Slashdot Log In
Card Makers Say UK Citizens Want Biometric ID Cards
Posted by
timothy
on Mon Feb 03, 2003 02:31 AM
from the what-a-coincidence dept.
from the what-a-coincidence dept.
ArsonPanda writes "ZDnet is running a story on a recent survey in the UK showing overwhelming 80% public support of universal, biometricly enhanced citizen ID cards. Everybody here's fine with supplying the gubmit w/ your retinal scans and fingerprints, right?"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Card Makers Say UK Citizens Want Biometric ID Cards
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 624 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
|
2
(1)
|
2
yeah right (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:yeah right (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep, as quoted in the article:
"UK citizens support ID cards, according to a report commissioned by the world's biggest smart card maker."
I wouldn't be surprised if their survey questions included "Do you support the use of foolproof iris scans to protect your security and stop hackers from stealing your identity?" It's very easy to manipulate survey results in this manner.
and anyone supporting their fascist ideas.
I doubt this company holds secret business meetings where they ask, "Gentlemen, we believe in fascism. How can we force it on the world?" This company just made a very smart business move by conducting their own study, and having other people (ZDNet) who are desperate for stories publish it. Free advertising!
Re:yeah right (Score:5, Informative)
The state of the UK today, I quite believe that if the "researcher" had asked the participants, "Would you support ID cards if it meant illegal immigrants/asylum seekers [the two seem to be interchangable in a lot of people's minds] would be shot on sight?" about 75% of those asked would have said "yes!" and a further 50% of that sample would have added, "but don't kill them staright away, let them suffer a bit."
It's fucking scary is what it is.
We have a programme on Channel4, called "Without Prejudice" where a bunch of people decide whether one person from another bunch of people get £50,000, and one of the "tests" is asking about their beliefs, and usually the subject of illegal immigrants/asylum seekers comes up, and from the answers of about 95% of these people, you'd think we'd lost the war and the UK was a Nazi fucking state.
It's somewhat depressing.
Re:yeah right (Score:4, Insightful)
If you don't like the idea of ID cards... (Score:4, Informative)
There was recently a story in the Register (and BBC news) on how there was a large amount of negative feedback using a web-based fax gateway (FaxYourMP.com I think). The government are doing a separate study on this as well, which the stand.org.uk campagn is against. They have received assurances from the government that any web based complaints will be treated as seriously as regular letters of complaint (much easier too).
If you don't like it though, there is a quick and easy opportunity to register your displeasure at it: www.stand.org.uk [stand.org.uk].
Re:yeah right (Score:5, Interesting)
"Do you want crime to be reduced?
"Do you think the Police should be able to check criminal's identities?"
"Do you think ID cards are a good idea?"
As opposed to:
"Do you think the government holds too much information on UK subjects?"
"Do think people have a right to privacy?"
"Do you think ID cards are a bad idea?"
Damn those retinal scans.... (Score:5, Funny)
Whew! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Whew! (Score:4, Funny)
expected results (Score:5, Insightful)
MS passport (Score:5, Funny)
passport.NET could handle this without any major changes.
[/sarcasm]
In other news.. (Score:5, Funny)
CCTV anyone? (Score:3, Insightful)
The Ben Franklin Adage still applies, doubly so:
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty or safety. Nor, are they likely to end up with either."
People need to wake up and realize that they are slowly removing their own rights.
Re:CCTV anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
The worst thing about CCTV *isn't* the fact there are cameras, it's that they have hours of footage stored away for long periods of time. If you were *seriously* in suspect by the police, they'd go and dig up weeks old and perhaps months old footage of you.
What if you were a citizen that had some undue interest (celebrities, financial types, etc) and some CCTV footage of you meeting with someone turned up? What if you went someplace out of the ordinary to meet this person for whatever reason, yet you were on CCTV?
You give the police far too little credit. Every time you watch TV shows in which footage from a camera is shown, the british CCTV footage always shows the most extreme high-tech. In the US we don't have CCTV which will follow people around. We also don't have databases connected to them.
The UK is still ahead in CCTV technology, and finding ways to further intermesh it with various goals.
