent record so they can fight terrorizim.

Re:ok so what's the big deal

[TwoScoopsOfPig]

I think the big deal is this: being unaccustomed to having this DNI thing, other countries' citizens don't know it'll be useful, and fear the potential for abuse by the issuing body. We wear our hats because we've never had this tech, and it's different, uncomfortable, and scary. If we'd grown up with it (or lived with it for a sufficient amount of time), we'd have been around it always, and it'd be more normal for us, and we'c likely adopt your stance on this issue.

It offers a lot of convenience, but we're not the types to trust our governments. I'm an American, and I can't stand the idea of a random wiretap on my lines, for example, so what's to make me comfortable with this idea?

Other countries

[Shashvat]

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.

Internet cafes in Italy/China

[babbling]

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)

ID Cards aren't that big a deal.....

[Deadlee]

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

The military does it.

[allforcarrie]

US military members must have their ID on them at all times. Its not bad, it just isnt going to fix anything.

Somewhat Ironic

[serutan]

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?

It would work, but ONLY IF...

[Dark Coder]

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).

Re: ID Cards and Passports

[richpulp]

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?

Britain is different

[smoker2]

I see lots of post saying how various people in various countries have had ID cards for years and they have never been asked to produce it, or it's not so bad etc etc.

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.

Majority rule

[mulhall]

You misunderstand, most of us *want* the police to brutalise hunt supporters - that's democracy for you!

Re:I just hope the House of Lords kicks it back ag

[jrumney]

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.

Re:I just hope the House of Lords kicks it back ag

[16K Ram Pack]

Can we renew passports early? I've got about 5 years to run on mine, but I figure that if I can renew it this year, I can get 10 years without biometrics.

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).

There is a loophole for one part of the UK

[TAZ6416]

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/

Re:There is a loophole for one part of the UK

[16K Ram Pack]

I have an Irish grandparent. If it's good enough for most of the Republic of Ireland footy team, it's got to be good enough for a passport, yes? ;)

New British Passports already biometric.

[Dr_Barnowl]

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.

Only in Texas

[Simon Brooke]

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.

Re:Only in Texas

[welshsocialist]

This new ID card system will apply in Wales and NI as Home affairs is a retained power. I'm too lazy to look up the details now, but they should be in the Government of Wales Act 1998 and the Northern Ireland Act 1998. See this BBC artcle for a summary of how the devolved and retained powers stack up for Stormont, Holyrood, and Cardiff Bay.

This is really bad...

[iogan]

... 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.

Re:This is really bad...

[MaxUK]

Don't forget you tinfoil hat ;)

...which is complete nonsense...

[Simon Brooke]

...which is complete nonsense. Britain is not willing to pull out of the ECHR, nor do they export people to any countries where they may be tortured. They won't even allow extradition to the US for murder cases, if it's a state that has the death penalty.

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.

Re:...which is complete nonsense...

[BasilBrush]

Yes, it's for re-fuelling. British authorities do not search US military planes to check their contents. All the rendition through the UK cases occurred before the British government learned about it. None have happened since.

Re:...which is complete nonsense...

[jasonditz]

Actually the official line from the FO right now is "no cases of 'extraordinary rendition' flights which the government was unaware of".

ID-phobia

[MaxUK]

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.

Re:ID-phobia

[andyt]

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.

Failure? Doubt it.

[joshsnow]

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)

Or even better

[aepervius]

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...

I don't think this is such a big deal

[daem0n1x]

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.

Re:I don't think this is such a big deal

[andyt]

Purely out of interest, under what circumstances do you get asked to show your ID?

(I lived on an army base in Germany for a while, so was required to possess an ID card, and the only times I got asked to show it was when entering or leaving the base. Of course, I had a lot less cause to show it then an actual resident, as I wasn't opening German bank accounts, etc. etc.)

Re:I don't think this is such a big deal

[daem0n1x]

Everytime you must identify yourself, like visiting a company, opening a bank account, etc.
Police can ask ID Card everytime they see fit. And it's mandatory to show it.
I guess Anglo-Saxon people, having a different tradition of personal freedom and privacy, see this as a violation of civil rights, but we don't feel so much like that, it's just normal. And it's really useful, in this dangerous times we're going through.

Re:I don't think this is such a big deal

[cyborg_zx]

When people say that I can't help but wonder when times weren't dangerous.

See Fox Hunting

[madaxe42]

That was the last thing pushed through using the Parliament Act, and was the death-knell into obscurity for the House of Lords.

When you said this

[flyinwhitey]

"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.

It's not about the cards!

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Re:Poor British citizens, their government's watch

[Goth Biker Babe]

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.

Re:Poor British citizens, their government's watch

[lisaparratt]

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.

