UK Compulsory ID Plan Shelved

e9th writes "Despite a bump or two along the way, it seemed that compulsory ID cards were a done deal in the UK. Now, the Financial Times is reporting that the scheme has been shelved. Unfortunately, it seems that this was more a matter of convenience than of concern for citizens' privacy."

Comments

I don't get it

[Jurily]

What's all the uproar about ID cards? It's not like you don't use photo ID (and credit cards) everywhere already. This looks like it just standardizes the process.

Re:I don't get it

[corsec67]

When they aren't required, it is harder for the police to force you to show them. In the US, if you aren't driving a car, then you don't need to carry anything showing who you are.

I am currently living in Japan, so I have an ID that has my identity, and I am required to carry that (or my passport) on my person at all times. This means that if a police officer stops me, they can require my producing identification documents.

Having a standard format for an ID maybe be useful, but then the next step is to require people to carry it, and then making it a crime to not present that to a police officer when requested.

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

To those who modded this up, rather than the original troll: do you understand the difference between voluntary and obligatory? Between free trade and force?

As it happens, I do have a credit card, but I only use it where I want. And I don't walk around with photo ID. In fact, the only form of vague ID that I do make a point of always carrying is my organ donor card, because, you know, unlike state ID, that's actually going to help "protect" my fellow countrymen from the real scourge of organ failure, as opposed to the imagined scare of terrorists round every corner who mysteriously have less of chance of affecting your life than the lottery.

Re:I don't get it

[clickclickdrone]

A) Every other ID you cite is voluntary, this was going to be compulsory (eventually).
B) There was going to be a database behind it that allowed the government to data mine and track what you were up to in numerous areas. With a reasonable government, not neccessarily a problem but they could enact any number of new laws making something you did illegal such as reading political books, fishing or importing DVDs then use the system to scoop up the 'bad' guys.
C) As you say, there are already any number of ways of identifying yourself - driving licence, passport etc. Why have yet another at collosal cost to the tax payer?

Re:I don't get it

[ledow]

I'm from the UK, just to clarify things.

I can't remember the last time my photo ID was *required*, except possibly to put on my driver's license (so, by a government-only department that already had all the information about me it required), and my driving license has *never* been requested or required for anything. I don't have *anything* else with my photo on, at all. I'm pretty sure the only other "photo ID" I've ever had was a student card, because it got me student discounts. Even that was optional.

Additionally, credit/debits cards are *not* as big over here as over countries and a lot of people only "trust" cash. Cheques have only just stopped being accepted in most stores (as in, the last year or two). Although, inevitably, their use will increase over time.

Also, the problem with ID cards *isn't* either of the above. The problem with ID cards is that we were going to be required to pay for them, that they would "link" several disparate databases together and that there was *no* demonstrated need for them at all. There was also going to be a legal requirement to carry them (such a requirement doesn't exist in the UK at all and is, in fact, very alien to us... the nearest equivalent we have is that we have to produce a driving license at a police station of our choice within 48 hours if a policeman so demands it in connection with a driving offence) and therefore a requirement to HAVE them. It was a £100 "compulsory-voluntary" stealth tax to make us carry a card we would never use unless "needs" were created for it (anti-terrorism crap, basically). It was never required before and nobody could justify why it was required after (terrorists normally have valid or plausible ID, for example).

The stink wasn't about "ID Cards" so much as the pathetically poor method of introduction: Hey, you. I want you to carry a card around for the rest of your life for no reason, and I'm going to "invent" excuses to make you need to have it on you. And now you owe me £100 and a day filling out forms in order for me to give you that card. Cough up.

Re:I don't get it

[jackharrer]

If it comes to UK it was mostly about database that should store them and information there. And UK.gov ineptitude when it comes to anything IT.

ID cards can be very useful - I came from country where those are the norm. But I strongly oppose them in UK as last thing I want is UK gov to lose a disk with all those details (like it never happened). Also cost quoted was ridiculous, just like all IT projects in that country.

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

The issues in point were not that it was ID, but that it was
1. Compulsory
2. Seen as being imposed without popular support or adequate consultation
3. Backed by a database of information, rather than "just another card"
4. Expensive
5. Being misleadingly promoted as an effective anti terrorism measure
6. of widely distrusted security, in light of recent data-loss scandals
7. Likely to become tied to the provision of other services

Re:I don't get it

[Jurily]

Having a standard format for an ID maybe be useful, but then the next step is to require people to carry it, and then making it a crime to not present that to a police officer when requested.

So what? This is already the case in Hungary. Makes catching wanted criminals easier, too. If you don't have it on you when a police officer asks for it, you either earned yourself a trip to the police station to clarify your identity, or tell them you live near enough for them to escort you home. It's not an offense, just an inconvenience. This is admittedly a remnant from the socialist regime, but it actually does more good than harm, since most of these checks take place at night, and the officers can't be bothered to check everyone, only those who look shady.

In all other cases, it works exactly like a photo ID you already have.

Re:I don't get it

[twostix]

Well I don't know about anyone else but I refuse to be told that I must submit myself to the sitting government so that they may provide me with identification to prove that I'm a citizen of MY country.

It's MY country, not theirs.

Any ID I have at this time I have because I choose to have it, for business that I choose to engage in.

Would you send someone to gaol for refusing to submit themselves to the government to get a government Identity Card?

If not then it's not compulsory.

If so, then you're an authoritarian and not worth speaking to.

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

Important point about the database, the article neglects to mention that the database is not being scrapped. The database is the real privacy concern, not the card itself. All the card is a way of proving identity in relation to the database.

Re:I don't get it

[Inda]

My wife said "so what" last night too.

I replied:

Next they'll add DNA records to it, and there are already convictions based solely on DNA evidence. DNA is easy to plant, easy to share, impossible not to leave you DNA everywhere. Still happy?

Next they'll say "This little chip could do so much more". All your money will be linked to it.

Next they'll refuse to let you borrow a library book without it. And you'll need to show it on the bus. When you buy alcohol. When you enter any public place.

Next, instead of showing it, you'll have to insert it into the card reader. Now your whole life is tracked. Are you happy about the local dustbin man being able to track you?

Next they'll say "this little chip could be made smaller and inserted under the skin". Still happy to say "so what"

"They wouldn't do that", she said.

"They do with dogs. Happy to be treated like a dog by our lords and masters?"

-----

We'll all be forced to own one eventually. As soon as Tescos and the like require you to insert it when you buy anything.

Voluntary, my arse.

Re:I don't get it

[xaxa]

I'm from the UK, just to clarify things.

I can't remember the last time my photo ID was *required*

They want my passport to leave the country ;-)
I'm young (or at least, young-looking), so sometimes I'm asked for photo ID when I purchase alcohol (or certain medicines, knives and chemicals).
Some nightclubs demand photo ID to enter them. Some even *scan* the ID, I don't know how common this is as I don't go to the big mainstream clubs.

I'm pretty sure the only other "photo ID" I've ever had was a student card, because it got me student discounts.

Most university/college-issued student IDs now have a photo. Whether you need to carry it depends on the university's rules though -- I needed to carry mine to unlock doors.

Also, the problem with ID cards *isn't* either of the above. The problem with ID cards is that we were going to be required to pay for them, that they would "link" several disparate databases together and that there was *no* demonstrated need for them at all.

Exactly.

I don't care so much that the council, train company, countless shops and so on have CCTV of me. I don't care that my university and doctor know about some medical condition, that my employer knows how often I'm ill, that the train company knows if I'm staying out late, that my bank knows what I buy.

What I do care about is people aggregating all that data. Joining it all together gives too much insight into my life.

Re:I don't get it

[Jurily]

I can't remember the last time my photo ID was *required*, except possibly to put on my driver's license (so, by a government-only department that already had all the information about me it required), and my driving license has *never* been requested or required for anything. I don't have *anything* else with my photo on, at all. I'm pretty sure the only other "photo ID" I've ever had was a student card, because it got me student discounts. Even that was optional.

I take it you don't open bank accounts too often, travel internationally, or buy cigarettes and alcohol. Being a smoker kind of made it a necessity when I started travelling around. The £100 really is fucked up though.

Re:I don't get it

[Angostura]

What the UK government want is to assign a compulsory primary key to every UK citizen and then make the hand-over of that key compulsory. What the anti-campaign wants to do is be allowed to leave that as 'null'.

Giving ever UK citizen a primary key is tremendously useful to a government. It makes a number of administrative tasks much simpler. Unfortunately in the hands of an oppressive totalitarian regime, ownership of the database becomes a nasty weapon against freedom.

On a more pragmatic level. The scheme was very expensive, cumbersome and there was no expectation that the government would be able to successfully control who had access to your intimate details.

Re:I don't get it

[infolation]

Anyone applying for a UK passport from 2011 onwards will have their information stored on the National ID database.

If you don't keep your address and personal information up to date you have committed a criminal offence and you can be fined GBP1,000.

80% of the UK population own passports. In essence, anyone who wants to leave the UK must register with the ID database.

The ID database is primarily a scheme that enables the government to identify you, and that is made clear in a dubious little paper called Safeguarding Identity, produced by the Home Office last week, which describes how the ID database and the transformational government scheme mesh together in one glorious structure where data about the individual passes between departments. That is the prize and why they will use any argument and spend any amount to achieve it.

Re:I don't get it

[IBBoard]

I think half of that depends on your age group. I'm 25 and in the past few years I've needed photo ID for buying alcohol (which they're now raising to "if you look under 25 then prove you're over 18") as well as getting on to some works sites (although that's a more specialist case).

As for debit/credit, I don't have trust issues with plastic and rarely have cash on me. Supermarkets (even small Co-op stores) and most high street chains will take plastic for any value, but some shops have a £5 minimum spend. I've bought a 50p loaf of bread on plastic before because all I had in my pocket was a few coppers.

The stink wasn't about "ID Cards" so much as the pathetically poor method of introduction: Hey, you. I want you to carry a card around for the rest of your life for no reason, and I'm going to "invent" excuses to make you need to have it on you. And now you owe me £100 and a day filling out forms in order for me to give you that card. Cough up.

And not just that, but they were doing it for passports as well with biometric details. If you want a new passport now it costs extra because of the extra details. No-one has proved any use for those either, and it all seems a little excessive.

I think most people were complaining because the "red tops" (cheap and sensationalist newspapers, like The Sun) told them to rather than because they understood the excess of data being collected, the implications of carrying an ID card everywhere, the likely down-hill slope of what the government would push for next, and the problems with the inevitable loss of data.

Re:I don't get it

[ArcherB]

If it comes to UK it was mostly about database that should store them and information there. And UK.gov ineptitude when it comes to anything IT.

So is that the problem, the DB? Why not just forbid government tracking without just cause or other "intelligence" activities using government mandated ID's?

I don't have a problem with standardized ID's. I don't have a problem being "forced" to carry one. To me, it makes sense. Under laws that state you don't need to carry or present and ID when asked, Osama Bin Laden could happily walk down the street in any state in America and simply refuse to show ID when asked.

Police: Sir, you are a six foot plus Arab man with a ball sack beard and a you are being followed around by a kidney dialysis machine. You a striking resemblance to the most wanted terrorist in the world. Can I see your ID?
Bin Laden: No!
Police: OK, can I ask your name?
Bin Laden: You can ask. Hell, I'll even tell you. I'm John Smith... no wait, I'm George Boosh. Yeah, George Boosh.
Police: So, your not Bin Laden?
Bin Laden: Nope.
Police: Well, I can't take you in for being a tall Arab. Thank you citizen. Have a good day.

Granted, Osama Bin Laden is not going to be walking down the street in Anytown USA, but the point is still valid. Replace Bin Laden with any wanted criminal and the point doesn't change.

I understand the "papers please" argument, and reject it because we simply do not have the manpower to set up checkpoints and run around asking everyone for "papers, please". Even if we could muster the manpower, the citizens wouldn't stand for it. The very second city police start asking everyone for ID is the second before a local mayor gets recalled for being an asshole. Same goes for any state governor. Granted, it's harder for local community or state to recall a President, but that's what the Freedom of the Press, the ACLU, The House of Representatives and the Court system are for.

Re:I don't get it

[jrumney]

I am currently living in Japan, so I have an ID that has my identity, and I am required to carry that (or my passport) on my person at all times. This means that if a police officer stops me, they can require my producing identification documents.

Only in the course of their duties. Japanese police cannot stop you for the purpose of checking your ID, but if you are a foreigner over the age of 18, then you are required to carry it at all times and show it to police if they have another legitimate cause for stopping you.