Re:CCTV anyone? (Score:5, Informative)
Good grief, if someone snatches my wallet I'd be quite glad if CCTV helped to catch the thief. Wasn't CCTV evidence used to catch the killers of Jamie Bulger?
Re: The Ben Franklin Quote (Score:5, Insightful)
As much as I respect Ben Franklin, I have to completely disagree with this. Even if someone is stupid enough to want to give up liberty for safety they still deserve liberty. If you start determining who liberty is for based on what they "would give up" or whatever other box you want to check off (skin color, political views, etc) for who "deserves" it, then no one has liberty. Everyone has to have full liberty, or 100% of it is an illusion.
Perhaps you should check you facts (Score:5, Insightful)
Here, for those who are interested in the truth, are the facts:
1. The overwhelming majority of CCTV in the UK are privately owned and maintained.
Stores, shopping precincts, bars, airports, train stations, etc are, just like in the US, privately-owned premises. And, just like in the US, they have CCTV cameras installed for security and safety purposes.
Where's the problem here? Shouldn't a store owner be entitled to put a camera up in his shop to deter would-be shop-lifters? Shouldn't an airport or a train station have cameras installed to monitor passenger traffic flow and thereby ensure passenger safety?
Would you be happier if the store owner felt less secure whilst earning his livelyhood or if the occassional passenger fell onto the tracks because a station platform was dangerously overcrowded?
2. The majority of government-owned cameras are watching the roads.
Again, these are mainly concerned with the safety of road users. Monitoring traffic jams and detecting motorists speeding through red lights isn't exactly a Big Brother scenario - so why make it out to be?
3. A minority of government-owned cameras are installed in and around high security installations and other potential terrorist targets.
Number one on this list is the US Embassy in Grosvenor Square. The area around that building is CCTV city, and has been for some time. Gee, I wonder why? Is it because the British goverment is obsessed with what the US Ambassador is having for lunch, or is it because it's a terrorist target?
Gee, let me think...
(Not too long ago, you could drive around all four sides of Grosvenor Square. But, some time in the last decade or so, some bright spark decided it was far too tempting to a potential car bomber and the side that houses the US Embassy was blocked off and protected with anti-tank measures. Not even Buckingham Palace or Downing Street are that secure. Next time you're in town, check it out - it makes Fort Knox look like an open air picnic camp.)
It's worth bearing in mind that Britain's been a terrorist target for over 30 years now. The IRA has been blowing up bombs, killing men, women and children all over Britain whilst freely raising funds in the US since before I was born. We can't (and won't) live in a society where there's someone watching you on every street corner so the security forces use CCTV cameras where they have to to ensure public safety.
(For the benefit of the "cameras can't stop terrorists" brigade, I'll point out now that IRA members rarely try to martyr themselves on suicide missions. They prefer to go in, place their car bomb, etc, and get out. Naturally, being spotted and caught is something they try to avoid, and evidence has shown that CCTVs do help curtail such activities. Suicide bombers are a different breed.)
4. Most CCTV footage is very poor, even when enhanced.
Most cameras are very low quality, black and white monitors. Getting a positive identification from one, even after the picture has been forensically enhanced is very difficult.
How such cameras (even if every single one of them was interlinked, actively manned, etc) could track my movement day in, day out is ridiculous to contemplate. There isn't a camera within half a mile of my house, and I live in a densely populated suburb of London, so where would they start?
So before you yanks (and sorry, but it is mainly yanks) go spouting off about how CCTV obsessed Britain is and how 1984-like our society is, why don't you examine the data? The real picture is a far cry from the sensationalist BS being spouted here.
So, "people need to wake up and realize that they are slowly removing their own rights", huh? US Patriot Act anyone?
Here is the survey (Score:3, Funny)
let's be practical (Score:3, Insightful)
If anything, requiring fingerprints or retinal scans will make these ids more secure and trustworthy.
or do you like the way id theft is so common in the US that there's a form you can fill out when yours has been stolen? look here [ftc.gov]
Re:let's be practical (Score:5, Insightful)
Retnal scans, for example, could be used to filter out suspects by race (based on eye color), or provide insight into the quality of someone's vision. While this may seem trivial, this type of information, especially medical information, is _supposed_ to be protected by the Constitution (at least here in the U.S.) and any such system mandiated by the government will threaten those constitutionally protected freedoms. Would you be comfortable giving a DNA sample to the government for identification purposes, knowing that they could analyze it for genetic defects? This is the first step on the path to a day where you can't have a driver's license because you're genetically pre-disposed to alcholism.
