Card Makers Say UK Citizens Want Biometric ID Cards 624
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?"
yeah right (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:yeah right (Score:2, 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:2, Funny)
It's somewhat depressing.
Hey, it's called "Year of the Sheep" for a reason.
Re:yeah right (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:yeah right (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, and no British person would ever behave like that?
Besides, anecdotal evidence is rarely worth the electrons it's written on.
Re:yeah right (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, damn those evil Brits, rampaging all over the world building roads, schools, hospitals, dams, playing cricket, freeing slaves, creating legal systems and drinking tea! If only Stalin had conquered the world instead!
Re:yeah right (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly my point: going out all over the world, destroying one civilization after another, subjugating the native populations, and plundering its natural resources.
If only Stalin had conquered the world instead!
The world wasn't for anybody to "conquer": not for the British, not for the Spanish, not for the French. The fact that Stalin or the Nazis created evil regimes does not diminish the profound evil of those other empires. It's only in the second half of the 20th century that Europeans finally came to their senses.
What have the Romans ever done for us? (Score:3, Insightful)
Xerxes: Brought Peace?
Reg: Oh, peace? Shut up!
Re:yeah right (Score:3, Insightful)
And we wonder why their cost of living is so low.
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)
In other news... (Score:2, Funny)
MS passport (Score:5, Funny)
passport.NET could handle this without any major changes.
[/sarcasm]
In other news.. (Score:5, Funny)
Inplants? (Score:2, 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:2, Insightful)
You make it sound like the government can track our every move and that is simply not the case.
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:3, Informative)
The only city with any real underground is London. Newcastle and Glasgow have small single line systems. And that's it. Some urban railways too in various places, but *not* the main means of getting around.
Most CCTV used in crimes seems to be from shops, malls etc. Usually takes the police days if not weeks to locate and collate these when there's a serious incident.
You may find it difficult to believe, but apart from city centre 'hot spots' there's very little CCTV monitoring, that that there is is generally obvious. The system does not seem to be abused, and unlike the US we have had a serious terrorist threat in the UK for several decades which has merited some kind of response.
We've also a set of very active Civil Rights organisations here who jump on abuses of any kind, and if abuse of CCTV gets to the point where it is a threat then we'll be in a serious situation with society generally and CCTV abuse will be among the least of our worries. That is, IMHO the level of CCTV monitoring we have - and even some increase in it - can be controlled so that it is not abused by the checks and balances we have in place in our society already. Your situation of course may be different and there may be insufficient democratic checks in the USA so that you could compliment such systems without serious corruption problems.
Your post if full of crap - are you a troll? (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me debunk some of your disinformation for the benefit of those who are more interested in the truth rather than sensationalism:
Anyone who cares to visit UK towns late at night will see the usual muggers and vandals, all wearing the same identical grey sweatshirts and anoraks with identical deep grey hoods.
I live and work in London and I regularly go out late at night in and around the capital. I've done so for over 15 years. Total number of times I've been attacked in the street: 0.
Contrary to your anecdotal opinion, the streets aren't lined up with muggers and vandals looking to relieve me of my wallet or smash up shop windows.
Similarly, not every street corner in the average American city is populated by crack dealers looking to sell you a fix, crack whores looking to blow you to earn one, or crack heads looking to pop a cap in your ass.
The CCTV cameras may catch drunks who are too stoned to care - another delightful facet of UK life - but will then have no deterrent effect whatsoever.
Drunks don't get stoned. Drunks get drunk. Stoners get stoned. Duh.
That aside, alcoholism isn't half the issue here that it is in the US, so please don't suggest that drunken rampaging youths are as prominent as you seem to think muggers and vandals are.
Yes, people sometimes leave a pub, club or a bar drunk but let's not pretend that doesn't happen in the US. In fact, when I was at university, the people who got the most drunk and the most wrecked on a regular basis were overseas students from, surprise, surprise, the US. Yet, amazingly, I don't have a mental picture of all Americans having a drinking problem (apart, of course, from the George W. Bush and family).
The simple problem is that for the last 30+ years the UK has put large amounts of money into policing Northern Ireland and playing at being a world power (despite being poorer than Germany, France or Italy which don't play those games any more) and is now too cheap to have a proper police force.
First of all, when was Italy ever a world power? Or when did France and Germany ever have empires that were on par with the British empire? Ever heard of Canada, Australia, India, etc, all former British colonies?
