Slashdot Mirror
Leaked Government Doc Reveals UK ID "Coercion" Plans
BoingBoing is relating a hair-raising tale from the UK anti-ID-register group 'NO2ID' that claims to have a leaked government document [PDF] detailing how the UK government plans to "coerce" citizens into a national ID register. "UK campaigners NO2ID this morning enlisted the help of bloggers across the world to spread a leaked government document describing how the British government intends to go about "coercing" its citizens onto a National Identity Register. The 'ID card' is revealed as little more than a cover to create a official dossier and trackable ID for every UK resident - creating what NO2ID calls 'the database state'."
In shades of 1984 , the report came from a new UK government agency called the Ministry of Privacy.
Perfect opportunity to set up a few convenient aliases--with all the work that they'll be getting, the folks registering will likely not pay quite as much attention as they ought to new registrants. Voila, government-approved IDs, guaranteed to pass any test for fakes.
Of course, getting past the initial screening may not be trivial--but investigation into that avenue may be worthwhile.
In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure dome decree
One of the problems when we have ID cards is that some people are going to break solidarity with the rest of us by getting one and it will be arranged that they get benefits from it. I wonder if we could have a campaign where we ask people for ID and refuse to serve or help them if they show national ID cards. It would have to start with a gentle campaign where they are just given some information and told not to show their ID card again, but after that it could be quite effective. Can this be done without alienating people? It would definitely be worth it. Something to change the equation so that the kind of people who refuse to think beyond their next fish supper can see a benefit from refusing ID.
The database will be written in MSAccess and kept on someones hard drive until it crashes.
Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
Why is "coercion" in quotes? Coercion is the business of government. Government is, after all, the organization holding a monopoly on the special right to employ coercion as a business model. Coercion is what defines government.
Put it this way: If the people actually volunteered to hand over their money and follow the aribtrary rules set forth by a central committee, then government would be entirely redundant. The reason why government exists is precisely because the people would not voluntarily hand over their money and follow that arbitrary set of rules.
Again, coercion is the fundamental tool which all governments MUST hold -- otherwise it ain't government.
I take it back, the IPS are responsible for this, I just didn't spot it because it was written in the third-person.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
This is the British Government we're talking about. They have shown themselves, time and time again, to be completely incapable of completing any IT project. Every time they try, they award the contract to EDS, it goes horrendously over-budget and ends up being cancelled. Expect the big brother database to go online some time around 2050, only be able to store first names, and crash losing all data the first time someone tries to run a query.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Winston, the main character, lived within view of the headquarters of The Party of Oceania which would presumably house Big Brother if he actually existed. The location was called Airstrip One, which according to Winston, used to be known as London.
Big Brother was British.
I read the script, and I think it would help my character's motivation if he was on fire. -Bender
You See! This is exactly why we need a comprehensive government ID system. Then we'd KNOW who wrote that report. I can't wait until we can all just sit around tracking each other, then we'll finally all be happy and safe!
http://vancouvercondo.info
-
I agree with you concerning the Framers' reasons for including the Second Amendment. However, I have to ask you why you think that simply overthrowing an oppressive government and replacing it will do any long-term good? Do you think that leading Congress to the guillotine will work in a country where most people, thanks to public education, think that consistent respect for individual rights means leaving poor people to starve to death in the streets?
The American revolution was as successful as it was because of the people behind it, and I'm not just talking about the heroes you read about in school. Just about everybody in the colonies had at least a nodding acquaintance with the ideas of thinkers like John Locke and Thomas Paine.
An armed rebellion today would fail miserably, because most of the people are beholden to the government. They either get money directly from the government, or they work in industries that receive government subsidies. Do you think, for example, that public school teachers will do anything but teach the children in their ever-so-tender care that the rebels are anything but villains?
Before you can have a revolution, you need a people on fire with the lust for liberty. We don't have that, for the most part. Most people, if you were to tell them that it was possible to have a government that did not rob Peter in order to provide Paul with a welfare check, would laugh at you. Suggest repealing the income tax, and the first thing you'll hear is "how will the government replace those 'lost revenues', as if the government was ever morally entitled to that money in the first place.
A revolution won't work right now. The people are not ready; they do not burn with a passionate need for freedom.
I write sci-fi for metalheads
This is Slashdot, you can't take your opinion back! You flame your way out of trouble!
Asshole!
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
Honestly, I think we all have the necessary reading comprehension to see what the document is driving at. I don't need some ridiculous side commentary, which is wholly devoid of any useful insight, to help me understand the content of the document.
Frankly, the commentary sounds like the rantings of some extremist, conspiracy-theorist wanker, and does nothing but muddy the issues, not to mention make reading the document more difficult, as I have to wade through their irritating scribblings.