Data Protection Act

[MtlDty]

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.

Re:Data Protection Act

[simong]

An identity card is exempt under the DPA for a number of reasons that will be open to interpretation and probably tested in the early stages of the implementation. The first time everyone who has registered gets an AOL CD, for example.

Re:I just hope the House of Lords kicks it back ag

[JaxWeb]

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.

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" ... why is that a problem? It isn't. It helps catch criminals, and it actually does.

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.)

My real response

[Sockatume]

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.

Follow the Money

[permaculture]

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.

Let's just cut to the chase, friends

[Mille Mots]

Actually, I think "drastic enough" measures will increase terrorism.

I submit that "drastic enough measures" would be, and are, indistinguishable from "terrorism." To whit:

"Terrorism is defined by the US Department of Defense as "the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives. " (Source @ PBS)

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

What IS Identity?

[cpghost]

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?

Re:What IS Identity?

[gsslay]

This is not racism but we do lack a word for discrimination based on faith, don't we?

And what has this to do with immigration and ID cards??

Hmmm... what about catholics and protestants in Northern Ireland?

What about them?

Religion is one thing, at least, it is not suggested that the cards store. Your religious persuations have nothing to do with your identity, at least not in any way that uniquely identifies you. Not even Blair's government could make a case for this.

Sorry, no.

[jotaeleemeese]

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.

Re:Sorry, no.

[AGMW]

I'm a great believer in the fact that there is no smoke without fire, so it doesn't surprise me that some of the protesters were hot-heads. These sorts of protests (actually, maybe all protests!) will always attract those sorts of people.

Certainly, much of the coverage I saw seemed to show the Police side of the conflict, but there's bound to have been some violence coming the other way. Of course, much like during the miner's strikes, you can't discount the possibilities of the Police trying to wind up the protesters so they can give them a bashing!

But regardless of who started the problems (and I'd like to believe it wasn't the Police!), I still take exception to the suggestion that it is OK for Pro-Hunt people to be beaten up, whilst re-iterating that I don't actually agree with hunting!

Saddest thing of all in my mind is that it would appear that hunting has a new-found vigour as many people want to partake just to thumb their noses at the Government. If they'd left well alone, it probably would have died out of natural causes in a generation or two anyway!

Is all this really unexpected?

[jotaeleemeese]

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.

All security eggs in a single basket....

[jotaeleemeese]

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.

You must be joking

[jotaeleemeese]

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?

And what are you going to do in 5 years time?

[jotaeleemeese]

Sorry guys, British people need to get a clue and vote for the party that consistently has opossed this scam.

King George III

[maynard]

Absolutely right. My error.

Re:That's different

[mdwh2]

But few people have objections of a general form of "ID card", even if issued by the Government.

The big problems are (a) the cost (double the price of a current passport to an individual; billions of pounds overall), and (b) the centralised database.

This is the problem - the Government does polls asking if people are okay with a general form of "ID card", and then make the leap of logic by assuming this means they approve of Labour's scheme.

We already have a Government issued ID - it's called a passport.

Re:I just hope the House of Lords kicks it back ag

[mdwh2]

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.

There is no 'War on Terror'

[Mille Mots]

Congress can either (1) cancel the war on terror, thus negating his power or (2) pass a constitutional amendment restricting wartime powers, making it illegal.

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:

It's true that the Constitution makes the president the "Commander in Chief" of the US Army and Navy. But as Alexander Hamilton noted in Federalist No. 69, this does no more than make the president the "first General" of America 's armed forces. And generals don't get to decide which countries we go to war with.

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

Re:There is no 'War on Terror'

[robertjw]

If the Congress has not issued a Declaration of War, how can the President be exercising "wartime powers?"

That's a great point. There's been a lot of 'wartime' talk lately. If we are at war now, we've been at war pretty much continually since the end of WWII. Korea, Vietnam, the Cold War, Bosnia, Grenada, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq, not to mention the War on Drugs. We have had troops committed somewhere in the world constantly for the better part of the 20th Century. Why is it that only now we have to throw all of our rights out the window, and only now we can exercise "wartime powers"?

Re:There is no 'War on Terror'

[JhohannaVH]

Yes, there has. September 20th, 2001:

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9398253?hook= 798654

Go back and reread that ENTIRE speech and remember what is like to have your nation, your liberty, and your soul murdered on live television.

And then try and tell me that there wasn't a Declaration of War. I've found several - in fact - in front of Congress. So, no.. there hasn't been just one, but several.

Including a resolution passed by Congress to authorize the force: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi ?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107

But again, this is all subject to interpretation! :)

Re:There is no 'War on Terror'

[Mille Mots]

Go back and reread that ENTIRE speech and remember what is like to have your nation, your liberty, and your soul murdered on live television.