Re:let's be practical (Score:5, Insightful)
If anything, requiring fingerprints or retinal scans will make these ids more secure and trustworthy.
A photograph gives some way for the PERSON to validate the ID -- so does a signature. With a retinal/fingerprint scan, you are totally at the mercy of the machine. The cop isn't going to ink your finger and doublecheck against what is stored on the card.
Finally, what happens if someone DOES steal your identity? Exactly how are you going to "invalidate" your thumbprint or retinal scan? If someone steals your ATM card and PIN, you get a new one.
Latent fingerprints can be enhanced with superglue fumes, scanned, touched up and reproduced with latex or gelatin. VERY low cost.
The big problem is that people think biometrics are inherently more secure than traditional methods of identification but that isn't necessarily true.
People trust the machine, and the machine isn't reliable enough for that type of trust, yet.
Re:let's be practical (Score:4, Insightful)
How? How do you identify yourself to the bank so that they issue you a new card and PIN?
Compare apples and apples. A bank card isn't a means of identification (in general), it is a system-specific identifier that is intended for use in conjunction with authentication (the PIN).
You are right that people have the wrong perception of biometrics -- often very wrong (confusing identification with authentication). I would not support any ID card that didn't have a picture, preferably a fingerprint, AND encoded biometric information. At the least it defeats the object of making the system easily usable -- you would need a machine.
The idea of an identity card is to identfy you, not to authenticate you. You produce the card to prove your claim to your identity; the accept checks the photo and whatever biometrics are required. Authenticating yourself is a different issue, and normally uses a singature (or PIN for electronic purposes). This separation needs to be maintained. If I don't sign a withdrawal slip for $10,000 but just stick my eye on a scanner, I don't know if the teller has withdrawn $20,000.
I don't think this is going to happen... (Score:5, Informative)
Here are some links:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/2688697.stm [bbc.co.uk]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/2657143.stm [bbc.co.uk]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/2583651.stm [bbc.co.uk]
Re:I don't think this is going to happen... (Score:5, Interesting)
Honestly, in Italy I cannot remember any situation where my card was asked which was not very well justified... In general it happens when you request official documents (and not always), maybe it happened once or twice at an university exam with a more paranoid professor fearing "friends" coming to do the exam for you. I suppose that if they catch you with a smoking gun in front of a dead man they'll ask you, also. When driving they ask for driving license, often they don't care about the ID card.
If I were asked to list 10 times when my card was asked I'm not sure I'd be able to reach those 10 times....
What is true is that it will be asked when crossing the border (you don't need a passport to move inside the EU, the ID card is enough), and even there, not always. When travelling by train or plane between France and Italy there have been times when I could travel without showing my ID to anyone (after 9/11 they are more paranoid, on planes they always ask you for the ID card....even if they tend to look at it for 1-2 seconds...). In France, some shops want to see your ID card when you pay by cheque or foreign credit card. I don't feel much threatened by this: my name is already on both of them, so the ID card does not add any information. If I don't want questions I just pay cash.
Overall, I think you can understand while, even carrying an ID card at all times, I really don't feel "watched". I feel much more watched through the credit card, for example, because that is associated to buying habits, while the ID is not.
UK doesn't want ID cards. (Score:5, Informative)
The government claim only 2000 responses have been received, yet Stand [stand.org.uk] know that nearly 5000 people sent in concerns about ID cards via their website.
All British Slashdotters should Fax their MP [faxyourmp.com] and complain about this.
It worked last year when the stand/fax your mp campaign made the government change their minds about letting every UK agency have access to our private data. [guardian.co.uk]
It worked last time, and it will work again, spend 10 minutes writing a fax, and make your views and opinion of this whitewash heard.