Re:I don't get it

[chrb]

my driving license has *never* been requested or required for anything

Maybe not requested directly from you, but all of that license information, including home address and the photo, is stored in the DVLA database. You have no idea who has access to it, or what they have done with it.

I don't have *anything* else with my photo on, at all.

Perhaps you don't, but most adults will also have a passport.

Additionally, credit/debits cards are *not* as big over here as over countries and a lot of people only "trust" cash.

Not true. "Behind the U.S., the U.K. is the next largest market with 59 million credit cards, according to the Lafferty Group, a research firm in London." (source)

How do you get your cash if you don't have a debit card? Every employer I've ever worked for has insisted on paying me through monthly bank transfer or standing order. Banks have inconvenient opening hours and are, well, inconvenient. Every single person I know uses ATMs. and you can't use an ATM without a debit card.

A lot of the resistance to I.D. cards in the U.K. has been "OMG the government will have my infos!". But unless you're paid cash in hand, have no mobile phone, no drivers license, no passport, no bank account, no NHS records, and aren't registered for council tax or to vote, then the government already have most, or all, of the info that would be stored on the I.D. card. The only addition is the biometrics.

Re:I don't get it

[fractoid]

DNA is ... easy to share...

For your average /. reader?

Still happy?

No. :/

Re:I don't get it

[infolation]

The 'index' is the important point. The National Insurance Number used to be the method of linking information, but it's now flawed. The government want a 'cradle to grave' index that they can relate to all other databases.

It's what New Labour have called 'joined up government', which translates as join up the relational databases of our subjects.

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

Osama Bin Laden could happily walk down the street in any state in America

I wouldn't mind living in a world where that were possible. I'm more likely to be harassed by the government than by any known terrorist.

Re:I don't get it

[RivieraKid]

The point is - the security tradeoff of credit cards, passports, driving licenses, etc makes them worth it. You don't say it, but its implied in your standadisation argument, but a national ID card does not give us, the public, anything at all. The only thing an ID card will do is shift the balance of power ever further in the favour of the government. That is not something any free citizen should accept.

Re:I don't get it

[Ginger Unicorn]

yeah but all those database are separate entities and there is practically impenetrable firewall of bureaucracy and privacy laws stopping them being cross referenced.

Re:I don't get it

[Candid88]

...but then the next step is to require people to carry it, and then making it a crime to not present that to a police officer when requested.

You do know that if a police officer requests your identity it is already a crime not to provide it. ID card or no ID card.

If you say "I'm not going to tell you who I am or where I live" all the policeman's ears would hear is "please put me in a cell copper, please"

Re:I don't get it

[L4t3r4lu5]

No problem. We're geeks, and probably have the tools to muck about with our skin-embedded RFID chips.

Sincerely,

Elvis Presley

Re:I don't get it

[RivieraKid]

Don't be ridiculous - the 9/11 terrorists carried 100% genuine and official Government issued ID. Guess what? Carrying ID didn't help on single bit. Know why? Knowing who someone is and where they are doesn't tell you if they are a terrorist. It doesn't tell you what their intentions are. All it does is give you a huge amount of power over them.

Re:I don't get it

[e9th]

Did you say DNA records? I can't wait until there's a practical field procedure for generating a DNA profile. Get pulled over for speeding? "Sir, we're going to need some saliva now. Thanks for cooperating."

Re:I don't get it

[clickclickdrone]

>then the government already have most, or all, of the info that would be stored on the I.D. card
Sort of. The ID card database is introducing the ID card as the primary key then using that to update and thus link all the disparate databases into one big searchable system. Right now, they'd have to trawl multiple systems and manually sift the data to get the big picture on you. If the ID database goes live, they'll have a single system that shows the lot and can then be used for data mining on whatever criteria they decide makes you a bit dodgy in their opinion.

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

>Additionally, credit/debits cards are *not* as big over here as over countries and a lot of people only "trust" cash. Cheques have only just stopped being accepted in most >stores (as in, the last year or two). Although, inevitably, their use will increase over time.

We seem to live in different UKs. What other countries have you visited? The UK uses debit card pretty much as a replacement for coins and notes.

Japan is a cash country, the US is a cash country. The UK isn't.

Re:I don't get it

[chrb]

As far as I know, there are no privacy laws that protect the data held in databases from being shared between different government departments. The government is exempt from most of the Data Protection Act.

I doubt this is a bureaucratic issue either - getting some databases cross referenced is technically easy, and I would be surprised if the capability didn't already exist. I would be very, very, surprised if MI5/6 couldn't cross reference DVLA, passport, mobile phone, and police records, which means that, technically speaking, anyone else with appropriate permissions could too.

Re:I don't get it

[MindKata]

"Why not just forbid government tracking without just cause or other "intelligence" activities using government mandated ID's"

ArcherB: What planet are you from, only on Earth all governments makes the laws and so they choose what they consider legal to do.

"Replace Bin Laden with any wanted criminal and the point doesn't change."

I refer you back to my point above. The governments game the system as they make the rules, so they can (and do) game it in their favor, for their own gain and for the gain of the ones who are loyal to them staying in power. After all the end goal of power over others is to mandate how others live and so they personally gain from that position of power.

Also just look at the expenses scams in the UK government if you don't believe how they manipulate rules for their own gain.

Even this ID card move isn't to drop the ID cards. They are just boiling the frog more carefully now. They are still bring in the ID cards. After all, why bring them in at all if its just voluntary?. That's because it won't end up being voluntary. Information is power and the people in governments go into politics because they want to gain power over people. Knowledge is power. More Knowledge is more power. Its no wonder then that power seekers climbing up the power hierarchy in governments see ID Cards as a solution for them, as they want ever more power over people, to force people to live how they wish people to live. Still don't believe me? ... Then just consider what power is for. At a fundamental level, the very fact that someone seeks power means they wish to gain the power to control and choose how others live their lives and then they personally gain something from having that power over others.

Re:I don't get it

[Captain Splendid]

I understand the "papers please" argument, and reject it because we simply do not have the manpower to set up checkpoints and run around asking everyone for "papers, please".

Straw man. The whole point of a national ID card coupled to its attendant DB means you don't have to set up roadblocks etc., you just need a couple of PNGs sitting in a windowless room somewhere directing much more efficient and targeted "stops".

Re:I don't get it

[arethuza]

Indeed, since Chip-n-Pin became common the only think I use cash for is the occasional taxi journey.

Re:I don't get it

[clickclickdrone]

>I can't wait until there's a practical field procedure for generating a DNA profile
In the UK almost any visit to the police station will result in you being obliged to give a DNA sample. They've used the increasingly large sample database to mop up old crimes going back decades in some cases. I would suggest that in many cases such as murder, rape etc this is a Good Thing. However, it is easy to plant or fake DNA evidence and the courts and in turn jurors generally tend to treat any DNA evidence as magic proof of guilt and won't stop to think the person in the dock might not have done it.

Re:I don't get it

[chrb]

Do you really think that MI5/6 don't already have the ability to do automated cross-referenced queries from those disparate databases using a single software interface? There are loads of pieces of data that could be munged into a primary key (National Insurance number, surname+DOB etc.). Even without that, they could query on name, address, date of birth, etc. and pull all of the info out in an automated fashion very quickly.

If Google can search the entire internet and give me search results in a fraction of a second, then I am not ready to believe that the British intelligence services would be so incompetent that they couldn't link several disparate databases to enable automated searches of members of the British public.

Re:I don't get it

[ArcherB]

Don't be ridiculous - the 9/11 terrorists carried 100% genuine and official Government issued ID. Guess what? Carrying ID didn't help on single bit. Know why? Knowing who someone is and where they are doesn't tell you if they are a terrorist. It doesn't tell you what their intentions are. All it does is give you a huge amount of power over them.

On the morning of September 11, the 9-11 terrorists hadn't done anything wrong. I'm not saying that ID would have stopped 9-11. I'm saying that it's too damn easy to deny who you are when you are wanted. Seriously, how can a warrant be served if the target of the warrants simply says, "I'm not the droids you are looking for."?

Re:I don't get it

[vlm]

Now your whole life is tracked.

But you forget the equally annoying problem, similar to the phenomenon of "Universal Default"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_default

Basically, universal default means if you're having "a problem" with one financial institution, all other financial institutions are legally allowed to pile onto you and attack you along with the problem institution. Currently our financial lives are a gang fight, you fight one you better be ready to fight them all at the same time.

Anyway, I suspect something similar to universal default, but larger, is a major purpose of a national database. In theory, currently if you don't register for the draft and keep your address current, you can't get college financial aid. This kind of "reasoning" can easily be expanded with a national ID system.

If you have a late library book, your garbage man will not be legally allowed to haul away your trash. Also you'll be unable to buy anything at any retail establishment until your account is cleared up at the library. Basically any establishment will be able to very publicly subject you to a society-wide "consumer death penalty". Like wearing a big scarlet "A", or one of those yellow stars, except it'll be an id card in your pocket so that's OK.

Customer service dispute with one gas station? Blacklisted, No gas station will sell you gas under any circumstances, even on a cash and carry basis. Being blacklisted for the duration of the memory of the bouncers at one bar is bad. Being blacklisted from all bars forever based on the arbitrary decision of one individual, is quite a harsh penalty, especially when you might be targeted for nefarious reasons (dating some bar bouncer's ex-girlfriend, or made a fool out of someone more powerful, etc).

Late return of a rental DVD? No library books for you! Bought alcohol? No medical services for you. A a "service death penalty" if you ever did something politically incorrect. Shop at the adult toy store (and I don't mean the local computer store)? That means no entrance to church (except maybe confessional session)! Once bought a gas guzzler car? Random targeted punishment for the rest of your life.

Bought "Budweiser" beer at the quickie mart? No admittance to "Miller Park" stadium for you! A very strange merger of private activity and corporate owned public spaces is about to arrive.

Basically what used to be individual problems between you and one entity, while you and the rest of the world were all good, will soon be punished as you against the entire freaking world.

Re:I don't get it

[ArcherB]

Straw man. The whole point of a national ID card coupled to its attendant DB means you don't have to set up roadblocks etc., you just need a couple of PNGs sitting in a windowless room somewhere directing much more efficient and targeted "stops".

OK, who are they stopping and why?

Besides, do you really think that a couple of "black-suits" are going to be "sitting in a windowless room somewhere" monitoring the movements of every person in the entire city? Why would they do that? With city and state budgets stretched to the max and the books open for public viewing, do you seriously think that a local gov could get away with that sort of thing without anyone noticing?

Re:I don't get it

[RivieraKid]

The only addition is the biometrics.

Which is precisely the point - there is no need at all for the extra biometrics, or the linking of the databases.

Re:I don't get it

[RivieraKid]

It's what New Labour have called 'joined up government', which translates as join up the relational databases of our suspects .

There you go, fixed that for ya.

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

Will someone explain how this is flamebait?

Mods, just because you may disagree, doesn't make it flamebait. If you seriously disagree, put down the mod points and reply to explain why.

Re:I don't get it

[Xest]

£100 to start with.

If it's anything like driving licenses or passports they'd eventually make you renew it too.

I was quite suprised when I got a letter from the DVLA the other day saying I had to renew my driving license because photos now have to be updated every 10 years at the cost of £20. Not a massive amount of cash, but £20 for every driver in the UK every 10 years probably amounts to £250 million or so for them over that period (or £25 million a year in other words) so clearly just a cash grab. No one's ever had to renew their photo before so why now? It's not like the photo even matters, if someone wants to check your license they can do so without needing your photo and it's not as if it's hard to fake one anyway.

I'd imagine the same would happen with ID cards eventually, probably £50 every 10 years to renew it or something too which is another reason I didn't want one to be honest.

Re:I don't get it

[c0p0n]

OK, who are they stopping and why?

It strikes me how little police stop cars in this country. Back in Spain I was constantly stopped for breathalyser tests, or to be searched for drugs with dogs and whatnot. You didn't have both your driver's license AND id card (they will eventually merge in a single document) and you were pretty much fucked (the first is mandatory to carry when you drive, the second always) as you were both fined and possibly escorted to the police station to check on your identity to prove a) you're entitled to drive that car (insurance etc) and b) you're entitled to drive.

Re:I don't get it

[dunkelfalke]

Doesn't have to be that way. In Germany, everyone have to own an ID document but noone is forced to carry it.

Better that way than having the SSN misused for all kinds of identification (in Germany only your employer needs to know the SSN).

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

Who are they stopping? Firstly, anyone who complains that they are stopping the wrong people.

Next, they can start stopping and hassling anyone who's a member of an opposition party.