I think you need to buy a new history text book and a new atlas because the ones that you've got now are useless.
Secondly, since when was the UK economy inferior to Italy's? It's probably ahead or on par with that of France and, perhaps, a notch or two behind Germany's. But, given that both France and Germany have bigger populations (much bigger in Germany's case), that's hardly surprising is it? I don't have exact figures to hand but I know that the GDP per capita of all three countries isn't more than a few percentage points apart. So, I ask you, how are we poorer than Germany, France and Italy?
While you're browsing Amazon for those school books why don't you pick up an economy text as well?
All this biometric scan and CCTV stuff is about trying to do things on no money, while wasting nearly $10 billion a year putting wall to wall police and soldiers into NI and supporting its backward economy.
Sorry, but you seem to be stuck in the 1980s. Perhaps I could interest you in living in the 21st century?
There haven't been troops actively patrolling Northern Ireland for many years now. The peace process there is advanced - although not as advanced as I or many others would like - and the levels of sectarian violence are almost non-existant. The cost of policing in Northern Ireland isn't a multi-billion dollar operation, not by a long shot.
Backward economy? Sure, the troubles in Northern Ireland hurt the local economy but people aren't exactly living in caves there. There are jobs there just like there are jobs everywhere, and, now that peace has finally broken out, a lot more employers are looking to open up sites in Northern Ireland.
The UK is now about to build 2 aircraft carriers to, and I quote the BBC, "Project UK power around the world".
The Royal Navy's commissioned two new carriers to replace two aging ones that are being decommissioned. The Navy's aircraft carriers HMS Invincible and HMS Hermes were the vital cogs in liberating the Falkland Islands after the 1982 Argentinian invasion. Without them, there would have been no way that the islanders could have been freed, proof enough that their not just for show.
The Fleet Air Arm also played a critical role in the Gulf War, and is on standby to perform its duty there once again should Britain go to war with Iraq once more.
So what's your point here? That Britain, an island state with dependencies in every ocean, shouldn't have a navy capable of protecting its interests?
Its Prime Minister wants to go and sort out foreign countries while at home the infrastructure is falling apart and, in a country where handguns are banned, gun crime is rising faster than any other.
Yeah, well I agree with you there. Our Prime Minister spends too much time worrying about standing "shoulder to shoulder" with George W. Bush than he should. I don't want a war with Iraq and neither do 90 percent of the British public. 75 percent don't trust George W. Bush either. 90 percent are convinced that he'll go to war with Iraq no matter what the UN inspectors report. It's sad that our PM is dragging us into a war that we don't want just so he can be Dubya's best friend.
Your gun crime argument is more crap though. Bare in mind that the total number of gun crimes in the whole UK for the whole of 2002 was around 3,900. And also consider that the definition of a gun crime includes waving around a replica (ie, imitation) firearm just as much as it does a crime that involves an actual gun. The number of actual gun crimes that involved a gun actually being fired was probably one fifth or one tenth of that figure.
Still, 3,900-odd gun crimes in a country with a population of 65 million. Compared to how many in a country with a population of 300 million (the USA)?
I've got more chance of being hit by lightning or winning the national lottery (14 million to 1 odds) than being shot by someone in the street. Can you say the same?
Yep, gun crime sure is "out of control" over here.
It's a pity that George keeps pandering to his little pal Tony instead of telling him to go home, sort out his own crappy country and shut the fsck up.
Oh I wish it were so. What you don't seem to realise is that just about every country on the planet, even America's oldest and closest allies, is opposed to George W. Bush's foreign policy blunders - Kyoto, missile treaties, landmines, the International Criminal Court, steel tariffs (free trade, pah!), the ongoing Middle East crisis, and, above all, war with Iraq.
If it wasn't for Tony Blair's poodle impression then George W. Bush would be all alone in wanting to go to war with Iraq. Bush needs Blair's support - not the other way around. What's amazing is that he's willing to give it, despite the overwhelming opposition of the British electorate. If the situation were reversed, and Americans voters were opposed to helping Britain fight a war, there's no way that Bush would lift a finger.
So, as you can see, your world view and, even your local view of Britain, is pretty off the ball. How you can open your mouth to offer such off-base opinions is amazing. In future, please try to restrict your comments to subjects on which you actually know something about. That way you'll save me the trouble of another lenghty posting rebutting such mindless and misinformed drivel.
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.