Re:Interesting Reasons (Score:5, Insightful)
The home secretary has been embarrassed by the reaction to his plans; having "consulted" the public (and broken the governments own rules by not doing it properly), then announcing the support of the public, he was surprised by the backlash. Look at the BBC website for examples of the reaction...
Er, I don't know where you get that from. Britain has the largest ex-pat community in the world (Britons living abroad), and you've just tarred 59 million people with the same brush... There are similar 'accusations' made against the American peopleIn contrast almost 95% of Britons have a passport, they travel far and wide (in the last 6 months, I've been to Las Vegas, Tokyo, Amsterdam and Paris), and they invite others into the UK with open arms. Greater London has almost 20 million people living in the area, about 20% of which are non-UK nationals. London is frequently characterised as a "melting pot" of international commerce because of its' open attitude to other nationals.
The reason Britain needs to control immigration is because it's seen as an ideal place to start over - free health care, free housing and social care, one of the more law-abiding societies around the world, and one of the more tolerant societies. There is concern in the UK about whether the large number of 'asylum seekers' are really fleeing for their lives, or just after a better one. The situation is growing, and the card (not that I support it) was an attempt to stem the flow.
As for Britain not regarding itself as part of Europe, the jury's still out. The UK is in a rather unique position of being closer to the US culturally, but closer to the EU geographically. We haven't figured out which way to go, or indeed if there's a need to choose, yet. Give us time - it's certainly not due to xenophobia!
Simon.
Re:Interesting Reasons (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know about you, but I find myself closer to german/french/european ideas than US ones e.g. healthcare should be available, death penalty avoided, sex should be fun (and on Channel 4), no unnecessary circumcision, trains should work, food should taste nice (this one hasn't quite reached the UK yet - where can you buy decent bread apart from importing it?).
But then I am an immigrant so what would I know? :-)
You may say that music/movies etc. are more often imported from the US than from Luxembourg, but that is true there also - songs in nightclubs are in English as much in Groningen as in London).
Rusults may be valid (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A serious question (Score:5, Insightful)
With a government mandated ID of this type, you can't opt out.
Governments are also very hard to police on the proper use of data/powers. They tend to classify things under "National Security" when they frequently mean "Political Career Security".
They can also change the rules on a whim. Monday could be "this can only be used/accessed under an active law enforcement investigation". Whereas Tuesday could be "...or for proactive monitoring of persons deemed suspicious". [Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?]
Worse, the changes and the very rules themselves could be classified. Witness the bullshit the pull when asking for an ID to fly in the U.S. [You need a government issued ID, it is the law. Which law? We can't tell you, it is a secret. It isn't even written down -- the TSA communicated it to us verbally.]
Governments with too much power and information are more of a danger to individual liberties than anything they are trying to protect us from.
Re:Secures your privacy (Score:4, Insightful)
Retina scans ? Oh lovely, I really want to shove my face into a scanner that 1000 people have used since it was last washed. God help me if I get an eye disease because that alter my retinal image [sans.org] meaning I can't use my credit card.
Any encryption used will be cracked given enough time, meaning false biometric information can be stored on the chip, give it 2 years and card rewriters will be available for every ganster in the human, gun and drug traffic trade.
This is a complete lie. (Score:5, Informative)
The Government consultation emall address automagically responded to all submissions with "Thank you for your email in support of the introduction of entitlement cards". Its clear that they want to push this through wether it will reduce crime and fraud or not, and wether anyone wants these cards or not.
The Home Secretary himeslf had his identity stolen [bbc.co.uk] by a journalist to highlight the dangers of identity theft, which will without a doubt rise if these new cards are introduced.
For an insight into why these cards are true evil, read this piece in The Guardian [independent.co.uk] about how the Spanish have been habituated into ID cards like battery chickens who refuse to leave thier cages when the doors are opened.
Really, if Europeans want to have ID cards, no one in the UK has a problem with that, and no one here is interested in arguing with Europeans who think that ID cards are "no problem at all". If you want ID cards, you are free(??!) to use them all you like. The British do not want them, under any circumstances short of actual war in Europe, and even then, only temporarily.
For us ID cards are a waste of time, money and most importantly, a violation of the human rights of British Citizens.