After that, they can get on with the serious business of stopping black people for no good reason.

Re:I don't get it

[mdwh2]

(How does "I admit I don't have a clue about this issue, so I'll just have a guess" get +3 Insightful?)

If we already have it, why the need for this new expensive scheme?

This looks like it just standardizes the process.

Yeah, and costs £93+ in the process.

The issue is not with having a "card" or "ID" - that's a straw man argument. The issues include:

* The National Identity Register database.
* The vast cost of it (passports will end up costing £93, plus an estimated £30 for processing fees). The Government is spending billions on the project.
* Being fined £1000 for not notifying the Government of change in details.
* Making any such scheme compulsory.

If any credit card company offered such a scheme, do you honestly think that people would be queuing up to join it? And now think of making it compulsory (either for everyone, or everyone who wants a passport, or whatever).

Re:I don't get it

[mdwh2]

My wife said "so what" last night too.

If the plans go ahead (either for everyone, or when you next renew your passport), please do let her pay the £93+ bill each for you both - and say "So what" when she complains ;)

Re:I don't get it

[RivieraKid]

I have a passport, driving license, bank account, I pay my taxes, I pay my council tax direct to the local government, I'm registered to vote, I have multiple phone lines, I have utilities supplied to my home, I use public transport, so they know where I go, the list goes on. Point is, the government already knows who I am, where I live, where I work - a national ID will give them significant oppressive power over me, and will give me absolutely nothing, except for a £100 bill every few years when I'm forced to renew the card. The national ID card gives me nothing, and the government everything.

I'll adapt a little phrase you might have heard: When freedom is outlawed, only criminals will be free.

Re:I don't get it

[mdwh2]

Nonsense. Sure, you can choose to use debit/credit cards most places in the UK, but just about everywhere accepts cash. I use cash most the time, and in fact I can't think of any place I've ever been to that doesn't accept cash.

Also note that some people (particular young people) do not have a credit card (I have some friends who have yet to obtain one), and they seem to manage without starving to death or otherwise unable to buy anything.

Re:I don't get it

[fractoid]

What about having no direct penalty for refusing an identity card... but make virtually everything require said identity card? "I'm sorry, sir, you cannot use a pharmacy without showing your Medicare card. I'm sorry, good citizen, you may not drive your car without having your drivers' license on your person. I'm sorry, sir, if you wish to buy a long-distance train ticket we require your passport." Since all of the above have the same key details on them, they're pretty much equivalent. It's not what I like but it's what we've got.

Re:I don't get it

[ArcherB]

I have a passport, driving license, bank account, I pay my taxes, I pay my council tax direct to the local government, I'm registered to vote, I have multiple phone lines, I have utilities supplied to my home, I use public transport, so they know where I go, the list goes on. Point is, the government already knows who I am, where I live, where I work - a national ID will give them significant oppressive power over me, and will give me absolutely nothing, except for a £100 bill every few years when I'm forced to renew the card. The national ID card gives me nothing, and the government everything.

First you say that the government already has everything it can get from the ID, then you say that by you having an ID, they will have the "oppressive power" over you. If the government already knows who you are and where you go, it appears to me that they have gained nothing and you have lost nothing. Where does the "oppressive power" come in?

I'm not trying to troll, I'd seriously like to know what the hangup is. You already have a SSN that they can use to track where you work and what credit you get. They can already track your credit and ATM cards. They can see which towers are transmitting you cell phone signals and triangulate your position. Hell, they can even attach a transmitting GPS device to your car LEGALLY and without a warrant, and yet, you are not oppressed now. How will an ID card suddenly make you a victim of oppression?

Re:I don't get it

[JAZ]

this. I don't fear anyone anywhere in the world. I do, however, fear the government and its agents.

Re:I don't get it

[rufty_tufty]

The problem is the one sided nature of the relationship, individual bureaucrats have access to information(=power) that the average citizen doesn't. Not just a few of them either- as is the case with normal national security level things - just about bureaucrat will have power over anyone under their particular jurisdiction. The reverse is not true. We're always told the average citizen cannot do things like take photos of policemen for the protection of the policemen, but no opposing right/protection the other way. Now I would have no problem with surveillance/databasing if the information was truly available to all except for a constrained elite; without the average joe being able to monitor those elite to the same level they monitor us then we've got problems.
This is where the problem for abuse comes in.

If I read my history correctly when policemen were first introduced they were very much viewed as a servant of the people - right down to the uniform being chosen to be a meld of the upper and lower class fashions at the time - with no extra powers the average citizen at the time did not possess, they simply were employed to do what the average gentleman was expected to do (arrests, detaining scoundrels etc). Over time the culture has changed to where many policemen and citizens believe the police are masters to the point where the average bobby has powers far in excess of what the any civilian does and therefore there are countless examples of these powers being abused and the public having nothing they can do about it.
The same will happen here with ID cards if we don't carry on fighting them.

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

And by "standardize", Jurily, you mean to use a technology that happens already to exist for tyrannical purposes. And I don't see the insight in this comment. corsec67, on the other hand, gets the full picture, and explains it well.

Re:I don't get it

[ArcherB]

...therefore there are countless examples of these powers being abused and the public having nothing they can do about it.

Here is where the whole argument falls apart. In Austin TX, a female police officer shot and killed a man who had overwhelmed her partner and was beating the crap out of him. She was fired and is facing charges because she was white and the guy pummeling her partner was black. Now, if a police officer can not shoot a man who is attacking another police officer, what makes you think they can somehow use your ID to abuse you? (BTW, in the state of Texas, a citizen is allowed to shoot someone to stop a violent crime. In other words, citizens have powers that this police officer did not.)

Don't get me wrong, I'm against government abuse as much as anyone, but I don't see how an ID automatically equals abuse. Sure, it might make potential abuse easier, but so does a license plate on your car. When they started putting plates on cars, did abuse go up? Of course not. How about your cell phone. You can be tracked by that, you know. Did abuse go up? Nope. So what makes an ID so special that it makes abuse happen when all these others did not?

Re:I don't get it

[rufty_tufty]

Get her to have google latitude installed on her phone and running at all times so you can track her movements at all times.
Now give access to that to any crazy friends she has.
is she still saying "so what?"

Re:I don't get it

[RMH101]

And they'll store this evidence in an unlocked, canteen freezer along with the icecream if you're in North Yorkshire: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6616759.ece

Re:I don't get it

[rufty_tufty]

I'm also from the UK and:
* You don't need photo ID to open a bank account - current utility bill will do - no photo on that. If that fails in the past i have opened a bank account with just cash, no ID needed at all. They did of course there post the bank book to the address I supplied...
* Well, yes, I'd be worried though if entering/leaving a country they didn't want to check my identity.
* That's not proof of identity, that's proof of age - there are plenty of ways to achieve that without all the other rubbish this card has. They already exist and work fine without privicy converns. Those are really only needed if you are near the age anyway, I haven't been carded in about a decade...

Re:I don't get it

[xaxa]

Nonsense. Sure, you can choose to use debit/credit cards most places in the UK, but just about everywhere accepts cash.

The difference is there are plenty of places in Japan (and maybe the USA?) that don't accept cards. Places that don't accept cards in the UK: door entry fees (e.g. nightclub), street markets, fast food, ... anything else?

The only people I know without debit cards are illegal immigrants and under 16s (and I know people in both groups with cards).

I've "been" to lots of places that don't accept cash. Amazon.co.uk, Asda.com, Play.com, eBuyer.co.uk, ...

Re:I don't get it

[SimonGhent]

it was mostly about database that should store them and information there

The same information will still be held when anyone applies for or renews a passport, so in 10 years (passport validity term) they will have the full database anyway.

They are suggesting that those under 25 get one as proof of age for buying alcohol/tobacco (as the current trend is that ID is required under that age, minimum age for both is now 18), plus anyone working in secure areas like airports.

The voluntary card will cost you £30.

Re:I don't get it

[chrb]

No-one has proved any use for those either, and it all seems a little excessive.

There are many criminals who have travelled on false passports. Hypothetically, linking authentication to biometric data will stop most of this - you will no longer be able to travel on the passport of another, and the old "apply for a passport of a dead person" scam will probably disappear. According to investigative journalists, the current price of a valid UK passport in a fake name with your photo on it is about £20k. Anything that makes it more difficult to procure these passports will have the result of increasing the end price. Linking passports to an individual with more personal data than a photo will likely have that effect. The photograph is already a kind of biometric information, but the problem with photographs is the matching is rather fuzzy - Hussein Osman, one of the 7/7 London bombers, escaped Britain using his brother's passport.

If you accept that people should have to authenticate their identities to enter or leave the country, and accept that this identification needs to have some kind of information linking it to the actual person holding the card or papers, then the question just becomes "how much biometric data is necessary?" The first form of biometric data, the photo, has proved itself flawed and people who match photos are easy to fool. It isn't surprising that people want a form of authentication that is more secure.

Re:I don't get it

[rufty_tufty]

You never go to the Pub? I know a lot of chain pubs work with cards and will set up a tab, but none of the decent pubs around here can handle cards (£3000 a year to have one of those machines)

Re:I don't get it

[Jack Sombra]

The problem was Gov originally tried to make ID cards a LOT more than just your name and photo, to just list some of the things they were talking about putting on them

* Home address
* Telephone number
* National Insurance number (the equivalent of the U.S. Social Security number)
* Medical records
* Criminal record
* Iris scan
* Fingerprint record

And to boot they wanted to put in on pretty unsecured RFID chips and build a massive central database that would also contain all this info and that god only knows how many 100's of thousands of public sector employee's could access (oh yeah lets not forget other countries like USA were already rubbing their hands in glee at the thought of getting all that info on foreign nations that crossed their borders)

If they had just tried just to do what most others countries do, just a name and photo there would have been only a tiny fraction of the opposition against the whole thing and it would have been rolled out years ago at a fraction of the cost

Classic case of the major IT outsourcing company's telling IT illiterate officials what is technically possible (and massively understating the costs/risks) and the officials turning around and saying " we will take everything" without once stopping and asking "just because we can do it does it mean we should do it?"

And to be honest, anyone who thinks this is the end of the ID card fiasco is dreaming, they will still push it though the back door, first by targeting "soft targets", like by requiring foreign nationals living in the UK to have them (already under way), then once it is done they will move to other target sectors (most likely next will be those claiming social security, no ID card? Cannot pick up your dole), before we know it those without a ID card will be a minority and then it will be easy for them to change the law

Re:I don't get it

[RivieraKid]

The ID card won't - as you say, they already have a huge amount of information on me anyway.

The problem, is that the UK government wants to link each and every database that has information on me together. It is that seemingly innocuous act that makes so much difference. With it, the ID cards goes from a single method of identification to the single way that the government gains all of that power over you. Take for example, the governments use of anti-terror laws to press criminal charges against citizens who put plastic bottles in the normal trash instead of the recycle bin. Or the fact that they used anti-terror laws to sieze the assets of Icelandic banks when their economy collapsed. Precisely how long do you think it's going to be before they start opressing the rest of us once they gain the ability to track every last piece of information about us at the click of a button, in realtime (or at least, near-realtime)? The problem isn't that they can get at the information, the problem is that if they get their way, instead of having to go through due process, and have to track you, they will know exactly where you are going to be and when. The problem is that for all the public condemnation of various communist and dictatorial states, that is precisely where they would love to be - with complete control over the populace. The problem is that they are so dishonest about what they want. They claim it will save us from the boogey man - well, I call shenanigans. Smoking kills more people than Bin Laden. Alcohol kills more. Cars kill more. Cancer kills more. The problem is that the national identity register, and the national ID card programs, are a solution looking for a problem. They will do absolutely nothing for the general public that we don't already have. However, the danger to the public is immense, even assuming we give the government the benefit of the doubt, and trust that there are proper auditing, accounting, and restitution procedures in place to prevent abuse, take the example of the national child register. A huge database of the personal information (including name, date of birth, address, school.....) of every child in Britain. It was put in place to "protect" the children. Again, a threat that is so insignificant compared to other less glamorous threats. This was created at great cost, and the entire database was promptly left on a train, unencrypted on CD that anyone could pop into a computer and read. They couldn't even manage to protect a database of extremely vulnerable people with a fraction of the complexity of what they are proposing - they have no chance at all of protecting the rest of us, even if they have purely altruistic goals, which history has shown is simply not the case.

Re:I don't get it

[Simon Rowe]

That won't work now. Anti-money laundering legislation mandates either a driver's licence or a passport. No ID, no account. Oh, and try buying or selling a house without ID too.