Re: The Ben Franklin Quote (Score:3, Insightful)
The Franklin quote is cited in every privacy story. There sure seem to be more and more boneheads every day who need to hear it. It seems that most people really don't mind a tyrannical snooping government as long as they're taken care of.
I gave up my essential liberties to obtain a little temporary security, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt. [zazzle.com]
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?
Re:Perhaps you should check you facts (Score:3, Insightful)
1. The overwhelming majority of CCTV in the UK are privately owned and maintained.
True. But this includes open-air CCTV, CCTV on shopping streets, council estates etc. AFAIK (and I am often wrong) you don't get CCTV being manned by the police, simply because there are better things to do with a trained officer. So they contract it out to private companies. And while I don't have an objection to being filmed whilst in M&S, it is slightly galling that some private company is filming me when I'm walking down the street.
It's the same problem I have with the latest wheeze of letting parkies and binmen fine people on the spot for littering - lack of accountability.
4. Most CCTV footage is very poor, even when enhanced.
In which case, one is tempted to ask what the point of the bloody things is.
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?
Heh. If they wanted to track you, they could always follow your mobile phone. And Oxford Street still has the densest CCTV coverage in the world.
You have to admit that the Govt. does have a thing about CCTV. If only because it is much cheaper than trying to hire extra bobbies. (Of course, I'd rather there was a policeman around to stop me being mugged in the first place, rather than hoping some minimum-wage yahoo caught it on CCTV but what do I know...)
Yeah, residents of the US can't really talk about our rights being eroded, but it doesn't mean it isn't happening. The Criminal Justice Act, the RIPA and whatever crap is being introduced this year should be proof enough.
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:2)
Re:let's be practical (Score:2)
Not necessarily. The fact that a national ID is mandatory to own does does not necessarily mean that the cops will get the right to demand it at any time.
Just as while the cops can force you to submit DNA samples etc, but only if there is a warrant of some kind.
Tor
Re:US and when ID is mandatory (Score:3, Informative)
One: The standard is called "reasonable suspicion." RS is required to stop someone, or to detain for a "reasonable period for investigatory purposes. There's no bright-line rule about how long is "reasonable," but the courts are pretty flexible and are extremely unlikely to hold less than 30 minutes as unreasonable unless there's no basis for the stop in the first place. It's a pretty minimal standard: Walking down the street, handing something to the driver of a car, and walking away can easily qualify. RS also authorizes the officer to require ID, to use that force which is reasonable to effect the stop (including handcuffing when the subject gives indications of either fight or flight), and can justify a protective search for weapons, if the officer reasonably suspects the suspect may be carrying them. The relevant case law is Terry vs. Ohio, and the Court has pretty much sustained itself on that one. (The case you cite actually affirms Terry as to the "reasonable suspicion" standard. If you had actually read it, you'd have seen it.)
Two: ID can be required for administrative purposes (access to secure facilities like courthouses) and by any private entity for pretty much any private purpose.
Three: When I contact someone for a violation, where it goes depends a lot on whether or not he's identified to my satisfaction. If he doesn't have any form of ID, or gives me another reason to believe that he won't show up on his court date, then he's not going to be released from the scene on a citation. He MAY be released on no bond, but only after a ride and the booking procedures. The law does not obligate me as an officer to just take strangers at their word, and frequently requires that I not do so.
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:let's be practical (Score:3, Interesting)
give me an id card, but give me a new government first.
Re:let's be practical (Score:2)
Who is this "we" that you are talking about?
The UK doesnt have a Social Security Number, and its only recently that there have been photo driving licences here; up till the time of their introducion, the UK drivers were more orderly than they are today.
Whilst the cards might be harder to crack (which is bullshit, just ask Marcus Kuhn about this) the point is that these cards will tie ALL your infomation to one unique identifier.
If you have an SSN, or you are a European that is already compelled to have an ID card you might well say "pfah! whats the difference?". The people in the UK are not yet numbered in this way, so we have alot to loose, unlike you. We are not "whining about loosing our freedoms"; we still have ours in this respect.
And all this bullshit about CCTV is simply bullshit. CCTV cameras can be dismantled; an invasive and all pervasive ID card system, like lymph node cancer, will be impossible to remove from the UK once they are introduced.
