Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Security Your Rights Online Technology

Biometric ID Cards Ready For Trial In UK 416

Posted by timothy from the read-the-article dept.
0ctal writes "Looks like us lucky Brits are getting ID cards no matter what... A 10,000 user trial starts next week. There's been a fair amount of debate on this recently, and it's been coming for some time, but live trials are sooner than expected. The trial is set up to evaluate three competing biometric products. Qinetiq, quoted by the story, are a government backed company set up to use MoD tech in civilian apps."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Biometric ID Cards Ready For Trial In UK More

Biometric ID Cards Ready For Trial In UK

Comments Filter:

  • Tin foil! (Score:4, Funny)

    by dj245 ( 732906 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @05:10AM (#8963842) Homepage
    Looks like us lucky Brits are getting tin foil hats real soon now (TM)... A 10 user trial starts next week. There's been a fair amount of commentary on tin foil hats recently, and it's been coming for some time, but live trials are sooner than expected. The trial is set up to evaluate five competing brands of aluminium foil. Reynolds and Diamond, not quoted by the story, are a both leading company set up to use aluminium foil tech in civilian headgear apps."
  • Here [bbc.co.uk] - not sure if its linked off the main article or not, but discusses a lot of the reasons why its a good and bad idea.

    Glad to see that privacy concerns, and not having to prove that you are a citizen are on that list.

    To be honest, i'd be for ID cards in a way - we do have a bit of a problem with illegal immigrants in this country lately, who are totally abusing the system - the current trend is buying cheap cars, and then they just drive around the city in them with no tax insurance or anything.

    Having ID cards would mean these guys could be instantly checked out, as many don't speak English and the police forces don't have the resources to be able to question them in any of the many different languages they use.

    • Re:A good Q&A on this from the BBC too... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Sexy Bern ( 596779 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @05:21AM (#8963869)
      I'm more concerned about the long-term implications.

      Today, NI number and basic details.

      Next decade, criminal convictions get added.

      Next decade, genetic abnormalities get added.

      Next decade, political stance gets added (gotta get those anti-terrorism measures in there somewhere).

      Paranoid? Maybe. Look back to what happened Germany in the 1930s and we should be very, very concerned about how this kind of "information" could be abused.

      • In the long term, Isaac Newton wins. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. I'll show you mine if you show me yours.

        If we have to carry cards, we can also carry card readers. If we have to show id, then the person requesting id also has to show id. We swap cards and read them into our respective card-reading wireless terminals.

        Technology is neutral. When we sense that we are being outnumbered by a more organized ecosystem, there will inevitably be an organized defense. Organized
    • To be honest, i'd be for ID cards in a way - we do have a bit of a problem with illegal immigrants in this country lately, who are totally abusing the system - the current trend is buying cheap cars, and then they just drive around the city in them with no tax insurance or anything.

      What exactly is to stop them using someone elses ID? The basic problem is that with any such scheme the "bad guys" will simply either use bogus IDs or steal the identity of honest people. ID cards which cannot be forged and tot
      • What exactly is to stop them using someone elses ID?

        That would be the biometric identifiers. The word is even used in the slashdot headline, it's not like you even need to read the article to find that out!
        • And how would an ordinary person, or even an ordinary police officer, verify biometric information? When you present your ID card to open a bank account, are they really going to take a DNA sample, send it off to the lab and compare it with the information encoded on your card?

          Biometric information will not be a practical deterrent to identity card theft and fraud. The only pieces of information that will deter theft are the pieces that can be checked by everyone - the photograph and the signature. Thus t

        • That would be the biometric identifiers. The word is even used in the slashdot headline, it's not like you even need to read the article to find that out!

          All that proves is that the card and the cardholder match. Putting fingerprints, retina scan or whatever information on the card dosn't address this issue any more than having a photograph (the most common form of current biometrics) on the card.

    • ID cards don't work against illegal immigrants. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Moderation abuser ( 184013 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @07:22AM (#8964123)
      Go ask the Spanish government about the 800,000 illegal immigrants from Morocco living in Spain *without* national ID cards. ID cards are compulsory in Spain.

      They *also* don't make a blind bit of difference against terrorist organisations, as Spain also found out to their cost.

      It's pure myth that ID cards are effective tools against illegal immigration and terrorism.

      • mod parent up.

        I'll answer my own rhetorical question I asked in my (rejected) submission: what countries will follow if Britain is successful? Answer: all other modern world countries -- only a matter of time here in the US, imo.

        Here [ccla.org] is a article mentioning at least some of the uses of national ID cards:

        The purposes and uses of the cards vary dramatically. In some countries, the cards are needed only to travel abroad, while in others, they are needed to travel within the country as well. The informati

    • Sorry but this rubbish. If someone is driving around without a licence or insurance, why do you suddenly think an ID card (especially a voluntary one) is going to make a damned bit of difference?

      IDs are simply white elephants. They won't prevent crime (in fact ID theft will become a massive problem), they won't stop terrorism (they didn't in Spain) and they won't stop immigration (because people are desperate).