Re:I don't get it

[RMH101]

"Maybe not requested directly from you, but all of that license information, including home address and the photo, is stored in the DVLA database. You have no idea who has access to it, or what they have done with it."
Yes I do! It's frigging anyone who wants it. As an example, private car clamping firms can get it from them to send you a bill - see http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/17/dvla_review/.
Major supermarket chains have automatic numberplate recognition cameras that will automatically post you out a fine if you sit for too long in their carparks. McDonalds in the UK will famously send you a fine in the post for the temerity of sitting in their car parks for an hour whilst you eat your burger, and the first you'll hear about it is when the fine arrives in the post: http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/uk/mcfines%20for%20slow%20eaters/1169247.

Re:I don't get it

[malkavian]

The big point is that documentation doesn't say who you you are.. It says who you purport to be. For the law abiding majority, this will be the same. If, however, you're into serious criminal activity and want to have a nice document that'll say "this is not the person you're looking for", what better than an ID card that they trust implicitly (though wrongly so).
ID cards are not a security measure that means anything.

Re:I don't get it

[ArcherB]

OK. So the problem is the fact that an incompetent government is creating databases that they can neither maintain nor protect. The problem is not the ID's but what the government does with the data they collect to create those ID's. I can see where that could be a problem.

I am not in the UK. I'm a US citizen. We already have huge DB's with all kinds of personal data on them. The social security system, financial records, driving records, criminal records, tax records, census data and so on are all already stored in government databases. This doesn't even begin to touch what is stored in privately held DB's such as medical records, credit card data, credit history including mortgage and auto loans and the list goes on and on. I agree that the protection of this data is critical, but I don't see how it has any affect on whether or not I have to be able to prove who I am (read: carry an ID).

Re:I don't get it

[RivieraKid]

It's not the ID - it's the linking and data mining of the information at the back end that is the real privacy concern.

Taking the example of your Texan police officer - I suspect (I have no other information than what you state above) that the reason is that as an officer of the law, and as a person trained in the use of firearms and legally given the right to carry that firearm and use it, she is expected to be held to a much higher standard than a regular citizen - and rightly so.

Unfortunately, another blight on our times crept in - political correctness. The authorities are so terrified of offending minorities that things like this happen. Should she have shot the attacker to prevent additional harm to her partner? Probably, yes. Should she have shot and killed him? No. As a police officer, she is given huge power and authority over regular citizens. It is her duty to use that responsibly. I think you'll find that she is held to exactly the same standard as regular citizens. If the man was attacking her, and she shot and killed him, there would likely have not been an issue since her life was in danger. If her partner had been the one to shoot and kill the assailant - again, no problem. Shooting and killing a man attacking someone else, with her life not being in danger - even if it was her partner, is not reasonable force. Shooting and wounding the assailant, however, would have been reasonable force under the circumstances.

Now, don't misunderstand, under the circumstances, I would likely have done the same thing in the heat of the moment, but that does not excuse you from your responsibilities, and those are greater for police officers than other citizens.

Re:I don't get it

[mrt_2394871]

If you don't keep your address and personal information up to date you have committed a criminal offence and you can be fined GBP1,000.

In earlier drafts of the legislation, while you were compelled to keep the information up to date, you didn't have a right to actually have the information updated. Whether that has been fixed, I don't know...

Re:I don't get it

[RivieraKid]

I agree that the protection of this data is critical, but I don't see how it has any affect on whether or not I have to be able to prove who I am (read: carry an ID).

It doesn't - but as we have both quite rightly stated, the fact is, there are already so many different ways we can demonstrate our identity that the ID card itself is useless and unneccessary.

So, the ID card itself is unneccessary, and the database at the back is such a bad idea, (and also unneccessary), that it doesn't bear thinking about.

They are both there to serve the self-interested goals of the government, not to mention the coffers of the private companies that will be filled at our expense, in exchange for significant risk in terms of privacy, safety, and freedom. Of course, just as with filling in our tax returns online, members of the government, and famous people will be exempt from the requirements for "safety", "privacy", and "freedom" reasons. That alone should set alarm bells ringing.

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

requirement doesn't exist in the UK at all and is, in fact, very alien to us...

The resistance to ID cards in my country (UK) is mainly one of culture. It has been an important freedom in Britain that you do not have to carry ID. It's quite difficult for people from some other countries to understand this thinking. The only time we've ever had to carry ID was during WWII and they were abolished in the 1950s I think. The whole idea of ID in Britian has forever been linked with the war and living without freedom.

Many British people feel as strongly about ID as people in the US do about *the right to carry guns*. No politician has demonstrated why we suddenly need these cards after managing perfectly well without them for the 300ish years of democracy (bar the war years).

Additionally, credit/debits cards are *not* as big over here as over countries and a lot of people only "trust" cash.

In some ways we are more into creditcards here than other countries; I'm sure you are right in this statement. I hardly ever carry cash. However our creditcards do not carry a photo as in many other European countries.

All of that said, I doubt they're really getting rid of them, just introducing them more slowly or renaming them (creditcard-sized passports for example).

Re:I don't get it

[zeldorf]

I've been required to show ID a few times recently whilst buying alcohol at Sainsburys. Not a problem for me as I have my photo card drivers license in my wallet all the time, but it was a problem for my girlfriend doesn't drive.

I don't need an ID card. I don't want an ID card. I certainly don't want to pay to have one.

By the way, I'm 26 and last time I checked the minimum age for buying booze was 18.

Re:I don't get it

[greyhueofdoubt]

In the US, if you aren't driving a car, then you don't need to carry anything showing who you are.

Unless you want to buy a house, buy a gun, take out a loan, buy cigarettes or alcohol, go to college, get a job, get a library card, open an account at a bank, start a business, buy insurance...

There are many more examples I'm too tired to think up right now. I'd say you could go live in the wilderness and not need an I.D. but I think you need one to get a camping permit in our national parks.

-b

Re:I don't get it

[operagost]

On the morning of September 11, the 9-11 terrorists hadn't done anything wrong.

That's incorrect. More than one of them had overstayed their visas. This is a deportable offense.

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

What's all the uproar about ID cards? It's not like you don't use photo ID (and credit cards) everywhere already. This looks like it just standardizes the process.

It's not the Cards, it's the bloody great big database behind it, which is unlimited in scope, as it can contain foreign keys to any other database the government feels like adding without further parliamentary scrutiny. Other photoID just isn't comparable.

And it's (effectively) not going to be voluntary - per current plans, you're on the database if you apply for a passport/renewal.

Oh, and did I mention, it's costing £18,000,000,000. Give or take a million or two. Excluding all the readers that'll be needed to make it useful out there.

Re:I don't get it

[operagost]

I mostly agree with you, except that shooting for any reason other to kill is a good way to get yourself killed. This isn't the movies, where to cop shoots the gun out of the crook's hand or pops him in the knee. If less-than-lethal force is required, they have nightsticks, tasers, and pepper spray.

Re:I don't get it

[janrinok]

The government is exempt from most of the Data Protection Act.

Not so - they are suppose to comply with all of the DPA unless they have previously claimed a waiver which, in most cases, they haven't because they cannot justify it. You are correct in the implication that the Government rarely get taken to task when they do not comply with the DPA whereas others do, but that is not because they are exempt from it. I have worked in a Government department and I have had responsibility for data protection as part of my job. The Data Protection Registrar has also publicly criticised the Government for its poor compliance record although I don't think that the Government will lose much sleep over it.

Re:I don't get it

[operagost]

That's true, but it's not the same as being a criminal just for not carrying and presenting an ID card, is it?

Re:I don't get it

[Sobrique]

Would you say that oppression makes terrorism more, or less likely to occur?
Whilst your example has Osama Bin Laden caught and locked up, it ignores the other question - why does he do it in the first place. The answer is simply one of intolerance and hate - and that's something that just gets _worse_ when you do things like that, not better.
Only tomorrow's terrorists might just be home grown...

Re:I don't get it

[Sobrique]

But that's ok. Surely they'd never lose records out of a database like that.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk_politics/7104945.stm
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/12/government_loses_more/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/16/more_papers_go_missing/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/02/ny_bank_lost_data_flap/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/15/more_nhs_data_losses/
The list goes on. Personally, I feel that all a self respecting geek can do is get a job working with the database. I mean, if someone's going to HAVE that power, and be evil, it's better to be at the top of the pile...

Re:I don't get it

[xelah]

It also puts it in the hands of government and adds legal compulsion. Aside from the privacy problems associated with the database which has been talked about endlessly, there's the 'dealing with government' and incompetence factor as well. Here's one story: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/04/idcards-biometrics. In short: a foreign national required to get an ID card paid 600 pounds and got thoroughly pissed about, and was too scared to complain in cased her immigration status was sabotaged in retribution.

I think a lot of ID card supporters will start to change their minds when they're required to use a day of holiday at HMG's convenience, spend however-long on trains going to an interview centre, wait for a few hours, hand over all their personal information to a minimum wage teenager and pay for the privilege. It'll be especially fun for those with limited mobility.

Re:I don't get it

[Sobrique]

Both fast food and street traders are increasingly getting hand held card readers. At least for the mainstream ones. Can't think when the last time was I couldn't use a card, that wasn't 'buying something from a friend' level of transaction.

Re:I don't get it

[interkin3tic]

I am currently living in Japan, so I have an ID that has my identity, and I am required to carry that (or my passport) on my person at all times. This means that if a police officer stops me, they can require my producing identification documents.

Honest question: how easy is it to get out of that with "Oh, I'm a stupid gaijin, I didn't know that I was supposed to carry ID at all times?" From what I've seen, Japanese people aren't rude to foreigners, but they don't expect much of them. I've heard of "Gaijin smash" where foreigners can get away with ignoring many rules of japanese society because of that.

Re:I don't get it

[xaxa]

I hardly ever buy fast food, but last time I tried to use McDonald's I found out they only accepted cash. Is this still the case?

(I've given friends money with online transfers before. I rarely carry more than £40, and it saves a trip to the cashpoint.)

Re:I don't get it

[kdemetter]

It's 'only outlaws will be free' . Get your memes straight :-)

Re:I don't get it

[XnavxeMiyyep]

I understand the "papers please" argument, and reject it because we simply do not have the manpower to set up checkpoints and run around asking everyone for "papers, please".

We do have such checkpoints. Various cities have them under the guise of protecting you against drunk drivers. Almost no one cares.

Re:I don't get it

[rhyder128k]

As someone else said, the rules have changed. To open a bank account you need photo ID and a separate proof of address.

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

Almost right. To clarify:

* There was never going to be a legal requirement to carry them.
* The cards were eventually going to be mandatory - you had to have one - not carry one.
* Now the cards will not (for the time being) be mandatory.
* But the cards will still exist
* And the big identity database behind them will still exist.

Re:I don't get it

[augustw]

Not in the UK: I don't have to show any ID to get a prescription filled (or to see my doctor); I don't have to carry a driving licence to drive (although I do have to hold one, and be able to produce it in inside a week or so); and I don't have to show ID for any train journey.

Re:I don't get it

[RivieraKid]

You're right, this isn't the movies. I don't know what happened, but I would expect an armed police officer to be highly trained in the use of their firearm. I would expect a police officer to know how to disarm an assailant using their firearm without necessarily killing them. Ultimately, it's a judgement call - if her partner was unable to mount his own defense, and she felt that by getting close enough to use her baton (which, based on what we've heard above, is the only other weapon we can be sure she had) she would put herself at risk, then shooting the assailant is a valid course of action. She still had a responsibility to minimise the harm she caused, regardless of the situation.

Like I say, it's a judgement call in the heat of the moment. Police officers are trained to make good judgement calls, they are trained to use the force and authority they have been granted responsibly. They are human though, and in the heat of the moment, you react on instinct. I think we agree in principle, but we don't have much information. I've said it on other forums, and I'll say it here - if your life isn't in immediate danger, and you kill someone, then that's excessive force and you need to take responsibility. That's why where there is a law that permits citizens to use force to protect themselves, it usually explicitly defines that force as appropriate, or reasonable force. Once the immediate danger has passed, further use of force moves away from self defense into the realm of assault.

Re:I don't get it

[CarpetShark]

This looks like it just standardizes the process.

Exactly. People are afraid of organised government, because even a disorganised government can make your life hell.

Re:I don't get it

[smoker2]

The credit card companies probably charge £3000 but I know for a fact that the paypoint machines are free. My local shopkeeper has one and I asked him. They probably take a percentage of total sales, but the bank does that for cash, let alone cheques or credit cards.