I am not a number... I am a free man! (Score:2)
A more-secure driver's license is probably a good thing... but it's only as secure at the procedures required to obtain one. If any Tom/Dick/Harry can simply trot down to the DMV with a birth certificate and get their spanking-new Biometric-secured(TM) Driver's License... then we are wasting our time and money. If someone DOES steal your identity, (or the computer mixes up your name with the other Dave Smith's fingerprints) getting it fixed may take some fairly extraordinary measures, particularly if these secure cards are "always right."
The other, more-interesting question that should be asked is this: What will this super-secure "identity card" be used for, and what circumstances will require you to produce it?
Re:let's be practical (Score:3, Insightful)
I always love this argument, regardless of what it's applied to. "They're already halfway up your ass, why not just push in all the way?"
If our freedom was simply degenerating and we could never become more free than we are right now, those of us that weren't slaves or indentured servants would be regularly appearing in front of government panels to assert that we are not and never have been communist sympathizers.
Why not ? (Score:2, Interesting)
Having a central repository of all citizens with their biometric data may be a problem, but thats another story.
Re:Why not ? (Score:2)
Indeed, it is another story, a story about complete and utter loss of privacy. Which many do not find acceptable.
As for your other points. Bio ID doesn't work. Finger print scans have been fooled by Gummi bears [counterpane.com]. Retina scans are unpleasant, due to how close your eye has to be to the scan - did the guy at the gas station before you have conjunctivitis for example ? Trauma to the eye and some diseases can alter the retinal structure [sans.org].
Identity theft will not change, any chip the government can put in a card, will be cracked within days or weeks. Once cracked fraudsters and terrorists lives are easier, because they own false id that according to the government, guarantees that it is you.
This system is a total ineffective waste of money, and erodes any privacy citizens have remaining.
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: (Score:2)
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.
Since When Has The Will Of The People Mattered? (Score:2, Informative)
Not a good thing.. (Score:2)
We must all be wary of such technology. This could be a dangerous thing depending upon how it's implemented. For instance, if it was used as a way of tracking you and making sure that advertising is beamed directly into your ear or eyes then this would be VERY BAD. Privacy is a fundamental part of our rights and should NEVER be trod upon. If this was ever implemented I would want to make sure that it would never encroach upon my rights of anonymnity.
Re:Not a good thing.. (Score:2)
Oh, I remember: Life, Liberty and Anonimity. How could I ever forget. What country are you from?
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.
Interesting Reasons (Score:2, Insightful)
So we then come to "enhances control of illegal immigration" and "a general view that making it easier to identify individuals was a good thing.", IMO - and I say this from first-hand experience - the British, and the English in particular, are very insular people. Don't much like foriegners, stick to their own little circle - don't venture outside their comfort zone basically. I've lost the links, but I've seen studies showing that roughly 70-80% of British will grow up, work, marry, and die within 20-50km of their birthplace. Added to the fact they _still_ don't really consider themselves fully a part of Europe, I can see why "enhancing control over illegal immigrants" would be a good button to push.
Personally though, I find it a bit sad that we are moving towards a world in which cards such as this are seen as necessary. Because the sub-text I'm getting from the article (and this may be just me) is that the Brits don't want to make it so much easier to be identified, as harder not to be identified: with strong links between "identification" and being a legitimate, law-abiding citizen.
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:Rusults may be valid (Score:2)
You arent paying attention. That survey was created by Shlumberger, who is trying to sell a turnkey ID card system to the UK government.
Not everyone dislikes this kind of thing,
So what? If its immoral it should not be introduced. Period.
and not all such ideas are bad.
All mandatatory, centralized ID card systems, where each person is given a unique and permanent identification number are wrong. There. I said it.
Would there be problems with such things? Probably.
Agreed.
Would such a card improve other things? Probably.
Improve what for whom? Will they improve the control of the $liberty of the populaiton by the government. Yes.
I for one would find a nice universal card nice, something that had my medical info on, SS, birth info and such. If I went to the hospital they could swipe one card and get all the info they need.
You can get these cards already, issued by private organizations that you have to pay to be a member of. If you want that, you can have it. No one is against the existance of these cards.
Or if I needed a passport one swipe and all forms are filled.
A passport is for one thing and one thing only. it serves its purpose perfectly. It is not used for any other purpose, and no one can compel you to produce it, outside of a very specific and well devined curcumstance. The card that you want, will be asked for by everyone, everywhere. See the other threads dude.
The key is that the card must not be tied to a company. It should be a gov. group running it.
Now I know you are insane.
That way no group can use it to manipulate people.
OMG, ive been trolled!!
