UK MPs Approve Compulsory ID Cards 679
Idimmu Xul writes "BBC News is reporting that the UK House of Commons has approved legislation making identity cards compulsory." From the article: "The plans, rejected by peers last month, will now go back before the House of Lords. Tories warned of "creeping compulsion" and Lib Dems said the "fight against compulsory ID cards" would go on."
Only compulsory when applying for a passport (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Commons? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Commons? (Score:5, Informative)
Still if you think thats a bad system the Prime Minister could pass the law overnight, all he'd need is to get the Privy Council (which is made up of cabinet ministers - some past and present - and a few others) to agree and then the Queen to sign it (still the Queen can refuse to sign any law and then it doesn't become law - a power which hasn't been used since queen Anne - but still exists). Then it'd be law tomorrow... and the best thing is we don't need to worry about the seperation of powers or people's rights... oh, wait...
Re:Papers, please. (Score:3, Informative)
British counter-intelligence was incredible during WW2. There are reasons for that. Many, many times 'privacy concerns' were flatly ignored by both the Brits and the US. Stuff that would make this current 'wiretapping' business, or ID cards look like nothing.
It's easy to look back on WW2 as a battle of freedom vs dictatorship, but in reality it was far more complex than that, and basic human rights regarding privacy, torture, etc were broken on all sides, not just by the nazis.
Re:Excuse the ignorance of an ex-colonist... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Papers, please. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Well, not quite (Score:5, Informative)
Here is a page of peaceful, middle-class English protesters who have been beaten bloody.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gall/0,8542,1305225,00.h tml [guardian.co.uk]
Here is an article documenting their continued persecution, due to their daring to speak out against police brutality:
http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:ccgGv54ab-wJ: www.horseandhound.co.uk/competitionnews/article.ph p%3Faid%3D62246+Hunt+supporters+who+made+complaint s+against+the+police+officers'+behaviour+in+Parlia ment+Square+last+September+are+now+being+arrested+ for+public+order+offences&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1 [64.233.179.104]
Another example of police terrorizing their critics:
http://prisonerjw7874.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]
Despite all the jokes about "McChimpyBushHitler", it is interesting to see how US critics of the US State get rich and famous, while critics of the British State get their heads bashed in...
Hopefully something will change before it is too late.
Re:Excuse the ignorance of an ex-colonist... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Bad movie script? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Papers, please. (Score:4, Informative)
By that kind of logic we should get rid of the olympic torch right away, because it was introduced in 1936 in Berlin (look it up if you are in doubt).
Re:House of Lords, et al (Score:3, Informative)
I'm fairly certain that the Queen does indeed sign legislation, and the Prime Minister is required to consult her. She is certainly privy to almost all if not all state secrets, for instance.
Of course Labour would love to get rid of her, but an odd thing happens every time the republican movement gets going again. The goddamn subjects of HRH Elizabeth II pretty much demonstrate they don't want her gone. I don't think, for instance, that even at the monarchy's worst moments in the 20th century (Edward VIII's abdication and the death of Princess Diana), that the republicans were ever really all that close. The closest I think they ever got in modern times was Queen Victoria's near-absolute seclusion after Prince Albert's death.
I don't necessarily know if the romantic notion that Cromwell's short-lived experiment is the cause of English anti-republicanism (it was, after all, a long bloody time ago), but it certainly seems that the English at least, entertain republicanism as long as it's in no risk of actually coming about.
Re:Stupid paranoia with ID cards. (Score:5, Informative)
(1) The cost - that this is going to be a cash cow for the biometrics companies. The majority (if not all) of all UK government IT contracts, have costs that end up spiralling out of control, and have hefty cancellation fees. There is a fear that the government will charge an administration fee every time your address changes, and fine anyone who fails to update their address. Consider students, homeless people and contract workers who change address regularly.
(2) The invasion of privacy - governments departments such as the DVLA are already in trouble for selling personal information (names and addresses) to questionable private car clamping firms (with owners who have criminal records) who have sent threatening letters to car owners.
(3) The arguments for the need for ID cards have included: the ability to fight terrorism (although the home secretary admits it would not have stopped the London bombings), and the ability to fight social security fraud (although certain members of the public will be allowed to have two ID cards). If fraudsters are able to forge utility bills, passports, bank cards, what is going to stop them from faking ID cards?
(4) A good percentage of the population believe that the UK government has lost control of illegal immigration and is spending money on ID cards because they can't control the borders. And they can't target non-Christian religions, because that would be racist.
(5) Function creep - that the ID cards will be used for more basic services, such as booking flight, national train journeys and maybe even shopping purchases.
In any case, it would seem that France is also getting French ID cards [eu.int]
Gun control is good (Score:2, Informative)
We like our gun control, thanks very much. Not many people are shot in this country. Some, not many - the number is very, very small. The UK population has never had a history of carrying offensive weapons, certainly never any form of gun, and as far as I know the only people who were affected when handguns were totally banned were a few people in gun clubs who had to find a new hobby. And it buggered up our Olympic shooting team of course.
Overall, not much was taken away, but the one or two nutters who used to get their guns from the gun club and go mad have been deterred. Criminals still get guns, but criminals can get anything, legal or not.
Re:Not to Ask For Flamebait, But... (Score:2, Informative)
No, the government is flushing it down the drain, not the people. Once the government has been voted in they can pretty much do what they want until the next general election (the current government were voted in originally because they lied about their policies).