Re:I don't get it

[dswskinner]

The McDonald's near me now accept debit and credit cards for both "restaurant" and drive through purchases. This is in the UK.

Re:I don't get it

[Ginger Unicorn]

Even though the government gets away with flouting data privacy laws on an ad-hoc basis when they want to compile information on specific individuals, they systems they cross reference are impossible to apply some kind of systematic continuous data mining to, in order to weed out people who might be doing something they dont like. I know plenty of people who are telling one government agency one thing and one government agency another and yet still don't get caught out. And it's really shocking, blatant stuff too. None of this stuff is cross-referenced automatically, or there would be no way to get away with this stuff. I won't go into specifics.

In order to do data mining like that they either need one big database, or they need to overcome colossal bureaucracy between many disparate agencies and to engage in such a wholesale flouting of the law that they would need to change the law.

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot the third important thing, the actual enforcement which differs from theory.

In Poland it is required to carry a national ID at you at all times. But absolutely no officer will give you trouble if you don't. The ID makes a lot of things incredibly much easier; I cant imagine not using it since I dont have a driving license and the passport, unlike ID card, does not fit into wallet.

All in all, Im all for ID cards, unless they have any data in electronic form, which is just unsafe.

Re:I don't get it

[VoiceOfDoom]

Classic case of the major IT outsourcing company's telling IT illiterate officials what is technically possible (and massively understating the costs/risks) and the officials turning around and saying " we will take everything" without once stopping and asking "just because we can do it does it mean we should do it?"

Ahem - not entirely true (from the perspective of one who works for one of said IT outsourcing companies)....more likely scenario

Illiterate Govt official: We want a system that does this, this and this
IT Company: Erm, afraid that's not really possible
IGO: But we *want* it! Now! Waaaaaah! Give it to us or we'll go to your competitors
ITC: Well, here's a design that tells you what is possible with today's technology. Oh and by the way, here are the recommendations for using it properly, responsibly and legally. Also, it's going to cost a bloody fortune and take years.
IGO: We want all of this right now at bargain basement prices, we want it all to work first time and we want to be able to expand it indefinitely without any major changes or cost increases. Thanks for the recommendations, but we don't need them - we're the Govt, we can do whatever we like
ITC:

Awwwww

[L4t3r4lu5]

Poor ickle Labour rolled over before the next general election on a main selling point of the other two main parties.

What's betting that as soon as the sheeple have picked up on this they cry for Labour to stay, and the whole scheme comes back in 18 months?

Re:Awwwww

[infolation]

The conservatives have said they'll scrap the database as well as the cards themselves. Hopefully they'll be able to communicate to the populace that the database is just as dangerous.

Re:Awwwww

[L4t3r4lu5]

Hahaha!

The populace are scared of us! They think we're freaks! We understand technology, and the small idiosyncrasies and shortfalls of the scheme, and we explain them in mind-numbing detail!

All we get are black stares, and the odd drooling, verbatim quote of "The National ID card will fight terrorism, protect our children from pedophiles, and protect British jobs!"

Re:Awwwww

[jeremyp]

Identity cards are not a big issue at the moment with the majority of the British electorate. In fact, last time there was a survey on id cards I think there was a majority in favour - a lot of people have bought the government's argument that they will help stop terrorists (even though all the recent terrorist attacks have been committed by previously upright British citizens).

No, most of us are more concerned about the apparent veniality of our politicians when it comes to expenses and the government's enthusiasm for paying huge quantities of money to rescue bankers from the consequences of their greed. Oh, and the prime minister has all the charisma of a wet fish that's dead.

Re:Awwwww

[sa1lnr]

"The conservatives have said they'll scrap the database as well as the cards themselves."

And we all know politicians always do what they say they are going to do, don't we? ;)

With so many CCTV cameras watching the populace

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

they don't really need ID cards.

Re:With so many CCTV cameras watching the populace

[IBBoard]

But the CCTV cameras just see the criminals and let the police track them through the city centre (rather than losing them after the first corner, or never having sight of them because they just get a crime reported). They don't tell you who they are (beyond just being an unknown face on a grainy camera image) ;)

BNP has interesting side effects

[geegel]

I somewhat doubt that convenience had anything to do with it. The recent elections and the beating Labour took are probably the reason behind this move. Democracy at work fellas! And it's a really beautiful sight

Re:BNP has interesting side effects

[L4t3r4lu5]

It's just a shame that the BNP had to be a part of it.

I once asked a BNP member (Red-Tie meeting in my local pub) what he thought of Polish immigrants. He didn't even know they could work here legally.

Re:BNP has interesting side effects

[trash eighty]

i think the collapsing economy and public purse has something to do with it too

Re:BNP has interesting side effects

[geegel]

The ascendance of BNP from a fringe party to a main stage party is in my opinion a good thing. I don't agree with their agenda, but they are the voice of a segment which didn't have a voice before. The "solutions" they propose are as sharp as a brick, but the problems they raise are real. This step forward will highlight these problems and as the less extremist parties propose more reasonable solutions, the support for BNP will wane. I know that the first instinct is to remind everybody of Hitler and his rise, but a better equivalent is I think France. Jean-Marie Le Pen and the National Front had a similar path to that of BNP and they are nowhere to be found nowadays precisely because the main parties found a way to solve these problems.

Re:BNP has interesting side effects

[Xest]

"The "solutions" they propose are as sharp as a brick, but the problems they raise are real."

They are? I suppose that depends if you dislike foreign immigrants who often work harder (particularly the Polish) than 90% of the native British population simply because they're not British. If you think stirring up sectarian violence in Northern Island is a good idea and if you think having no idea about running the budget of a country but decide it's a good idea to have a French style subsidised agricultural system and a massive military with no regard for the rest of the worlds opinion on how and when you decide to use it are all good things.

The BNP doesn't really raise any problems that aren't raised elsewhere and better dealt with unless you have a racist or xenophobic mindset and think the rest of the world is inferior and want to blame other races for the problems rather than realising that there are millions of white, British born chavs that are far more of a problem for the country than most immigrants.

Re:BNP has interesting side effects

[mike2R]

I agree to a very limited extent - that a side effect of the rise of the BNP may be beneficial, in that they are raising issues the major parties have been avoiding.

I strongly disagree that the BNP are "the voice of a segment which didn't have a voice before". They would like to portray themselves as this, the platform they stand on is, although fairly extreme on some issues (immigration), not a nazi one.

The thing is the BNP are a bunch of lying nazis. Their platform is carefully constructed to win disaffected voters but bears little resemblance to their true aims. They are trying to attract people who have strong views on issues like immigration, but you only have to look at the personal history of the BNP leadership to see these are not people who are a little to the right of the mainstream, but actual fascists; however they try to clothe themselves at the moment.

For this reason I hope they sink without trace. We have enough evidence in Europe, within living memory, of where this road leads, to condemn nazis out of hand.

Re:BNP has interesting side effects

[mdwh2]

The "solutions" they propose are as sharp as a brick, but the problems they raise are real.

What are these problems you refer to?

Re:BNP has interesting side effects

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

For this reason I hope they sink without trace. We have enough evidence in Europe, within living memory, of where this road leads, to condemn nazis out of hand.

Ditto, for the communists, yet they still have parties throughout Europe, funny that.

Re:BNP has interesting side effects

[VShael]

This is similar to the rise of the Green Party (in various countries) through the 1980's. As their fringe status grew into mainstream status, the main political parties started advocating more green policies, and began to win back some of the votes they had lost to green protest voting.

I imagine something similar will happen with the BNP.

Re:BNP has interesting side effects

[Heed00]

Yeah, I'd like to know too.

For the BNP, problems are:

1) The population isn't white enough.
2) The non-whites haven't been "voluntarily" repatriated "home".
3) All that holocaust hoo-haw was just make believe.
4) Anti-discrimination legislation.
5) Those pesky Gurkhas wanting to live in Britain after putting their lives on the line fighting in/along side Britain's military.

And so on. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_National_Party

Re:BNP has interesting side effects

[mike2R]

What are these problems you refer to?

Oh come on, you know exactly what he's talking about.

Now I'm not anti-immigration (I'd like some people of working age in this country when I'm drawing a pension), but if you think that immigration has been well handled over the last 40 years or so then you are blind (possibly deliberately).

The guiding doctrine has been a "multicultural society", which is something formulated by somewhat woolly intellectuals and can be basically summed up as "if we are nice and politically correct to everyone, then we can ignore all the real problems you always get when people of very different cultures live right next to each other, because we are right and everything will sort itself out as long as we stick to our liberal principles."

Unfortunately it hasn't (in the opinion of many people in this country) been as simple as that. Reality has intruded and a lot of people are extremely unhappy with immigration; any immigration at all in some cases. That is the problem, and it is a serious one.

Re:BNP has interesting side effects

[Anonymous Coward]

problems they raise are real.

No, they're not. Really. Only the fears they whip up.

I mean, this is a party that doesn't believe you can be black and Welsh. Who used their first major media interview after winning seats in the EU election to highlight the 'real problem' that the actor playing Friar Tuck in the current BBC TV series is black.

And I'm sorry, but the segment they represent is no bigger than the batshit insane fringe it always was - their vote numbers actually dropped from last time round. The only reason they got anywhere was because Labour voters all stayed at home. Hardly surprising as the Labour campaign was written on the back of a fag packet.

But now they're elected, you see, they have to play by the rules. Including allowing non-white people to join the party. So, here's what we should do: have a couple of hundred people from ethnic minorities join the party. And then the rest of us join, and elect them into all the leadership positions. And change the party name to "Bloated Navy Pterodactyls." Which would be particularly amusing as most BNP members wouldn't be able to work out that the last word starts with P.

Re:BNP has interesting side effects

[Sobrique]

Like it or not, the rise of the BNP is democracy at work. For all you or I disagree with their party line, none the less they have voter support.
I too hope they sink without a trace, but if they do not... well, that'll be us getting exactly what we deserve.

Re:BNP has interesting side effects

[Anonymous Coward]

you only have to look at the personal history of the BNP leadership to see these are not people who are a little to the right of the mainstream, but actual fascists

Taking as an example, one of their new MEPs, who was a member of an actual Neo-Nazi group (founded on Hitler's birthay and everything) when younger

Re:BNP has interesting side effects

[the_womble]

To put the GP;s point in another way, the government does not listen to the people, so the people are willing to listen to fascists, and that might shock the politicians into listening to the people again.

Yes, the chavs are a problem. It is a deep seated one. You are talking about areas where we are entering the second or third generation of most people living off the dole, with teenage pregancy and petty crime a way of life. How do you break people out of that - just despising them is not going to solve the problem.

Having grown up in the fairly pleasant surroundings of Wimbledon, and spent most of my life on OK areas, I got a huge culture shock when I spent two years living in Salford (supposedly one of the regenerated bits) - far more of a culture shock than I got from moving to another country.

Incidentally I am non-white British, currently re-emigrated to my country of origin (where I am now living in a town that seems to be full of British immigrants).

Re:BNP has interesting side effects

[Heed00]

Britain isn't a multicultural society -- it is one where multiple cultures dwell, but that's not multiculturalism. The perceived problem you cite is not one of immigration, but one of a lack of an ideological framework. In the U.S. the ideological framework is the oft quoted "melting pot" -- all cultures melt into something uniform where each has added a little bit to the whole. In Canada, there's a different ideological framework -- the "mosaic". This is where each culture maintains more distinctivenss, but each distinctive piece takes its place as part of a larger pattern.

In the U.K., there just isn't a cohesive articulated framework. So, you get the perception of cultures at odds with eachother all over the place. Immigration isn't the problem -- perceived or real. It's the ruderless nature of British society when it comes to its cultural vision.

And your polemical description of multiculturalism pretty much proves the point -- you haven't got a clue.

Re:BNP has interesting side effects

[mike2R]

No argument with any of that (well apart from the last sentence). I'm not sure what you mean by multiculturalism, but I mean it to mean the policy that has been pursued in Britain under the name of multiculturalism. You sum up its defects admirably - you cannot just add millions of people of hugely disparate races, cultures and religions and expect it all to work without any effort to forge a more unitary British identity.

Re:BNP has interesting side effects

[Heed00]

No argument with any of that (well apart from the last sentence). I'm not sure what you mean by multiculturalism, but I mean it to mean the policy that has been pursued in Britain under the name of multiculturalism. You sum up its defects admirably - you cannot just add millions of people of hugely disparate races, cultures and religions and expect it all to work without any effort to forge a more unitary British identity.