A company may supply the tech, but has no bearing over the us, and can't do anything to lock it's use into one of their products.
Nothing to see here. Move along!
Colorado USA... (Score:2, Interesting)
I was told I had to do it or I couldn't drive in Colorado.
Looks like Colorado is WAY ahead of the UK on this...
Go USA go...! Rah rah for the home team...!
Secures your privacy (Score:2, Insightful)
Green cards scam's, credit card fraud, theft on many levels would be wiped out.
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:3, Interesting)
As someone who has lived between the UK and Spain for many years, and is both a UK passport holder and Spanish ID card holder, perhaps I can give more insight into this.
Personally, I think the situation in the UK is much more open to abuse than the Spanish situation. The reason the Spanish do not worry about their ID cards is because there is nothing "evil" about them - in fact, having a clear way to prove your identity is very useful.
Imagine what a Spaniard thinks when they try to open a bank account in the UK. They ask you for your driving licence! If you don't have one, they ask for a recent gas or electricity bill. Seriously! How nuts is that!
When I lived in London I a met a local who was unemployed and was drawing unemployment benefit and housing benefit in the names of four different people - people he had just invented! He told me how he did it (it is suprisingly easy). Also, about ten years ago I applied for a new copy of my UK drivers licence (the old one was getting tatty) and was told that I had aleady been sent a replacement - apparently someone had applied for a replacement copy in my name - I deduced that when I had shared a house with some other people someone there had applied for the drivers licence in my name. These types of things rarely happen in Spain because they have a better way for individuals to prove their identity.
So, you may think that the Spanish way of doing things is bad, but believe me, there is a very good reason when Spaniards express disbelief at UK citizens when they say they have no identity card.
Re:This is a complete lie. (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because a single company whose staff are stupid would not rent you a car, doesnt mean that everyone in the UK should mandatorily be carrying an ID card.
You say that you dont have a credit card "because you dont like them". Extrapolate this. Imagine that you are forced to have a credit card by legislation. Would you think that that was wrong?
As for the rights that you have thrown away, I cant answer you sufficiently because your idea of what rights are are different to mine.
The problem of DSS fraud is soluable without everyone in the UK being forced to carry an ID card, this is obvious.
There is nothing wrong with having a means to identify yourself to others, what is wrong, and what most people against ID cards are saying, is that this card should not be issued by a government, and it should not ever be complusory.
We just dissagree! It happens!
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.
flawed reasoning (Score:3, Insightful)
Current ID cards have almost no protection against identity theft. You see, even in the US we have national ID cards, they just don't work very well. New identity cards are an attempt to improve the situation.
If you think they aren't going to succeed, then you have to say why. But your blanket statement is simply logically flawed.
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".
The people of the UK are Europeans--it's a simple geographic and political fact.
Speak for yourself, not for me! (Score:3, Interesting)
Thank you for making that decision on my behalf. You are - at least in my case - completely wrong. It seems to me that it's only a highly vocal minority who have anything against ID cards, most of whom I wouldn't be surprised to find wearing tin-foil hats. If I had the option of carrying a single, conclusive identification document, I'd jump at the chance.
It took me two weeks last year to open a joint bank account with my wife, due to the bank quibbling over what was suitable identification and what wasn't. Birth certificates, marriage certificates, credit card statements, bank statements, utility bills, NHS cards and signature samples were among the items that were requested and submitted to prove who we were and where we lived. This was despite the fact I'd already had an account with them for 10 years. The really laughable bit was when the bank insisted on seeing a utility bill in both our names, so I phoned British Gas, asked them to add my wife's name and send a new bill. British Gas did so without question - they didn't want any kind of proof of who the additional name on the bill was, but somehow this makes it ok for the bank. I know other people who have had the same kind of trouble.
Please let me have my ID card. If you don't wish to carry one, and would prefer to carry all the other statements, bills and certificates in order to demonstrate who you are, then that's your look out.
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
Re:The question asked to citizens (Score:2)
"Those willing to give up freedom for security, deserve neither"
Re:The question asked to citizens (Score:2)
(Also, what "citizens"? We're "subjects," alas!)
Re:The question asked to citizens (Score:2)
Firstly, people in the UK dont have ID cards.
Secondly, what about the 3rd 4th (n+1)th options ie:
[_]Permanently opt out of the ID card scheme.
Like battery chickens, the idea of being outside of a cage is like a flatlander imagining a mountain range. Europeans have ID cards "in the blood".
