Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

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.
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This discussion has been archived.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.
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) | 2
  • yeah right (Score:4, Insightful)

    by yerktoader (413167) on Monday February 03 2003, @02:33AM (#5213805) Homepage
    I'm guessing this study was funded by the company who will produce these cards and anyone supporting their fascist ideas. screw that.
    • Re:yeah right by Bloodmoon1 (Score:2) Monday February 03 2003, @03:02AM
      • Re:yeah right by mirko (Score:2) Monday February 03 2003, @05:07AM
        • Re:yeah right by CoolVibe (Score:2) Monday February 03 2003, @05:47AM
      • Re:yeah right by rpi1995 (Score:1) Monday February 03 2003, @11:31AM
    • Re:yeah right (Score:5, Insightful)

      by helix400 (558178) on Monday February 03 2003, @03:10AM (#5213938) Journal
      I'm guessing this study was funded by the company who will produce these cards

      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!

      [ Parent ]
      • Re:yeah right (Score:5, Informative)

        by Blue Stone (582566) on Monday February 03 2003, @03:22AM (#5213979) Homepage
        The bit about illegal immigrants is funny.
        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.

        /rant
        [ Parent ]
        • Re:yeah right by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Monday February 03 2003, @03:56AM
          • Re:yeah right by fyonn (Score:2) Monday February 03 2003, @05:25AM
            • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
        • Re:yeah right by FyRE666 (Score:2) Monday February 03 2003, @04:20AM
          • Re:yeah right by Tet (Score:2) Monday February 03 2003, @05:15AM
          • Re:yeah right (Score:4, Insightful)

            by tenjah (590104) on Monday February 03 2003, @05:22AM (#5214290)
            Countries that border the countries that the immigrants are leaving take the majority of them. It is human nature to seek out the best opportunity for oneself and one's kin. And if that means travelling half-way around the world to suffocate in a tomato truck so be it. I understand that the nature of your work will have brought you into contact with the darker side, but I doubt that you will suffer at the hands of these people, even the criminals and cuthroats amongst them. So pipe down. As a nation we are taking 2% of global asylum. If you take your head out of the Sun/Daily Mail/Telegraph, You'll realise. It's no BIG fucking deal. And to the guy whose Benefits office friend is being threatened. Oh please. Tell the filth, or find out where they live and firebomb them. Unless they're the Albanians, in which case, just tell her to run.
            [ Parent ]
            • Re:yeah right by NoMercy (Score:1) Monday February 03 2003, @05:56AM
          • Re:yeah right by redGiraffe (Score:1) Monday February 03 2003, @06:23AM
          • Well if we....... by oliverthered (Score:2) Monday February 03 2003, @06:53AM
        • Re:yeah right by g4dget (Score:1) Monday February 03 2003, @06:39AM
        • KEEPING OUT FOREIGNERS IS A WALLET ISSUE by cryofan2 (Score:2) Monday February 03 2003, @09:53AM
          • Bzzzt, WRONG! by spun (Score:2) Monday February 03 2003, @06:21PM
        • I think... by hackwrench (Score:1) Monday February 03 2003, @10:22AM
        • 5 replies beneath your current threshold.
      • Re:yeah right by geekee (Score:2) Monday February 03 2003, @05:44PM
      • Support the right to commit Identity Theft by t0ny (Score:1) Monday February 03 2003, @11:27PM
    • by mooZENDog (567187) <zendog_moo@hotm a i l . com> on Monday February 03 2003, @05:14AM (#5214273) Homepage
      ... then fax your local MP (UK citizens only). stand.org.uk are campaigning against this, and you can use a web-based, quick fax submission which will help register an anti-ID card opinion.

      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].
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:yeah right (Score:5, Interesting)

      by permaculture (567540) on Monday February 03 2003, @06:53AM (#5214514) Homepage Journal
      The Survey probably said:

      "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?"
      [ Parent ]
    • Cheese makers say UK citizens want more cheese by 91degrees (Score:1) Monday February 03 2003, @07:08AM
    • Yup... by autopr0n (Score:2) Monday February 03 2003, @05:11PM
    • Re:yeah right by geekee (Score:2) Monday February 03 2003, @05:41PM
    • Re:They are not citizens, anyhow. by palfreman (Score:1) Monday February 03 2003, @09:17AM
    • Re:They are not citizens, anyhow. by DjReagan (Score:1) Monday February 03 2003, @11:00AM
    • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • Damn those retinal scans.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Dr. Photo (640363) on Monday February 03 2003, @02:34AM (#5213808) Journal
    Honestly, you decide to change your eye color one day, and the next thing you know, all the billboards are calling you "Mr. Yakamoto".... :P
  • Whew! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 03 2003, @02:34AM (#5213809)
    For a second there I thought it said RECTAL scans!
  • expected results (Score:5, Insightful)

    by trmj (579410) <tmacfarlan&gmail,com> on Monday February 03 2003, @02:34AM (#5213811) Journal
    The big thing to remember here is that the survey was conducted by the card maker, not an independant source. The results may not be as reliable as most would like.
  • In other news... by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Monday February 03 2003, @02:35AM
  • MS passport (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 03 2003, @02:36AM (#5213818)
    Why don't we just hand over all our biometric data to a trusted third party like microsoft. They could manage the identities of the entire population of the world and free up needed resources for governments.

    passport.NET could handle this without any major changes.