Of course the really criminal thing is that despite repeatedly lieing to the electorate (tuition fees, iraq, etc) people _still_ vote for them. Both Labour and the Tories are completely crazy but people feel that voting for another party such as the Lib Dems is a wasted vote so they never get in. The sad thing is that if all the people who don't want to "waste their votes" actually voted for the Lib Dems they would win by a landslide.
Gun control, CCTV, now ID cards--every time I look at America's problems, I can always cheer myself up by remembering that whatever we're doing wrong, you're guaranteed to do something worse.
Well given the amount of fatal shootings in the US compared to the UK, quite frankly I'm happy for guns to be controlled. It's not as if you can't get one if you legitimately need it, but the whole place feels somewhat safer not having everyone wandering around with a gun to protect themselves from everyone else who's also wandering around with a gun.
Re:Poor British citizens, their government's watch (Score:3, Informative)
Perhaps you should read this story on the Register. [theregister.co.uk]
The proposal is to monitor the location of the car at all times to charge variable prices depending on the road used and the level of congestion. The Galileo system will have some feedback, it can recieve and locate distress signals for Search And Rescue. Of course it would probably be swamped if every road vehicle transmitted to the satelites at once. Whether the plan is to use a "black box recorder" or some new system making use of Galileo, the government do want a record of where you have been.
Re:Stupid paranoia with ID cards. (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, actually.
Currently government departments are prevented by law from linking databses and sharing data. The Identity Card bill not only establishes an Identity Register, it also changes the law so that it can be shared with every branch of government.
Re:Stupid paranoia with ID cards. (Score:3, Informative)
In Hungary, I had an ID card since I was 14. In the last TEN years I've never been asked by a police officer or any law enforcment personnel to show my ID (In Hungary it is required by law that you have at least one document officially capable of proving your identity and to carry it with you).
I have an ID card, a driving license, a passport, a student ID card, a tax ID card and a social security ID card oh and I have an online account which I can use with an online portal to deal with my official business like filling in taxes, etc. (I could use any of the first four to identify myself).
I don't understand the people recalling WW2 and nazi death camps and SS when talking about ID. It is perfectly normal for me to have one.
I most certainly understand if you are worried about the abuses with a computerized database, but it is a whole different issue! Fight the huge Orwellian database handling and not the ID cards...
Here is a snippet from wikipedia that sums up my view about the issue: "Argumentation about identity cards is largely limited to anglo-saxonic common-law countries. In most countries where an ID system is present, it is seen as a commonplace item that nobody argues about."
I have never even heard before of abuse related to ID cards in Hungary.
Re:Only compulsory when applying for a passport (Score:3, Informative)
No. As you rightly pointed out I now have to trust the people that put the card together. All the card proves it that the issuer *thought* the name, photo, fingerprint, etc matched - assuming no corruption or (deliberate) errors.
At some point we need to break down and trust someone somewhere, but why add another (useless) layer of pseudo protection? Why should I trust the ID card department and not the passport department? Why should the passport deparment trust the ID card department? What's the bloody purpose anyway, it won't make us safer?
Here in Australia there have been a few attempts to introduce "The Australia Card". Essentially the same thing as mentioned here. Luckily the Australian public hated it and the bill was easily defeated both times.
Re:Excuse the ignorance of an ex-colonist... (Score:4, Informative)
Britain lacks a written constitution, so it is much harder to prove that a law falls foul of any fundamental rights (see below for Human Rights legislation in the UK). The House of Lords acts as the Supreme Court in the UK and can rule on whether a law is unjust or has been unjustly applied in a particular case. However, and this is crucial, British law holds that Parliament is supreme and that the judiciary cannot overturn a piece of legislation.
Having said which... There has been at least one case, Factortame, involving European (Community) law where the House of Lords, after guidance from the European Court of Justice, ruled that an Act of Parliament fell foul of European law. EC law is considered supreme over domestic law because of the wording of the Treaty of Rome to which Britain is a signatory. The Lords placed an injunction on the government forbidding them from using the Act. The government had to repeal the offending Act and bring British law into line with European law.
That is unlikely to be the case here as there is no universal EC law covering identity cards; the closest is the Schengen Agreement for border controls to which Britain is not a signatory.
The only reason the Lords overturned the Act was because of the implied supremacy of EC law in the Treaty of Rome - and even then they were loathe to do so. I strongly doubt that they would dare overturn purely domestic legislation.
The best hope (apart from hoping that EDS screw things up as well as usual) is that there could be a challenge under the Human Rights Act 1999 which embodies most of the European Convention on Human Rights into British law. If the ID cards system were found to fall foul of the HRA (and I'm not going to say if it could - INAL) then the courts could make a 'declaration of incompatibility' between the ID Cards Act and the HRA.
In such a case the government is not obliged to change the law, but it must at least review the offending legislation. The law would continue to apply, but people would still be able to take their cases before the courts and claim damage. If the British government refused to repeal or amend the law then plaintiffs could take their claims to the European Court of Human Rights which has the power to lay down massive fines against the government in the hope of shaming it into compliance.
HTH.
Re:Papers, please. (Score:3, Informative)
Since the 1939 National Registration Act was repealed in 1951 after Clarence Willcox, the manager of a dry cleaning shop, challenged the principle that a policeman could demand to see his wartime identity card,
The Guardian: ID Cards [guardian.co.uk]