I personally find hyperbole weak as a defense against fact.

IIRC, approximately 3k people were murdered on 11 SEP 01 as the result of alleged terorrist acts. I do not disagree with that. The United States did not cease to exist, did it? American's did not lose any liberties when those planes hit those buildings, did they? My soul is still very much intact, thank you.

And then try and tell me that there wasn't a Declaration of War. I've found several - in fact - in front of Congress. So, no.. there hasn't been just one, but several.

Please provide a link to any Declaration of War duly authorized and issued by the Congress of the United States stemming from 11 SEP 01. For bonus points, please provide a link to any Declaration of War issued by the Congress relating to the present military action in Iraq. By your own admission, there are none.

I am not "trying to tell you" that there is none. I am stating as a categorical fact and undeniable truth that there has been no authentic Declaration of War issued by the Congress of the United States, in accord with Constitutional requirements, in the last five years.

Conversely, you are "trying to tell me" that there has been a Declaration of War issued by the Congress. As such, the burden of proof is upon you to provide evidence of such. That is all I am asking you to do...please provide evidence of these alleged Declarations of War that have been issued by the Congress of the United States.

Including a resolution passed by Congress to authorize the force[sic]: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi ?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107

You will admit that you are referring to an authorization for the use of force and not to a Declaration of War? My question was quite specific, and I will restate it here (referencing the alleged 'War on Terror'):

• When did the Congress issue a Declaration of War?
• Against whom did they issue it, if they did issue a Declaration of War?
• Where can I find a copy of said Declaration of War, if it exists?

Perhaps you should re-read the Constitution of the United States of America (and the Bill of Rights wouldn't hurt, either).

--
Sig nify

Re:There is no 'War on Terror'

[JhohannaVH]

And just maybe you should get a clue and understanding about reality. I did exactly what you said you wanted, and you don't like it, so you are choosing to disengage it. Not my issue. The Declaration of War was made in front of Congress and on Live National Television on 9/20/2001. You don't like that, so again, you disengage it. Again, my perception is not YOUR perception, but then, you haven't walked 100 miles in my boots, nor will you.

I have a grand understanding of the way things really work, and they don't always go by the damn Constitution and Bill of Rights... gee, something about loose lips, just like Washington, huh? Can't keep their snippy mouths shut about a damn thing. Things need not be so obvious to the stupid people so that they can be seen for the REST of the world as something else. Weakness, Fear, Terror! Ya know, just what they were trying to acheive.

And as for hyperbole - apparently, you didn't lose any loved ones in 9/11/01, nor know anyone that did. Fact is fact, over 3,000 people were murdered, millions of dollars in damage done, billions in after-effects on the American economy. WE DIDN'T NEED TO DECLARE WAR - as it was declared upon us, and every other nation in the West. Pity that people can't see that because they are blinded by their own institutional bias'.

Hrm... this sounds a bit like a flame - and it's not meant to be. It is something I'm emotional, knowledgable, and intelligent about - having studied things quite well over the past 5 years. And hell no, I'm not blinded by the Bush Administration either.... while I support them as a whole, there are MASSIVE concerns and issues I have with them, to include the wiretapping, PATRIOT ACT and Immigration. And if another Republican comes in the same mold, I will NOT vote for them. But I do believe that we have done the right thing, executitions may have not been very pretty in the process turning Iraq into a bit of a mess for a while, but we have been and will continue to be staunch defenders of freedom and deliver the helpless from oppression, just as we have always done... and they have done for us in the centuries past.

Re:There is no 'War on Terror'

[isotope23]

I have a grand understanding of the way things really work, and they don't always go by the damn Constitution and Bill of Rights...

And this IMO is precisely why our country is having problems. If the government does not abide PRECISELY by the Constitution, and instead ignores it upon a whim then we are not a nation that abides by THE RULE OF LAW.

The Constitution and the BOR are not something that can be swept under the rug when inconvenient. They are the documents from which the government gets its authority. As the precedent of ignoring the Constitution becomes more and more ingrained, we WILL slide into dictatorship.

And as for hyperbole - apparently, you didn't lose any loved ones in 9/11/01, nor know anyone that did. Fact is fact, over 3,000 people were murdered, millions of dollars in damage done, billions in after-effects on the American economy.

yeah, I'd say that is hyperbole. 10,000 people are murdered every year in the US, something like 20,000+ die in auto accidents., the list goes on. I am not willing to trade my freedoms because some pissed off guys are willing to kill americans. Nor am I willing to trade my rights (such as owning a gun) because some criminals use them to commit crimes.

If we were serious about terrorism, we'd stop playing global cop, bring the army home and use it to secure our borders.