    [/sarcasm]

    • Re:MS passport by Anonymous Brave Guy (Score:2) Monday February 03 2003, @07:41AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • In other news.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by MrLint (519792) on Monday February 03 2003, @02:37AM (#5213821) Homepage Journal
    Card makers say the mind control satellites are up to 80% effectiveness.
  • Inplants? by tader (Score:2) Monday February 03 2003, @02:39AM
  • Yeah... by iNub (Score:1) Monday February 03 2003, @02:39AM
  • CCTV anyone? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Y2K is bogus (7647) on Monday February 03 2003, @02:40AM (#5213835)
    This is from a country who already rigorously monitors its citizens with CCTV everywhere they go. Perhaps the UK could be considered a testbed for how people react when their basic rights are subtlely chipped away. It's all in the name of safety and convenience.

    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? by trout_fish (Score:2) Monday February 03 2003, @03:05AM
      • Re:CCTV anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Y2K is bogus (7647) on Monday February 03 2003, @03:30AM (#5214007)
        Okay, so the big cities. Look at it this way: The underground is a primary means of transportation in such cities. To that extent you can be tracked everywhere you go via CCTV.

        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.
        [ Parent ]
      • bullshit by DrSkwid (Score:2) Monday February 03 2003, @05:26AM
      • Re:CCTV anyone? by gorilla (Score:2) Monday February 03 2003, @09:22AM
    • Re:CCTV anyone? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Burb (620144) on Monday February 03 2003, @03:14AM (#5213955)
      This CCTV thing is a typical Slashdot knee-jerk response to any "civil liberties" issue in the UK. It applies to shopping centres and places like that. There's no CCTV in my street, my neighbourhood, my house, my garage, my desk....

      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?

      [ Parent ]
    • Re:CCTV anyone? by BlackHawk-666 (Score:1) Monday February 03 2003, @03:21AM
      • Re:CCTV anyone? by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Monday February 03 2003, @03:27AM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:CCTV anyone? by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Monday February 03 2003, @03:45AM
      • Re:CCTV anyone? by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Monday February 03 2003, @04:23AM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:CCTV anyone? by volkris (Score:1) Monday February 03 2003, @04:11AM
    • Re:CCTV anyone? by sql*kitten (Score:2) Monday February 03 2003, @04:18AM
    • Re: The Ben Franklin Quote (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Katravax (21568) on Monday February 03 2003, @04:40AM (#5214207)

      "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."

      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.

      [ Parent ]
    • Perhaps you should check you facts (Score:5, Insightful)

      by WIAKywbfatw (307557) on Monday February 03 2003, @05:02AM (#5214247) Journal
      That ignorant trolls like you get modded up as "insightful" or "interesting" is sad.

      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?

      [ Parent ]
    • Cheaper than the Old Bill... by Clansman (Score:2) Monday February 03 2003, @05:18AM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:CCTV anyone? Mod this crap down. by Gordonjcp (Score:2) Monday February 03 2003, @07:38AM
    • Re:CCTV anyone? by khakipuce (Score:2) Monday February 03 2003, @07:51AM
    • Re:CCTV anyone? by tcr (Score:2) Monday February 03 2003, @07:59AM
    • Re:CCTV anyone? by dapprman (Score:1) Monday February 03 2003, @08:16AM
    • Re:CCTV anyone? by stephenbooth (Score:2) Monday February 03 2003, @09:25AM
    • Re:CCTV anyone? by UpnAtom (Score:1) Monday February 03 2003, @11:04AM
    • Re:CCTV anyone? by smithmc (Score:1) Monday February 03 2003, @01:26PM
    • Re:CCTV anyone? by geekee (Score:2) Monday February 03 2003, @05:48PM
    • The UN thinks otherwise by DrSkwid (Score:2) Monday February 03 2003, @05:48AM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:CCTV anyone? by mattkinabrewmindspri (Score:1) Monday February 03 2003, @05:55AM
    • Re:CCTV anyone? by mikerich (Score:2) Monday February 03 2003, @11:17AM
    • 4 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • Here is the survey (Score:3, Funny)

    by long_john_stewart_mi (549153) on Monday February 03 2003, @02:42AM (#5213840)
    This is the actual survey they gave, and I can understand why there would be some confusion:
    Please circle your answer to the following question.

    1. Would you like a big brother? Yes No
  • let's be practical (Score:3, Insightful)

    by supernova87a (532540) <<moc.liamtoh> <ta> <1relpek>> on Monday February 03 2003, @02:43AM (#5213844)
    and stop whining about "losing freedoms" or "privacy". Sure it can be abused. But we need a way to identify people, and if you think that driver's licenses and social security numbers aren't already doing this, you're just closing your eyes to it.