Your original post says:

The guiding doctrine has been a "multicultural society", which is something formulated by somewhat woolly intellectuals and can be basically summed up as "if we are nice and politically correct to everyone, then we can ignore all the real problems you always get when people of very different cultures live right next to each other, because we are right and everything will sort itself out as long as we stick to our liberal principles."

So, I took that to mean that this is what you believe multiculturalism to be. Now, if you want to amend that, as you seem to want to do now, to be a description of Britain's policy/attitiude, then that's fine. But again, what you described isn't multiculturalism. Let's be clear on that.

Also, you can achieve multiculturalism in a society without resorting to a "more unitary national identity" -- the Canadian mosaic is an example of a much looser framework. Yes, there is unity there, but it still retains a lot more distinctiveness as well.

I agree you need a vision and to put effort into it. If that's your main argument, then we agree. But you took a bit of a detour getting there. Also notice how we are no longer talking about immigration and immigrants. The "knowing exactly what was being talked about", "mishandling of immigration" as well as "deliberate blindness" you roll out in your earlier post missed the mark -- it's those types of comments that fuel the perception that "it's the immigrants".

Moe: "Even when it was the bears, I knew it was the immigants."

Re:BNP has interesting side effects

[Xest]

I would argue a good start would be not creating a situation where they can live off the dole or child benefits in the first place ;)

Re:BNP has interesting side effects

[mdwh2]

Yes, I'm obviously blind because I have a different point of view to you. Do you have evidence for your arguments, or are you just going to whine "political correct" and blame "liberal principles"? What problems are you referring to, that have resulted from a liberal point of view? What problems with immigration do you refer to (I don't believe in opening our borders altogether, but at the same time, I don't have any sympathy for people whining that their jobs are being "stolen"; and if my girlfriend from America should choose to move here, I don't see why she should be restricted because of a bunch of Daily Mail readers and BNP voters). I also agree that there are areas where multiple cultures are being handled badly - e.g., the whole issue with faith schools - but for some reason, a move to secular education seems to be opposed by people who think schools should still be a place to force religion down children's throats, and it certainly isn't "liberals" doing the opposing.

But what about parties like UKIP then? Not that I'm any fan of UKIP - but the OP asserted that for people with these views, there was no other party offering a voice to them. But what you talk about sounds right up UKIP's street.

Re:BNP has interesting side effects

[Dr_Barnowl]

On a wider scale, the problem with economic immigration is that it effectively gives the employers a labour pool the size of the EU.

Why is this a problem? For the employers, it's great. For the employees, it's not good, because it drives down wages and the level of acceptable working conditions.

The effect of economic growth should be to improve the lot of the workers, not effectively lower it to the base level of misery throughout the EU.

Manufacturing jobs were globalized and they end up poorly paid in poor conditions. Employers for jobs where the workers have to be on-site in the affluent nations, like construction would LOVE it if they could accept economic migrants from, say, China.

The xenophobia is part of the emotional response, but it's not healthy to present it in such terms.

I'm not saying that the BNP doesn't have a lot of xenophobic gits in it. It does seem to. And I'd never vote for them.

The parent poster is also right that the overprivileged attitude of modern Britons is a problem.

Re:BNP has interesting side effects

[mike2R]

We do agree I think. To be honest it has never occurred to me that the term "multiculturalism" had any meaning beyond it's 'popular' use in Britain; it used to sound like a good and just idea when I was a student, but over the years I've come to realise it is basically a fig leaf, behind which our leaders have tried to hide the utter lack of thought and planning that they have given to immigration and integration.

That is why I was ranting - not about the concept of multiculturalism as you say it has been successfully applied elsewhere. Or about the fact of immigration. But rather that it is something that Britain has just drifted into, and that the concerns of people who've had their lives changed most by immigration are dismissed; which I don't see as a stable solution to the problems.

Re:BNP has interesting side effects

[mike2R]

I apologise for being provocative, but I stick to my main point.

What problems are you referring to, that have resulted from a liberal point of view? What problems with immigration do you refer to (I don't believe in opening our borders altogether, but at the same time, I don't have any sympathy for people whining that their jobs are being "stolen";

Mass immigration has fundamentally changed many cities this country in ways that nothing else has or could, but for years.. decades.. debate on the subject has been a taboo; we have sleepwalked into a some form of a "multicultural society" with no debate and no serious attempt to predict or influence the outcome. The people who object have been ignored or branded racists.

I don't understand why people don't see this as a problem.

Why do some people turn to the BNP? Because they are the only ones who are saying what they think - now the BNP are a bunch of lying nazi scum who shouldn't be taken at face value, but their public platform is not all that extreme compared to the views of a significant minority in this country, and many many more agree with at least some of what they say.

It isn't the liberal principles I disagree with, it is the utter lack of anything beyond them to justify immigration policy over the last decades. You can't change a country that much with so little thought. Or at least you really shouldn't; the law of unintended consequences will bite you hard.

Re:BNP has interesting side effects

[Xest]

"Why is this a problem? For the employers, it's great. For the employees, it's not good, because it drives down wages and the level of acceptable working conditions."

That argument doesn't really seem to apply to the EU. The EU imposes some pretty employee friendly laws in terms of working conditions that are based around those that workers in say France have who have some of the best working conditions in the world. For most Europeans working conditions will drastically improve, even in Britain this looked set to be the case when Europe tried to do away with our maximum working hours opt-out, that isn't really an opt-out because it's written into most employees contracts. It may lower wages in the short term in a specific country but it'll normalise wages across the whole of the EU in the long term and as the European economy improves so do wages/standards of living, as the EU already has a strong economy then even normalisation of wages across it isn't going to be a problem.

"Manufacturing jobs were globalized and they end up poorly paid in poor conditions."

But again, that's a different scenario. The reason for that is that manufacturing could be exported to places where there were no laws regarding workers rights so workers could easily be exploited. In the EU we again have strong supporting laws for workers (almsot certainly helped by the fact the major players in the EU are big on Unions) so it's not the case that you can pay someone like $0.50 an hour as you can in India or China, you still have to shell out for a minimum wage that isn't far off what you were paying anyway and the cost of moving everything undoubtedly outweighs that in many cases.

Normalisation of wages is happening quite rapidly too so it's not a slow process, already there has been a decent amount of immigration from for example the Polish migrant population in the UK back to Poland because a lot of decently paid jobs that would never be dreamt of being available only a few years ago before entry into the EU.

Effectively many cases of "they're taking our jobs" turn out to simply be that the people taking their jobs are taking them because they're harder workers and often aren't taking any kind of decrease in pay, they simply just make better employees.

(booboop) Chattel in the UK will report to the ree

[Anonymous Coward]

seems like the UK is treating 1984 like an instruction manual

Not a complete waste

[Ragein]

At least some of the four billion pounds spent on this scheme's tech can be used for biometric passports. Other than that the govt seems to have pissed alot of people off and left everyone else indifferent to a huge waste of tax payer money.

It's a trap!

[Jagen]

No really, they are publicly scrapping the ID card compulsion, but they are still planning to build and populate the back end database which was the real bad idea behind the ID cards anyway. I imagine they will make it a requirement of new passports or renewals that you have to give the same information they would have requested for the ID cards, they're just hoping enough people fall for the con that because they don't have to have an ID card anymore the problem has gone away.

Re:It's a trap!

[L4t3r4lu5]

"If you want a puppy, ask for a horse."

Ihre papiere, bitte.

Re:It's a trap!

[owlnation]

No really, they are publicly scrapping the ID card compulsion

Yep. And the key word there is "publicly". There are plenty of ways of making it extremely difficult for people to get products and services without ID cards. Compulsory by stealth, in effect. This is even easier where one of the principal areas where people need ID is banking -- especially when your Government owns most of the banks -- which they currently do. It's very easy to make it hard for anyone who doesn't have an ID card to get any services.

Considering also the nefarious ties that Government has with large corporations, you can make it virtually impossible for anyone to function without an ID Card.

Sure, Government isn't apparently or legally the one mandating you have one, but you'll still have to have one.

Re:It's a trap!

[infolation]

British Telecom would be the next target. Compulsory, identifiable internet registration has been high on the government's agenda for a long time.

Re:VICTORY!

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

VICTORY for those ignorant enough to think that this would lead to a 1982 orwellien dystopia or some other BS

Do you know what irony is?

Test your liberties every day

[Opportunist]

A bit offtopic, but allow me to use the (halfway topical) reason to post something.

I spent some time in the US, and wherever I went, I took my passport with me. Mind you, this was in the days before 9/11, when the land of the free actually was a lot more free than it is today (in today's climate, I'd take my passport and my visa EVERYWHERE as a foreigner, just to be sure...).

Asked why I stared blankly. In my country, you're required to carry means to identify yourself (passport, ID card, driver's license or someone who can identify you and can produce said papers for himself) with you all the time. Essentially, any police man can stop you for no reason and ask you for your ID card, and arrest you 'til he can find out who you are if you can't produce any.

I never questioned it. Only when I took a moment to think about it, I wondered why we simply accepted it as fact. I guess when you're used to something from the moment you were born, when something has become the norm, you simply accept it as given.

Re:Test your liberties every day

[Hitman_Frost]

Which country is this, out of interest?

Re:Test your liberties every day

[Anonymous Coward]

Canada

Re:Test your liberties every day

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know the parent's country, but Italy is like that, probably thanks to laws that date back to the fascist age.

Re:Test your liberties every day

[Rude Turnip]

This is what happens when the populations has historically been considered "subjects" instead of "citizens."

Re:Test your liberties every day

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it? Then why doesn't Britain have it already and why are the population generally against it? The British attitude to I.D. has generally been one of "I am who I say I am". Continental Europe countries seem to have always been far more accepting of I.D. cards, and generally those where the populations were citizens were more content with it that way.

Re:Test your liberties every day

[Anonymous Coward]

Which country is this, out of interest?

Hmm, from a quick look at other comments he made he might be German. On the other hand, you are not generally required to have an ID with you in Germany, only in cases like when you are driving a car (in which case you are required to have a valid driving license with you). So maybe he is Austrian or Swiss?

Re:Test your liberties every day

[bryan1945]

That is pretty messed up. In the US your need to carry ID if you are driving, or want to do something restricted (buy alcohol or get into a R rated movie if you look young enough). If I go ride my bicycle I may take my ID in case I get into an accident, but I never bother if I go for a walk. Of course, I am a white guy in the suburbs; I don't look like a Muslim, and I don't look like a black man in a city. I'm fairly sure that these 2 groups get a lot more attention/harassment daily than I get in a year, which is very sad. If the Unibomber shaved and wore nice clothes, would anyone ever suspected him of being nuts?

Re:Test your liberties every day

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't need to carry ID if you are driving.
You just need to have a driver's license - have it as in own one, not have it on you.
The cops will make life harder if you don't have ID when driving, but technically the worst they can do is require you to show up in court and prove you have a license.

Re:Test your liberties every day

[Blakey Rat]

FYI, the MPAA rating system is voluntary. There's no law requiring you to carry ID to be let into a R-rated movie.

Re:Test your liberties every day

[bryan1945]

Yes, I should have mentioned that. There has been a recent 'enforcement' by theaters after parents complaining about their kids getting to see R rated movies. Not law, but a practical reality, at least in my area. Thanks for the follow up, I'll have to be more careful in the future.

As an aside, I think the MPAA is a complete joke in its execution of what it was designed to do. I have no problem with somebody giving a recommendation saying "This movie that has lots of decapitations may not be so fun for a 6 year old". Their implementation is way off at this point. A movie was made about the MPAA called something like "This movie is unrated". Very interesting.

Re:Test your liberties every day

[Blakey Rat]

Considering the alternative to the MPAA system is government censorship, I think it's brilliant. (No matter how worthless the ratings themselves are.) Voluntary rating systems are always better than government rating systems, which is one of the reasons I like living in the US so much-- most countries, the government determines which movies, books, comics, music you can experience. Screw them.

Not so fast! What about passports?

[mdwh2]

Whilst this is a great step forward, one of the big problems with this scheme is that over the last few years, the Government has been basically turning the British passport into the ID card (the plan was that anyone getting a passport would have a "combined" passport and ID card).

So my fear is that we'll still end up with the same problems for anyone who wants a passport:

* Being put on the National Identity Register database (which is actually what the ID card criticism is mainly about - it's not about the physical "card" as such), along with regulations such as being fined £1,000 for failing to notify authorities of change of address.
* Biometric passports. TFA says these have "cross-part support" - it's unclear if this means fingerprints (currently we already have "biometrics" in the sense of digital photos, which I don't have a problem with, but fingerprints are another issue).
* The cost. Passports have risen from around £30 to £72 in recent years, much of this is due to basically turning the passport into the ID card. This is expected to rise to at least £93.