Re:This is a complete lie. (Score:5, Informative)
It would be *shameful* for the UK Government to ignore over 5000 presumably negative submissions -- from voters -- submitted via Stand. Especially when they know their figures don't add up, and they will be caught out. Expect a U-turn.
Re:This is a complete lie. (Score:4, Insightful)
Gee, here's a bright kneejerk (slashjerk) response. "Identity theft is ridiculously easy even though there is no way to prove your identity". Fucking wonderful.
Why is identity theft not easy in my country? Because we have ID cards (well, books). You need one (by law) to open a bank account, perform transactions with government, and to vote. To get it reissued, you provide a fingerprint. Is it failsafe? No. Does it prevent someone from withdrawing money from my bank because they know my account number and can get my birth certificate from a public registry? Yes. Does it violate my right to privacy? Maybe.
The usual argument goes: if you aren't doing something illegal then there's nothing to worry about. And the counter is: and then they came for me, and there was noone left to speak out.
Well here's my response: when they came for me, "they" were not the police, were not the government, were not some shady quasi-legal state sanctioned organisation. "They" were your average criminals with guns, who give less of a shit about my rights than a civil servant. And the only reason there is any chance that "they" will get caught, is that every adult who wants to participate in the social structure of this country has their fingerprints in a national database.
Don't come with bullshit about fingerprints being useless. I've seen two groups of criminals tracked down before on fingerprints alone, and that's just from crimes that I've suffered. Fingerprints aren't perfect, no. You can't get a conviction based on fingerprints -- but they go to circumstantial evidence. But this is all besides the point.
Every day in the US millions of people produce some form of identification. A driver's license in the most common. But what is your proof of being a US citizen? A passport? Hell no, how do you prove your citizenship when you apply for one? Birth certificate? How does that in any way prove your claim to your identity? Quite simply, data corruption is possible when there is no normalisation. If you don't have an absolute identity list, identity theft is easy.
So what happens when you do have an absolute list? Well the trick is to have a system where you can prove your identity, but no-one else can prove they are you. Biometrics is the typical answer. It has unfortunately side effects - your identity can be discovered without your consent.
Well here's something new for the privacy advocates: in public you don't have privacy. Get it? You do not enjoy the right to privacy when you are in public. Should I rephrase this again? No? Good. The assumption that you CAN identify a person in public is essential to the maintainance of law and order.
So the real problem with ID cards is that they are seen as a first step in the erosion of rights. First you have a card, then you have to produce it, then you have to wear it all the time, then you will have it revoked if your are naughty, and finally it will be tatooed to your forhead and you get your head lopped off if you commit a crime. Bummer ... and I always wanted a crime free society.
So come again, what's the problem? Someone may abuse it. Aah, yes. The State may abuse its power and abuse the identity system. Heaven forbid. They could go to war, repress an entire race group, raise taxes, collude with big business, detain us without trial and not tell anyone ... but damnit don't let them know who we are.
So get real. Every country has some mechanism for identifying people. Commerce breaks down without it. Crime is unchecked without it. It may be a birth certificate, ID card, driver's license, known family member vouching for you. It doesn't matter - its a means of identification. ID cards simply provide a system which is more difficult to subvert than most. Often, because of the way they are applied, it is more harmful when that system IS subverted ... that means we should improve the system, not go to an even more flawed alternative.
The question asked to citizens (Score:5, Interesting)
[_] That your ID card be enhanced with the latest technologies, which make identity theft and fraud with your name nearly impossible, a 50% income tax break for 10 years and the privilege of being knighted by the queen, or
[_] To keep your current ID card, allow our country to fall behind the times and encourage the worlds mot notorious criminals to move here to avoid getting caught by everyone elses superior identity technology, lose your job, and be shot, or deported, or both?
The other 12% chose option #2
And why the government would want this (Score:4, Interesting)
- Niccolo Machiavelli, "The Prince"
Taken from the Alpha Centauri computer game.
Compromise needed (Score:3, Interesting)
The current situation is silly and needs change so they have brought out photo licenses (like you have in the US) but no one can make me get one.
This idea will not run but a compromise will be reached like making me get a photo license so that only I can use it. They may expect me to have it when I drive. In the UK the gubment always suggest something like this and by the time it gets through it is something else.