Re:The question asked to citizens (Score:2)
A couple of years ago there was a local referrendum for a town which was going to have a new hospital built.
The council who supported the controversial PPP [Public Private Partnership - Privately owned hospital hired by the public effectively] framed the referrendum in such a way.
It was basically "Would you like a lovely new hospital with new machines, excellent healthcare and loads of beds?"
"Or, would you prefer dying in agony, ignored by underpaid overworked trainee doctors on a trolley in a filthy coridoor, in the current hospital?"
Apparently a huge majority wanted to die!
The new hospital was rejected... or rather the privatised hospital was.
I think they saw through the crap.
And why the government would want this (Score:4, Interesting)
- Niccolo Machiavelli, "The Prince"
Taken from the Alpha Centauri computer game.
Biometric scans in UK (Score:2, Interesting)
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."
It's better than what we have.... (Score:2, Insightful)
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?
UK=burgeoning surveillance state nixing freedoms (Score:2, Insightful)
These audacious power grabs by the "liberal" Tony Blair are only a part of a hard turn towards authoritarianism in the UK. Right now they are trying to dump the right to trial by jury in many circumstances--basically when the government (them again!) determines it is dangerous or unwieldy to have a jury trial. 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). People now go to jail in the UK for so-called "hate speech".
We have A LOT of problems in the US. A government that wants to be able to detain you forever, without trial, by one man's fiat (you are an enemy combatant!) obviously needs to be checked, and quickly. But in the UK, the populace seems to accept the government-fostered fantasy that the government is actually working for the "common good", as opposed to the pure aggrandizement of power whenever possible, which is what EVERY government ALWAYS tries if allowed to do so. What has broken their will, I don't know--years of inept socialist rule? Some post-colonial ennui? Too much spotted dick?
Whatever it is, I hope to hell we can keep it out of here. We have enough problems of our own right now.
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.
Shlumberger Gulf War Profiteer (Score:2, Interesting)
They have a huge business in Oil extraction services [slb.com] and technologies.
These people are evil folks; but then, a company that employs agressive lobbying and spin tactics in order to turn a population into fleecable sheep (each ID card will cost over $25 per person in the UK, now thats what I call "Wool") can only be bad.
in other news (Score:4, Funny)
I mean, come on.
-- james
id cards (Score:2)
the government lies
The "consultation" process has been flawed and may well be challenged in the courts.
The
See www.stand.org.uk
Why are ID cards so bad? (Score:2, Insightful)
Someone earlier said that you don't have to carry your drivers licence in the UK when you drive, well technically you do. It is an offence to not produce a licence if stopped by the police, the worst you can get though is a caution and a notice to show your licence, MOT and insurance at a police station in seven days.
Also in many european countries people are required to carry id cards at all times, these have photos on them and could have other data too.
Just my 2 cents worth.
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.
Re:They have the data... (Score:3, Insightful)
This is what the Spanish already have in place. We can see that it does not stop ETA from doing anything, or any of the other crime that takes place in Spain.
It does of course, put a huge burden on the ordinary Spaniard, and has stripped away his privacy, and right to interact freely in the private sector.
It has to be said that a country that lived under Franco for decades would probably be more inclined to accept such a measure. The British have never been under such rule, and so when we kick against this type of government program, it looks strange to the Europeans, who are deeply habituated to being submerged to the neck in beaurocratic molasses every day of thier lives.
Your data, your address, medical records, school records, passport details and records of where you have travelled...all of this is your personal property. No one has the right to collate it into a centralized database, and certainly, no contractor has the right to make a profit out of the mandatory management of this data.
ID cards constitute an unneeded extra layer of intrusion into a persons life; they are instruments of economic and physical control, and they should be shunned at every opportunity.
The idea that a Spanish child is fingerprinted as a matter of routine, like a criminal, for the purpose of an ID card is deeply offensive to the British, and I would imagine, to most Americans.
It will not wash here in the UK.
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:
Re:It's all relative. (Score:3, Interesting)
And that makes it right, how?
We aren't giving consent to the government to access our curriculum vitae's - that's already been done a long time ago. At this point, we are just making it more convenient for them.
And that makes it right, how?
The old "it's already being done in this circumstance so why not this way too" logic reminds me of an old story I heard about how one goes about boiling a frog--that is, one degree at a time so he doesn't realize what's happening to him until it's too late.
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: (Score:2)
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!