Even though a passport is not compulsory for everyone, for those of us who want to travel to another country (and remember, the UK isn't a big place like the US - most of the population have passports, and a lot of us like to travel), so my fear is that unless you are giving up your ability to travel, it will still be a compulsory ID card in everything but the name.

Does anyone have more info as to whether the National Identity Register itself will be shelved, or is it simply stepping back the plans on who will have to have one?

Re:Not so fast! What about passports?

[notseamus]

The Guardian is reporting:

British citizens who apply for or renew their passport will be automatically registered on the national identity card database under regulations to be approved by MPs in the next few weeks.

The decision to press ahead with the main elements of the national identity card scheme follows a review by the home secretary, Alan Johnson, of the £4.9bn project. Although Johnson said the cards would not be compulsory, critics say the passport measures amount to an attempt to introduce the system by the backdoor.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jun/30/passport-details-id-card-database

I wrote to my local MP, but he's a useless cunt, and didn't even bother writing back.

From further down that article:
He also denied that there were any significant public spending savings to be made by cancelling the project saying: "This scheme pays for itself. If you cancel all you will get is diddly squat."

This is a reference to the self-financing nature of the project under which it is to be paid for through increased charges for passports and the £60 cost of a biometric identity card.

I had hoped that the new Home Sec would at least have a bit of sense not to emulate his predecessors, but it seems that was misguided. Did Labour even look at the last election results? They have no council mandate, little popular support, they've lost Scotland, and are losing the north, yet they still press on with misguided schemes like ID Cards that are universally unpopular. They've lost all touch with reality.

I remember hearing that Jacqui Smith said that people had approached her saying that they couldn't wait to get ID cards. Even worse, in the long term they've brought back unpopular people like Mandelson, in the hope that nobody would notice or remember how insidious he was.

Sad thing is that I have no faith in the Tories to do any better. No wonder people are voting for UKIP and BNP. If Nigel Farage is seen as more honest than Labour, things are grim for them indeed.

Re:Not so fast! What about passports?

[L4t3r4lu5]

I've already commented, but +1 Interesting

Re:Not so fast! What about passports?

[chrb]

What information is held in the National Identity Register database that the government doesn't already have access to via bank records, tax records, drivers license and DVLA database, mobile phone subscriber and call logs, passport, etc.? If the government already has access to all of this information in its various databases, then what difference does it make if it gets centralised into a single database?

The vast majority of British people care about privacy from their neighbours, but don't care about privacy from the government or corporations. There are 15 million actively used Tesco Clubcards in the U.K., and only 24 million households. The Tesco receipt database stores every single purchase made linked along with the Clubcard holders info. 25% of money spent in the U.K. is spent at Tesco, so this is not an insubstantial amount of data.

I see no evidence that the British people, as a whole, care about privacy from the government.

Re:Not so fast! What about passports?

[clickclickdrone]

>Tesco, so this is not an insubstantial amount of data.
You're not wrong - it's a very large and powerful chunk of data but alas Joe Public hasn't quite grasped that one yet and is happy to have their shopping habits tracked. Tescos has used this data to great effect with highly targetted ads and offers and probably selling on the data to 3rd parties. To be fair, some of it is also to the consumers benefit - when shoping online for groceries their wbesite will prompt 'you often buy xxx but haven't this time - did you want to?'

Re:Not so fast! What about passports?

[mdwh2]

Thanks for the link, that confirms my fears.

Sad thing is that I have no faith in the Tories to do any better.

My thoughts too - whilst I'm glad of their announcements of shelving the project, my fear is that this will only be the ID card for everyone that they get rid of, and they'll still gladly keep the National Identity Register database for everyone getting a passport.

Re:Not so fast! What about passports?

[mdwh2]

What information is held in the National Identity Register database that the government doesn't already have access to via bank records, tax records, drivers license and DVLA database, mobile phone subscriber and call logs, passport, etc.?

Let's see - at the least, finger prints, iris scans, all past residences, other names by which you are known. The information that can be stored can be extended at any time. There is the issue of who is allowed to access this data. Not to mention the massive fines for failing to notify the authorities of change in details.

There are 15 million actively used Tesco Clubcards in the U.K., and only 24 million households. The Tesco receipt database stores every single purchase made linked along with the Clubcard holders info. 25% of money spent in the U.K. is spent at Tesco, so this is not an insubstantial amount of data.

Well whoopy-do for them. Why is that an argument for me having to be entered onto such a database? I can choose not to have a clubcard.

Clubcards don't cost £93, nor do you get find £1000 for failing to notify Tesco of a change in details.

I see no evidence that the British people, as a whole, care about privacy from the government.

I never suggested otherwise. But they do care about things such as cost. And the £93 figure doesn't include the hidden "processing fees" for fingerprinting etc, which judging by the reason estimates for the standalone card trials, could add another £30 to the cost (currently the passport processing fees are only a few pounds).

Re:Not so fast! What about passports?

[Anonymous Coward]

Write again, MP's are legally oblidged to reply to you - if they don't contact the local opposition would be MP

Re:Not so fast! What about passports?

[Anonymous Coward]

bank records...mobile phone subscriber and call logs

As far as I know, access to these is restricted to specific employees of the companies who hold the information, and law enforcement. Law enforcement requires a valid warrant to access that information.

There are 15 million actively used Tesco Clubcards in the U.K., and only 24 million households

ClubCards are per-person. There are 60 million people. So even if we assume that every single one of those 15 million cards are actives (& they aren't: mine isn't), that's only 9% of the population.

Re:Not so fast! What about passports?

[Anonymous Coward]

What information is held in the National Identity Register database that the government doesn't already have access to via bank records, tax records, drivers license and DVLA database, mobile phone subscriber and call logs, passport, etc.? If the government already has access to all of this information in its various databases, then what difference does it make if it gets centralised into a single database?

Because the Data Protection Regime the government is supposed to work under says that they shouldn't do that:

Anyone who processes personal information must comply with eight principles, which make sure that personal information is:

        * Fairly and lawfully processed
        * Processed for limited purposes
        * Adequate, relevant and not excessive
        * Accurate and up to date
        * Not kept for longer than is necessary
        * Processed in line with your rights
        * Secure
        * Not transferred to other countries without adequate protection

My emphasis - more explanation here

Also, there's no reassurance that they won't hold Sensitive Personal Information sourced from wherever they like and make it available to anyone they bloody well like.

If you want to volunteer for this, fine, go ahead. But don't make me part of it.

Re:Not so fast! What about passports?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oblig. http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/war/public-can%27t-wait-to-be-truncheoned-across-the-jaw,-says-smith-200811071383/

Re:Not so fast! What about passports?

[chrb]

Law enforcement requires a valid warrant to access that information.

No they don't. They are supposed to need a warrant to listen to actual calls, but meta-information, like subscriber info, and who calls you and who you call, don't need a warrant. At least, that was the latest that I heard from a court ruling...

ClubCards are per-person. There are 60 million people. So even if we assume that every single one of those 15 million cards are actives (& they aren't: mine isn't), that's only 9% of the population.

Tesco say that 15 million ClubCards are active, out of a total of over 25 million that have been issued. There are about 35 million adults in the U.K. That means that 42% of British adults have a ClubCard. Obviously there is some small error possible (a person may somehow have more than one active card, etc.), but the figure won't be far off.

A matter of conveinience?

[SSgt. Lagface]

It seems more like support just fizzled. If it was strongly backed, they would have found a way to make implementation less inconvenient.

Still applies to non-citizens

[Sockatume]

The cards are still around, and still mandatory for anyone who's not a UK citizen. So if you're planning to get a visa to live in the UK for any reason, you're still going to have to pay out the £1000-ish and get your biometrics taken, and then carry around a card which any official can ask you to produce at any time, and which is extremely likely to be stolen because of its black market value.

Re:Still applies to non-citizens

[drinkypoo]

So you're saying this is really a move to limit immigration?

The Fat Cats from the USA have been moving to Costa Rica for some time, CR is now trying to pass some laws to make it harder to move there. I guess they only want rich fuckers. Unfortunately when economies tank these people are worse than useless. CR is planning for a dark future.

Re:Still applies to non-citizens

[cbrichar]

Yup - exactly the boat I'm in. I'm Canadian, and have been living in the UK for the past four years and will have to travel to one of the (very few) biometrics offices and pay an outlandish fee for the privilege when my visa comes up for renewal. They've slowed down the pushing of mandatory cards on citizens, but have no issue in trialling them on the rest of us - including foreign students, I believe.

Re:Still applies to non-citizens

[Sockatume]

No, it's a move to appear to be limiting immigration, because it's a big deal with voters. Immigration from the EU, which probably accounts for most of the traffic in and out of the UK, is constitutionally unrestricted because we're an EU member. And honestly the government's not done a great deal to control illegal immigration. The people coming in on skilled worker or spousal visas are getting harassed instead, which is easy to do and appeases the Daily Mail and all the other right-wing bullshit artists.

Re:Still applies to non-citizens

[mdwh2]

Indeed, this is worrying. And before anyone says "You have no right to go to another country", what about UK citizens who might have a partner from abroad moving to live with them? I as a UK citizen object that we'd have to undergo such schemes, and pay such vast amounts of money.

Re:Still applies to non-citizens

[throbber]

What is this card of which you speak? I've just renewed my UK Visa and there was no requirement for me to get an extra ID card.

Yes, it did cost £820 but they didn't require any extra information than what they asked for for my last 2 visas.

Re:VICTORY!

[Big Hairy Ian]

Do you know what irony is?

Isn't it like Goldy & Leady

/baldrick

This is not a retreat.

[ConfusedVorlon]

All they have said is that they won't make it compulsory.

In the same breath, they said that it would be optional 'like a passport'

Passports are not optional if you want to travel

They could well make id cards not optional if you want to
-open a bank account
-get a drivers licence
-get a mobile phone

Unfortunately, the current british government has a history of such cynical manouvers. Like saying that they are stopping the giant email/call database, then instantly announcing that the private sector will be required to build much the same capability for them.

The ID card project is not cancelled until it is cancelled

Re:This is not a retreat.

[chrb]

The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, already requires photographic I.D. to be presented when you engage in certain financial dealings. The only valid photographic I.D. I've managed to use is a drivers license or passport, both of which are already government issued. Opening a bank account requires showing such I.D. I think I might've had to show my drivers license when I got a mobile photo as well. And drivers license obviously requires photo I.D. because it's printed on the card and held in the DVLA database.

Given that I already have had to show I.D. for all of the things that you mention, what difference would it make if I had used a single I.D. card instead?

Passports are not optional if you want to travel

They are only not optional if you want to fly or leave the United Kingdom. You can travel within the U.K. without a passport.

Re:VICTORY!

[twostix]

Who said anything about that except the power worshippers who try and paint the average man as "ignorant" and "kooks".

As far as I and most of the people I know are concerned the government works for the citizens and has no moral authority to demand that we submit ourselves for identification purely for *its* benefit.

Most don't put it like that but that's what it boils down to in the average persons mind - "Who the hell do they think they are?".

That's how it worked here in Aus when they tried it last time anyway.

Just time to boil the frog more carefully...

[MindKata]

"UK.gov ineptitude when it comes to anything IT"

Its a shame their deviousness isn't as inept as their technical knowledge, but then they are more interested in manipulation and power games than they are in specific details of technology.

They are still bring in ID cards. This move isn't stopping the cards. But now they are bring them in more slower over a long time scale, at first voluntary. Its bring them in by exploiting feature creep. It starts off as its voluntary for this and its voluntary for that. Then it becomes it helps this and it helps that. Then it becomes its important to this and its important to that. Then it becomes its required for this and its required for that. Then finally it becomes its mandatory for this and its mandatory for that and then eventually you can't do anything without the ID cards. Then finally they get what they aimed to do all along.

They know ID cards are very unpopular and so now they are starting to tread more carefully. They know their ever present power grabbing nature is very unpopular, (in this case power grabbing via information grabbing on people for their own gain (after all, information is power)) and so they are now treading more carefully.

So now they are just boiling the frog more carefully. Yet now many people are initially fooled into believing its not going to happen. Exactly what the control freaks want, as it means over time they will now face less resistance to them bring them in more slowly.

Re:Just time to boil the frog more carefully...

[MrSteveSD]

But now they are bring them in more slower over a long time scale, at first voluntary. Its bring them in by exploiting feature creep.