In related news... (Score:3, Funny)
Push Polls (Score:5, Insightful)
The technique is simple: phrases the questions in such a way that you get the answers you want:
Hard to say no to that one.
In a predominantly "minority" area:
Again, hard to say no, especially if you're a member of that under-served "minority".
(I put "minority" in quotes only because it's not really a minority in a majority "minority" jurisdiction, is it?)
Sure, $thing sounds pretty bad, whatever it is.
And so forth. You can easily construct your own loaded questions. With a few bucks, you can get a pollster to construct even more devious ones, and call a bunch of people who are in too much of a hurry to really give the question the consideration it deserves. Shake, bake, and then claim only your product/plan/candidate can solve the "problem."
Replacing stolen data?? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm all for more secure ways of proving who we are, but using irreplacable personal data seems a bit risky at this stage. Surely there's got to be a more technological method to achieve the same result?
Re:UK=burgeoning surveillance state nixing freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
And it's been proven to reduce crime, and help crime detection, high profile cases like the murder of Jamie Bulger show how CCTV can be extremely helpful, and outweighs any paranoia concerns about being watched while in public. When CCTV is fitted into every home, then we'll complain, not before.
What about the partial criminalization of encryption under the RIP Act? You have to give the government your key if they demand it, otherwise 2 years in prison. The governement has sought, and obtained, powers to monitor e-mail, web usage and phone calls without judicial warrants.
How is being asked to hand over your key, any different to being asked to open your safe on production of a warrant ? Do search warrants mean locks and safes "are partially criminal "?
As for monitoring email, web usuage and so on, the Americans have that field completely sewn up. [echelonwatch.org]
The private right of gun ownership has been substantially destroyed in the past several years (with a concurrent rise in violent crime, including a rapid rise in gun use by criminals).
Don't even go there. We WANT tight gun laws, we don't want a gun in every bed side drawer culture. For more information see these [slashdot.org] comments. [slashdot.org]
People now go to jail in the UK for so- called "hate speech".
And you can't yell fire in a theatre despite having "free speech". Personally I'm in favour of not being able to say "blacks go home" "Jews faked the holocaust and are all money obssessed thieves" "Muslims are a lower form of life". The law came into force, because racial minorities were being harrassed with verbal abuse morning noon and night by British racists. Your right to free speech ends when it is designed to harm me, just as yelling fire in a theatre is illegal.
What has broken their will, I don't know--years of inept socialist rule? Some post-colonial ennui? Too much spotted dick?
Nice troll, we spent the best part of 2 decades under hard right rule with Thatcher, so spare me the brits are commies crap. As for breaking our will, we broke the governments will over expanding data access laws last year [bbc.co.uk], and over 5000 people wrote and complained about ID cards this year. [stand.org.uk]
Not a Problem (Score:3, Troll)
Yes, any system can be hacked. Yes, one could either modify that backend to accept an illegal scan or somehow get around the retinal scanner itself...but can that not be done now?
It's quite easy to, say, get a credit card number right now. It's not like all those signatures actually get checked - one has to dispute, and then go through litigation, etc. A simple retinal scan on purchase would go a long way.
I'm all in favor.
in other news (Score:4, Funny)
I mean, come on.
-- james
They have the data... (Score:3, Interesting)
What puzzles me is the fact that people think that we have "private" lives and that the Government doesn't know anything about us. They think that by having an ID card, suddenly we'll all be on some huge database and that this is "wrong".
Well wake up people, you're already on a huge Government database. Look at some of the information they've got on you:
Identity theft is becoming a problem in the UK, surely a national ID card scheme with biometric data contained within it will help protect your identity?
Re:They have the data... (Score:4, Insightful)
Because it is all held in seperate databases across many government agencies (DVLA, Inland Revenue etc...) It's hard for them to collect it all in one place.
Currently (and trust me, I know this first hand) it takes up a fair amount of Civil Servant time to collect and collate all this data into a "file" on a person. This is usually done at the request of the NCIS (National Criminal Intelligence Service) and they don't tend to waste resources on annoying gits like me who fax thier MP saying $idea sucks. I'm not a big enough threat.