    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 by RzUpAnmsCwrds (Score:2) Monday February 03 2003, @02:48AM
    • Re:let's be practical (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Dr. Bent (533421) <ben.int@com> on Monday February 03 2003, @03:04AM (#5213918) Homepage
      There's a big difference between being identified by a SS number or a drivers licence and a biometric. Biometrics can be used for more than just identification.

      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.
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:let's be practical (Score:5, Insightful)

      by chill (34294) <Charles.E.Hill@gmail.com> on Monday February 03 2003, @03:11AM (#5213944) Homepage Journal
      and stop whining about "losing freedoms" or "privacy". Sure it can be abused. But we need a way to identify people, and if you think that driver's licenses and social security numbers aren't already doing this, you're just closing your eyes to it.

      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.
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:let's be practical by WIAKywbfatw (Score:2) Monday February 03 2003, @05:20AM
      • Re:let's be practical (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Twylite (234238) <twylite AT crypt DOT co DOT za> on Monday February 03 2003, @05:59AM (#5214384) Homepage
        If someone steals your ATM card and PIN, you get a new one

        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.

        [ Parent ]
      • Re:let's be practical by testpoint (Score:1) Monday February 03 2003, @10:32AM
      • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:let's be practical by transami (Score:3) Monday February 03 2003, @03:16AM
    • Re:let's be practical by Beautyon (Score:2) Monday February 03 2003, @03:24AM
    • Re:let's be practical by TheOrange (Score:1) Monday February 03 2003, @03:32AM
    • Re:let's be practical by anubi (Score:1) Monday February 03 2003, @03:50AM
    • I am not a number... I am a free man! by The Tyro (Score:2) Monday February 03 2003, @04:02AM
    • Re:let's be practical by Associate (Score:1) Monday February 03 2003, @04:08AM
    • Re:let's be practical by Elitist Snob (Score:1) Monday February 03 2003, @05:17AM
    • Re:let's be practical by DarkZero (Score:3) Monday February 03 2003, @05:34AM
    • Yes, let's (from someone who lost his ID) by Anonymous Brave Guy (Score:2) Monday February 03 2003, @07:56AM
    • Intrestingly by autopr0n (Score:2) Monday February 03 2003, @05:57PM
    • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • It's all relative. by _RidG_ (Score:1) Monday February 03 2003, @02:43AM
  • Why not ? by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Monday February 03 2003, @02:44AM
    • Re:Why not ? by NexusTw1n (Score:2) Monday February 03 2003, @03:14AM
    • Re:Why not ? by The Cornishman (Score:1) Monday February 03 2003, @05:50AM
    • Biometric IDs by Deekoo (Score:1) Wednesday February 12 2003, @01:00AM
    • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • by pr1000 (646922) on Monday February 03 2003, @02:46AM (#5213855)
    According to the BBC most people are against such an ID card and plans for one will most likely be abandoned.

    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... by chrisbolt (Score:2) Monday February 03 2003, @02:54AM
      • by ishark (245915) on Monday February 03 2003, @04:42AM (#5214212)
        Well, I'm Italian and I can offer you my view on the "compulsory" ID card thing. In Italy you are supposed to have an ID card on you at all time, but in fact nothing too bad happens if you don't (you may have to talk a bit, but you most definitely won't be arrested :). I admit that I don't understand the concern of people about the ID card, but I think that this comes from the fact that what's more important is not the fact that you MUST have an ID card, but rather the fact that you must show it when doing this or that. I mean: if you must have it, but you're never asked to show it, you don't really feel Big-Brother'ed.
        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.
        [ Parent ]
    • Since When Has The Will Of The People Mattered? by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Monday February 03 2003, @04:03AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Not a good thing.. by euxneks (Score:2) Monday February 03 2003, @02:48AM
  • UK doesn't want ID cards. (Score:5, Informative)

    by NexusTw1n (580394) on Monday February 03 2003, @02:50AM (#5213867) Journal
    Today's Reg Story [theregister.co.uk] tells a different story.
    "The Home Office's consultation on its ID (aka Entitlement) Card proposals closes today, amidst complaints from privacy campaigners that the government has broken its own rules in canvassing opinions on its controversial plans. Human rights group Privacy International has lodged a complaint on the consultation process with the Parliamentary Ombudsman, due to several alleged breaches of the Government's own code of practice. "
    An open letter [privacyinternational.org] has been sent complaining that the public was left out of the debate.

    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.
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Interesting Reasons by Sapphon (Score:2) Monday February 03 2003, @02:50AM
    • Re:Interesting Reasons by jkcity (Score:1) Monday February 03 2003, @03:00AM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Interesting Reasons (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Space cowboy (13680) on Monday February 03 2003, @03:51AM (#5214062) Journal
      Oh boy, that's just so wrong I don't know where to begin...

      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...

      The British, and the English in particular are very insular people
      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 people ...