Exactly. They did the same thing with the criminal DNA database. At first they said it was just for serious violent criminals etc. Who could argue with keeping their DNA on file? But of course pretty soon they started extending it. Now, years later, even if you just get arrested by mistake, they keep your DNA on file permanently. One of the consequences of this is that the threat of having your DNA on file has become a deterrent to people taking part in protests (as if the truncheon deterrent isn't enough).

It's not sufficient to just evaluate a particular piece of legislation on its own, you have to see where its leading. The safest thing is to never give them a single inch.

Re:VICTORY!

[rhyder128k]

Come on, you know what Georges are like. Clearly Orwell had always intended for 1984 to be part II of a trilogy. "You mean uzzaa people never know for sure when uzzaa been watched?" I can't wait. Episode III will be a serious documentary about modern life in Britain.

The tide *is* turning in the UK

[SomethingOrOther]

The tide is turning I'm pleased to say.
The screwing over of our civil liberties is nearly all down to the current, rather authoritarian government we have had since 1997. Our current government is well aware of how unpopular they are, that there is a general election coming up in the next year and that they expect to loose

Consider, every other major UK political party has been against ID cards. The Lib-Dems and Tories have always been against the idea, and even the uber right wing UKIP party were questioning how much it cost. Consider also, both Lib-Dems and Tories (who are expected to make gains and probably win the next election) have always been much more in favour of civil liberties, questioning CCTV spending etc. Even the right wing Daily Mail newspaper has taken to refering to "Jack Boots Jaqui"... our current Home Secretary with a CCTV obsession.

Yes it is all down to the current government, and most dudes under 30 in the UK (and couldn't vote in 1997) have never known life under a less authoritarian government.

For what it's worth, I do rather like our green and pleasant land, and I (and many others) will be voting and fighting to take it back.

.

Re:VICTORY!

[Sockatume]

1982: Because a totalitarian state always seems 2 years away.

What?

[Anonymous Coward]

"it seemed that compulsory ID cards were a done deal" Did it? To whom? The more popular press coverage it received the more people moaned about it. It was doomed from the start.

Re:The tide *is* turning in the UK

[Anonymous Coward]

When on earth have the Tories had any concern for civil liberties? The last Tory government certainly wasn't. The use of CCTV cameras started under them. They used the police to crush political marches against them . They tried to ban dance music being played outside (criminal justice bill). They support restrictive social hierarchies (low/middle/upper classes). They oppose gay marriage (which is a matter of civil liberties for the people involved. Far more films and music was banned under the Tories. And so on.

Now, I've no great love for Labour, but to say the Tories are pro civil liberties is utter rubbish.

Re:VICTORY!

[timlyg]

What? You don't how to show your ID when you go to toilet, eat, walk, sing, etc?

Re:The tide *is* turning in the UK

[L4t3r4lu5]

Even the right wing Daily Mail newspaper has taken to refering to "Jack Boots Jaqui"... our former Home Secretary with a CCTV obsession.

She resigned last month. New, same as old etc etc.

Smoke and mirrors

[Anonymous Coward]

Having just applied for a copy of my driving licence, the UK government has created me a Government Gateway user ID and printed it on card for me, perfect shape for my wallet. They tell me it will be easier for me to apply for passports and other stuff in the future using this Gateway user ID, which smells fishily of an ID card via the backdoor!!

ID cards alone aren't the problem

[LloydPickering]

The problem with the scheme as I see it is not the ID cards themselves.

The ID cards are linked to national databases and originally was going to store a massive amount of data on people, but now is *ONLY* going to include personal & biometric details, details of all other formal IDs (passports and licenses), Immigration data and a history of every time the id is used. The Home Office can also add to this list as they want.

Combine this with other eroded civil liberties such as:

Government pushing for 42 days detention without trial (down form the proposed 90 days, currently 28 days).
Our capital city, London has the worlds densest population of CCTV cameras with a nationwide average of 1 CCTV to 14 people.
A DNA database which includes anyone who is suspected of a crime (No samples purged even if later found completely innocent)
Restriction on right to protest through exclusion zones near parliament in which you require a permit in order to assemble
Legislation which will require ISPs and Telecomms companies to keep records of every internet and telephone communication

Anyone who says the UK isn't sleepwalking into an orwellian society is mad.

I appreciate that there are terrorists about who would like to do harm to our society, but we managed through the IRA troubles without all these laws. In fact when the government of the time tried to hold IRA suspects without trial in 1971 it only helped drive support for the extremists. Anyone think that Guantanamo endears western countries to muslims? If we erode our liberties we will end up in a society just as oppressed as those we oppose. The terrorists will have won.

Re:ID cards alone aren't the problem

[Godwin O'Hitler]

My problem with ID cards is EXACTLY the cards themselves. I don't want one cluttering up my possessions. I don't want to fill forms in to get one. I don't want to pay for a piece of plastic I have no use for. I don't want people to tell me what I have to carry around with me. I don't want to have to reapply for YET ANOTHER compulsory piece of red tape shit if ever I get my wallet stolen.

In summary, I don't want to encourage anyone to imagine for one second they have any designs whatsoever on my personal space.
Don't waste time arguing the pros and cons with me. If you're pro you're arguing I should bend over, and I'm intransigent that I won't. If you're con, I don't need any additional arguments, thanks.

It's like professional wrestling

[7-Vodka]

The Home Office also confirmed that a long-term contract for large-scale production of the cards was being delayed until 2011 or 2012. The Conservative party has pledged to scrap ID cards, meaning that a contract will not be signed if it wins the forthcoming general election.

And so the game continues. The conservative party has no real intention of scrapping the compulsory national ID measures. There is a global agenda that involves this issue. Compulsory national IDs are just a step on the way to the real goal of inserting microchips into populations. It is an upgrade to the livestock management practices.

Since this is part of the global agenda, it will be played as other similar issues are. While one party is in power they move the agenda forward and the opposition powerlessly fights it. If the opposition manages to win an election they switch stances and move the agenda forward while the previous government who is now powerless begins to oppose it.

The agenda never stops. When it involves something the public is really opposed to, it frequently appears to stop or to be defeated, only to be re-introduced quietly or with another angle from a PR perspective. On rare occasions more extreme events are choreographed to change social acceptance.

It's like professional wrestling. Opposing political parties get up in front of the public and pretend to fight and hate each other while really they share the same global agendas, serve the same masters and are part of the same social class, country clubs, alumni organizations, secret societies etc. This is part of the act orchestrated for the general public in order to keep them locked in an invisible cage, oblivious of the freedoms they do not have.

Next time you wonder why your vote always feels like it's wasted: That's because it is.

Wake up.

Re:It's like professional wrestling

[e9th]

While I think equating compulsory IDs to livestock management is a bit over the top, I have to say that your analysis of the political process is dead on.

A complete waste

[mdwh2]

Oh, hurray! We don't have to worry about the ID card scheme, because the money will be put to "good use" by implementing the same thing we were objecting to in passports? I don't follow that reasoning...

Yes, it's bad if the money is wasted, but that is no argument for "We should go ahead and do it, or a very similar thing, anyway so the money isn't wasted".

Don't understand the fuss.

[Anonymous Coward]

Even in common law countries, some form of ID card is required, be it passport, driving license, student ID, credit card... some card with your picture and name in it, usually.

C'mon! I studied in the UK and I know first-hand that ID checking for paperwork, entrance to venues was almost the same as in my country. Oh! Did I mention the CCTV cameras every-fucking-where?

Oh! But they don't require an official, standardized, national ID card which you have to carry with you at all times! No, they don't require a national ID, but they require some form of ID card, don't they? Then, why the fuss? It's practically the same.

It's not like you always have to carry your ID with you and every police officer is going to stop you and ask you to show it to him (unless you are a gaijin in Japan). In my country, you are required to show your ID when you do some nasty thing and the police arrests you / fines you for speeding. If you don't have your ID with you at the moment, you can tell the agents where you have it, they'll go with you, and verify. BUT ONLY if you are a suspect or did something nasty.

I think the way we see it in civil law countries is that the ID card is an item that serves to proof your identity and prevent it from being stolen/missuded. In common law countries you see the ID card as a tracking device used by the government to keep its citizens under Big-Brotherish control.

Re:The tide *is* turning in the UK

[FinchWorld]

Theres only one difference I can see these days between Labour and the Conservatives. The tie colours, thats it.

The only reason the torys opposed ID cards was for PR. Doesn't mean they didn't like the idea at all.

Re:VICTORY!

[Anonymous Coward]

The answer to 1982 is 1776.

Re:VICTORY!

[zeldorf]

It's like rain on your wedding day.

Re:The tide *is* turning in the UK

[the_womble]

I am planning to register as an overseas voter just tog et rid of them. Mind you, I last lived in Britain in a safe labour seat so how much good it will do is questionable.

There are all kinds of things they want to do apart from the publicised issues: forcing home educating parents to teach a government approved curriculum, centralising the running of schools (because that has works so well so far), tracking cars, ISP data gathering, random stop and search, persecution of photographers (because you might just be taking a photograph because you are a terrorist doing reconnaissance). The list just goes on and on.

If the scheme is being shelved...

[FusionFox]

...then why did I just get this email today saying how well the scheme is going?

http://www.ips.gov.uk/IPSEmail/issue2/email-online.htm

Re:(booboop) Chattel in the UK will report to the

[JohnBailey]

seems like the UK is treating 1984 like an instruction manual

And don't forget Animal Farm. Orwell must be spinning in his grave.

Re:The tide *is* turning in the UK

[Anonymous Coward]

When on earth have the Tories had any concern for civil liberties?

Since David Cameron came along....?

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2009/06/david-cameron-to-underline-the-conservative-commitment-to-civil-liberties.html
And much as I hate to link to the News of the Screws (UK's most popular sunday paper) http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/88338/DAVID-CAMERON-WRITES-FOR-NEWS-OF-THE-WORLD-An-assault-on-all-our-rights.html

Maggie was a facist nutter and brought in a lot of nasty legislation, but as the OP said... the Nu-Tories (tm) do seam more chilled with regards to civil liberties and (along with the liberal democrats) will most likely do well in the next election.

Troll?!? Moderators...

[chrb]

How is it trolling to point out that the British intelligence services can almost certainly cross-reference these disparate databases already? Please explain.

Re:Troll?!? Moderators...

[smoker2]

The British intelligence services are not part of the government and are probably not going to sell your data to advertising firms, baliffs, insurance companies - take your pick. And the govt. are subject to the DPA and always have been subject to rules regarding accessing private data between departments. My mother worked for the inland revenue for many years, and they couldn't even access a persons data from other departments in the same agency. The ID card was a bad idea, probably sold to a gullible minister by a dodgy software salesman similar to the NHS database fiasco. It's probably been scrapped because the company who had tendered has financial problems and can't promise to deliver on target or in budget. Even the new Borders agency can't get their act together, as there seems to be too many differing criteria on what they can legally do with respect to ferries, airports etc. They can see no way through so have no plan to implement tougher border controls, and don't foresee having one.
One example being a ferry. The customs officials have to process 70 coaches an hour coming off the ferries. It takes 7 minutes to process 1 coach using biometric passports which have to be scanned into a reader. You do the math. All in all it is a waste of money and resources. The bad guys will always get through, and yet history shows that bad things very rarely happen. Why fight a losing battle, especially one that costs the public their freedom and privacy ?

Actually,

[Anonymous Coward]

this was precisely the "mild" KGB tactics against the suspected dissidents. The health care system in the USSR was "single payer" (the government), and it would be denied ("there are no places in the hospital, Comrade, you've got to wait your turn", "no, we cannot show you the waiting list, Comrade, it's against the rules") based on a phone call from the KGB. The same went for many other social services, employment, and so on.

And yes, you were supposed to carry your passport with you at all times, even thought you could not leave the country (you required a special separate kind of passport for that).

Frankie Boyle said it best

[footnmouth]

ID cards won't prove your ID - it'll just be another massive pain in the arse. "ooh, I've lost my wallet, I'd better get myself some new eyeballs and a finger transplant"

Effectively compulsory

[dugeen]

As other posters are correctly pointing out, compulsion has already been introduced by the back door using 'prevention of money laundering' as an excuse. You can't get paid from your job without a bank account, and you can't open a bank account without either a passport or an identity card driving licence, and you won't be able to get a passport or DL without being put on the identity card register. Now, the Atlanta, Georgia PD might say that you were still making a voluntary choice, as you could choose to not have a job or bank account, but my choice is not to believe that crip-crap.