Now, put all this data in one handy place and any bugger can, at the click of a button, create a case file on me. Hell, even if they just wanted to see who this Chris Adams guy is, they'd get access to *all* my details including details of my "dependants" (You know, my Tax code says I'm married with one dependant, hyperlink here for details from Census etc...).
The main reason for the ID card idea has always been to reduce the time taken for Civil Servants to dig up cross agency data with the added bonuses of *potentially* reducing DSS fraud, random political bogeyman-du-jour dodgyness etc...
The initial reasoning behind this ID card plan was to make it *easier* for the government to check up on it's citizens.
Chris.
What was the question? (Score:3, Insightful)
Given that this survey was given by a company which hopes to make biometric ID cards, the question was probably much like:
"IF it would prevent terrorism and identity theft and IF biometric ID cards would make everything in your life more convenient and safer, with no possibility of negative consequence, would you support them?"
Or:
"Would you rather have biometric ID cards or to have your wife and children raped and killed before your very eyes?"
Breaking news... (Score:3, Insightful)
Company that stands to make millions from a technology is sells, promotes concept with skewed statistics indicating overwelmingly that the public wants the product and they want it now in spades.
Somewhat surpisingly, the public also declared that the product should cost four times what it can be offered for now.
Etc, etc, etc...
PS. Now we get to wait for it to be made law, and then watch the MPs/ministers involved become well paid non-executive directors of the self-same company. Cynic moi?
For those (Brits) wishing to state their opinion on the subject click here [stand.org.uk]
Bollocks (Score:3, Interesting)
I have met only one person who thinks identity cards are a good idea. But as he was a right-wing bigot who was attempting to tell me why asylum seekers were "the scum of the earth", I choose to discount his opinion.
I would only support an identity card if I was not required to carry it at all times, if I did not have to pay for it, and if the system was not administered by the current bunch of arseholes playing at government.
Indeed, I'm of the opinion that the government collect far too much information on it's citizens. Every new tax credit involves a 30 page form that asks all sorts of strange questions. I'm sure they only do it because they can, not because it's necissary. The identity card idea is just more of the same.
Would you trust your identity to these people? (Score:3, Interesting)
One of the other attractions to government is that such a system provides a national identity database such as which doesn't currently exist. I work for a company that is shortly to go live with a project for the UK Passport Office [ukps.gov.uk] which will provide electoral registration information to support passport applications. In time this information will be extended to other government bodies which would not be able to share it between each other, so it's going to happen anyway.
As for biometric testing, the UK Goverment's approved suppliers are almost all terrible at what they do: congestion charging is about to be introduced in Central London and relies on a system that can read car number plates. Capita, the contractor who were hired to develop the system, managed to get it to read one in early December. It goes live in a fortnight, and it's currently 4/1 that it will be abandoned before the end of the year. Other companies such as EDS, Siemens and Schlumberger Sema will be in the running to manage the system. A search of The Register [theregister.co.uk] or Computing magazine's news pages [computing.co.uk] will show that these are not companies to whom you would entrust your identity, biometrics or no.
Bio-Nid (Score:3, Funny)
Tired of people from other countries blowing themselves up at your bus stop? Worried that someone will fly a plane into your office building? Or how about those pesky terrorists that just love to sabotage the federal postal system?
Well, now with BIO-NID (Biometric National Identification) your worries are a thing of the past! One look at BIO-NID will have would-be hackers (terrorists) and terrorists (terrorists) shaking in their imported boots! Be the first one on your block to have BIO-NID, and be the life of the party! Just LOOK at this really hot chick. She thinks you should get BIO-NID.
Hot chick: Yes I do!
"BIO-NID, Security for the future"
"Yes, Minister" on push-polling (Score:5, Insightful)
The British TV sitcom Yes, Minister [museum.tv] offered a brilliant precis [yes-minister.com] of push-polling technique:
Makes you think... (Score:3, Insightful)
"Bob, it looks like you just got back from Italiano's diner! You need some pepto bismo? Oh, and why stop at that cheesy fetish shop when you can go to Porn central!"
It's minority report... With cookies... IS THERE NO JUSTICE!