Re:There is no 'War on Terror'

[Mille Mots]

And just maybe you should get a clue and understanding about reality.

The problem with reality is that everyone has their own, and it exists primarily between their ears. We may agree on certain details, but that does not negate the fact that, as wrong as Kant was on other issues, perception truly is reality.

I did exactly what you said you wanted, and you don't like it, so you are choosing to disengage it. Not my issue.

You have not provided any proof of your claim that the Congress of the United States issued a Declaration of War stemming from the events on 11 SEP 01, nor a Declaration of War against the nation of Iraq. That you assert you have does not make it true. This is very much your issue.

The Declaration of War was made in front of Congress and on Live National Television on 9/20/2001. You don't like that, so again, you disengage it.

I have stated, as a matter of fact, that there exists no Declaration of War, issued by the Congress of the United States, in accord with the Constitution of the United States of America, stemming from the events of 11 SEP 01, nor a Declaration of War, issued by the Congress of the United States, in accord with the Constitution of the United States of America, against the nation of Iraq.

You have stated that there has been a Declaration of War, issued by the Congress of the United States, in accord with the Constitution fo the United State of America either stemming from the events of 11 SEP 01 or relating to the nation of Iraq.

I have simply asked you to provide proof of your claim. You have not, nor are you doing so. In fact, you can not, because, as I have stated several times, there has not been a Declaration of War issued by the Congress of the United States in the last five years. In fact, the Congress of the United States has not issued a Declaration of War since World War II.

You may continue to ignore the facts and argue from emotion. But when you run out of breath, you will still be wrong. If you wish to continue in your (erroneously held) position, please, I beg of you, provide evidence that there has been a Declaration of War issued by the Congress of the United States so that I may believe, too.

Again, my perception is not YOUR perception, but then, you haven't walked 100 miles in my boots, nor will you.

Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is a logical fallacy and does not serve you well.

I have a grand understanding of the way things really work, and they don't always go by the damn Constitution and Bill of Rights... gee, something about loose lips, just like Washington, huh? Can't keep their snippy mouths shut about a damn thing. Things need not be so obvious to the stupid people so that they can be seen for the REST of the world as something else. Weakness, Fear, Terror! Ya know, just what they were trying to acheive.

From your post, I'm not sure who the 'they' is that you are referencing. The government? If so, I would agree that the present Administration is trying to manipulate the populace into a position of weakness, fear and terror. Further, they are succeeding if you, as an American citizen, are willing to give up the rights granted to you by your Creator for some nebulous 'security' that really applies to you far less than your 'grand understanding' seems to allow for. It is my opinion that the 'security measures' put into place in the wake of 11 SEP 01 were designed to enhance the security of the Government and not the populace. You may disagree, which is fine with me.

And as for hyperbole - apparently, you didn't lose any loved ones in 9/11/01, nor know anyone that did.

Argumentum ad misericordiam (appeal or argument to pity); another logical fallacy.

WE DIDN'T NEED TO DECLARE WAR - as it was declared upon us, and every other nation in the West.

Yes, in fact, the Constitution does require the Congress to issue a Declration

Re:There is no 'War on Terror'

[JhohannaVH]

It is very clear that you do not agree with me on the base facts that the War on Terror was not declared. It was. I sent you the link to the entire text of that Declaration.

Congress *also* voted HERE: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:5:./tem p/~c1073yq4VW::
to enforce the resolutions and engage the use of force. If that's not a War Declaration, I don't know what else you want. Apparently, you, like most other liberatarians (that's what you come across like) don't seem to accept that. I don't know why. And I don't know why you think there is an issue with it violating the Constitution. Apparently, we're on separate sides of the fence... and that's fine. I'm not going to beat my head on a brick wall to try to convince you otherwise, cuz I know that doesn't work! :)

someone should start a movement to fight this

[MooseTick]

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!

Thanks for the laugh

[flyinwhitey]

"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.

Re:Thanks for the laugh

[JaxWeb]

Nearly everyone agrees with me! You can't just say "no one agrees with you" and pretend that is the truth.

No, Gun control is not bad. We don't think it is bad. We have thought about it, and decided this. We are not being blind.

"I chuckled at the ridiculousness of your statements." -- Ah, if only I could be more like you, right? You who is so reasoned.

Hmm.

Re:I just hope the House of Lords kicks it back ag

[JaxWeb]

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)

Ob. Family Guy

[anaesthetica]

[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.

Re:I just hope the House of Lords kicks it back ag

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

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.

Re:I just hope the House of Lords kicks it back ag

[JaxWeb]

Ah interesting point.

I will remember it. Thank you.

(Like I say, I'm not actually for it.)