Slashdot Mirror
Australia Scraps National ID Plan
IPU = Imaginary Property Unicorn writes "The proposed Australian 'Access Card', a universal ID that would be required for any Australian wishing to use Medicare, Centrelink, the Child Support Agency, or Veterans' Affairs, has been scrapped by the incoming Rudd Labor Government. The card would have contained an RFID tag with the person's name, date of birth, gender, address, signature, card number, card expiration date, and Medicare number, but there were also provisions to add more personal data later on. It seems that Rudd Labor is not eager to copy the American REAL ID Act."
A request for the rest of the world:
DO NOT COPY US. It will take years to undo the damage this administration has done to the US, and most of the damage will likely never be completely undone. Point and mock if you must, but PLEASE learn from our mistakes.
That was always the way with John Howard, slippery bastard. He said one thing and then did the other. Thoroughly untrustworthy. How he stayed in power so long, heavens only knows.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
What exactly is the problem with having some reliable method of identifying a particular person?
Too convenient, less intrusive and far less paperwork for the bureaucrats to shuffle when compared to the existing 100 points of ID check ;-). Seriously though, a card with RFID deserved to be killed dead: highly dodgy for anyone to be able to scan your ID from a distance (and potentially steal it).
ID cards and government database sharing are useful to governments for clubbing individuals who've messed up their paperwork. An ID card which works in our favour by reducing the red tape and paperwork we must deal with by auto-filling in the data they already have... now that would be a winner.
You're forgetting the costs of updating all systems to recognize the card. The card would probably not be used only as a substitute for driver's id, but also as an electronic ID for lots of different systems
The usual answer is that people protect their privacy by revealing select information to different entities. For example, you'll tell your bank some stuff, the health system some other stuff, the welfare agency some other stuff, the stores where you have an account some other stuff and so on. In no case is there one entity that has all your personal information. This means two things. First, it means that if one of them is compromised (as has happened in Britain), the information about you that will be compromised is far from complete. Second, it means that any agency or company that has your personal information only has fragments of it and so has less power over you. Knowledge is power, and the ability to selectively reveal information about yourself to differing persons is necessary for the preservation of privacy.
There's a really good SF novel called "Shield" by Poul Anderson that explores this idea. Unlike a lot of SF novels, it actually has something profound to say.
"by that I mean people who don't sit on slashdot all day wondering why everyone else isn't building robots" DECS
In short, when it comes to the government having information about you the best policy is "deny unless explicitly allowed." Now, if they just wanted to put a (secure) rfid chip in your driver's license that says the same thing the license says, fine.
But whenever this comes up it involves all of your identifying information being on one chip that can be read by any government agency's scanner. It also tends to involve a similar centralized database that's just begging to be abused. Remember: If supporters of a law, when confronted about possible abuses that it would permit, angrily deny that such will occur then you have discovered exactly what the law will be used for as soon and often as possible.
What exactly is the problem with having some reliable method of identifying a particular person?
I suspect you're trolling, since a similar question comes up every time the ID card debate is raised.
Nevertheless, I'll bite.
You're asking the wrong question. When a government wants something, the correct question is "what benefit does this offer to me as a citizen?" and measure it up against the costs. This is because government exists for the benefit of the citizens.
As soon as you start saying "I don't see why not", you're essentially accepting that you should do something for the benefit of the government. While this isn't in and of itself dangerous, it has a lot of potential to be. For instance, the UK government is currently making noises about ID cards - yet in the last month there have been no fewer than 3 major instances of personal data being lost by UK government departments. (Google for Revenue Child Benefit data loss, DVLA data loss and NHS data loss if you don't believe me).
Over 26 million records have gone missing and for most of those records there was more than enough data to carry out fraud. And we're supposed to trust this government with a single database which contains all of this and more?
I'm and Aussie, lived overseas now for more than 5 years, and have lived with people's attitude of Australia sliding down with stuff like this, us back peddling out of the Kyoto agreement that we helped set up, not simply saying sorry for things we have done wrong, and taking asylum seekers not to civilised facilities in Australia, or straight back to where they came from, but rather to dump them on a legally convenient little island made of bird crap in the pacific for more than a year.
Since then Rudd has come along, and I see Australia in the news here in the UK for things seen more positive in the international areana. What's Rudd done so far since elected in November? well he's;
* Ratifying the Kyoto Protocol (Rudd's first official act)
* Indigenous & Reconciliation (Former prime minister John Howard continually refused during his 11-and-a-half years in power to say "sorry" to Aboriginal Australians; Rudd has promised to make an apology to the "stolen generations" in his first term of government)
* Renewable Energy Target: 20% by 2020
* and now this on ID cards.
I'm getting prouder by the day to be an Australian =D
As an European, actually Italian, I don't really get this. I have been carrying my ID card (which is just a piece of stamped paper, by the way, and very cheap) since I was 15 or so, and it allows me to travel the whole EU (which is some 26 countries, by the way) without passport or visa. It certainly has no "police state" connotations in our culture.
I can understand why a RFID-card would be dangerous to privacy, but our cards have nothing like it. I, for one, would welcome a chipped card (not readable at a distance, of course) that would reduce the clutter in my wallet by integrating, for example, driver license, ID card, medical assistance etc.
Seriously, I don't understand what's the big deal about identifying yourself if necessary. It's not like you have police in the street stopping you at random while you walk around and asking for "papers". Yes, there are checks in sensitive places, like at the soccer stadium, etc. but so what?
Ander
@=
Can you get your man Rudd to phone Gordon Brown and talk some sense into him please. Either that or we'll do you a swap but I don't think you'd be that stupid.
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.