      I would be in favour of immigrants being DNA swabbed, fingerprinted & photographed (all of

  • Blunkett scares the... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by cs02rm0 ( 654673 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @05:18AM (#8963861)
    ...crap out of me.

    Ok, so add biometric identification to the ID we already have; passports, driving licence, etc. but why on earth are we having this centralisation? Surely everything we've learnt about security technologies says a layered approach is needed?

    What happens when someone beats the system? Everyone will trust it completely because nutters like Blunkett say biometric id is unbeatable. What about the human element of the system? If someone exploits this database they can write themselves a few new lives, delete other peoples lives, etc.

    It scares me. Ah well, I'll just move abroad with my girlfriend and take our 30 000 of student loan with us.

    • Re:Blunkett scares the... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gnu-generation-one ( 717590 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @05:39AM (#8963923) Homepage
      "Blunkett scares the crap out of me."

      More to the point, he's literally the only person in the UK who thinks ID cards are a good thing and yet still they're being pushed through.

      Even the house of commons thinks he's crazy, and everyone else has been wondering for years why Blunkett still has a job.

      Choice quote from STAND:
      "Privacy International have worked out what else we could spend 6 billion [pounds sterling] on, instead of ID cards. I didn't realise 10,000 policemen were so cheap, relatively speaking."

      • Re:Blunkett scares the... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by gnu-generation-one ( 717590 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @05:45AM (#8963932) Homepage
        Among other things [stand.org.uk] we still don't know:
        • The actual reason for the introduction of ID cards;
        • What ID cards can and cannot do;
        • Who will be able to demand an ID card and under what circumstances;
        • If ownership of ID cards will be compulsory;
        • If the carrying of ID cards will be compulsory;
        • Whether all parties asking for ID cards will be able to see all of the information held on the card;
        • The security of the ID cards and the centralised database;
        • The form of any biometric data to be held on ID cards;
        • How any biometric data might be collected and how much time and effort would be required of that process;
        • The ability of the cardholding citizen to view personal data held on ID cards;
        • The accessibility of such information to people using minority computer systems, to those without computers and those requiring assistive technologies;
        • The ability of the citizen to demand the correction of misleading data held on the ID card;
        • The supervision of the centralised database necessary to operate the ID card system;
        • Whether there will be data on the ID card to which the citizen does not have access;
        • The ability of a citizen to track the usage of their ID card and by whom;
        • The ability of the government to track ID card usage;
        • If centralised data will be shared between government departments, researchers or commercial organisations;
        • If personal data will be exported from the country and hence out of the remit of the Data Protection Acts;
        • What protections will be put in place to prevent "function creep";
        • What protections will be put in place to prevent abuse of the ID card system by future administrations;
        • What protections will be put in place to prevent official abuse of the ID card system;
        • How the ID card system will not discriminate against ethnic minorities;
        • If the ID card scheme violates the Data Protection Acts;
        • If the ID card scheme violates the European Convention on Human Rights (as incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998), especially as legal opinions suggest it will

      • Re:Blunkett scares the... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by jeremyp ( 130771 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @06:14AM (#8964003) Homepage Journal

        More to the point, he's literally the only person in the UK who thinks ID cards are a good thing and yet still they're being pushed through.

        This survey [bbc.co.uk] shows that your assertion is wrong.

        • That survey was commisioned by an IT company with a vested interest.

          Besides, the home office has previously discounted such surveys as not representitive. To get a true representation of public opinion they ran a public consultation lasting several months. In that, the majority of respondents were against the cards, but the home office fudged the figures to say otherwise.

          When I wrote to them the reply from Beverley Hughes said they had chosen to ignore a huge number of email responses because they were no
        • "This survey shows that your assertion is wrong."

          It does indeed, well spotted. Perhaps instead of saying that nobody agrees with David Blunkett, I should have said that at least 800 people in Britain, when asked a question that we don't know the details of, responded in a way which could be interpreted as their "backing" of a plan for ID cards.

          [ ] Do you support terrorism?

          [ ] Do you fear terrorism?

          [ ] If we introduce an ID card to stop terrrorism, would you support it?

          Of course, these people

        • I could be mistaken, but acording to Fridays Today programme [bbc.co.uk], this was a Mori telephone poll.

          Perhaps Mori would have seen a different result if, every time someone told them to fuck off and slammed the phone down, they treated as an 'I value my privacy' responce.

    • Ah well, I'll just move abroad with my girlfriend and take our 30 000 of student loan with us.
      Come on over to the US, we don't have biometric ID's yet (for once, the UK beats us to something!). You can even stay at my place for free, if you let me use your girlfriend every now and then...
      • Come on over to the US, we don't have biometric ID's yet
        That would be very clever. To avoid having to carry biometric ID in the UK, where he has the protection of the European convention on human rights he moves to the US, where he gets fingerprinted on entry, and looses all human rights protection. Aliens are not covered by the bill of rights you know.
        • To avoid having to carry biometric ID in the UK, where he has the protection of the European convention on human rights he moves to the US, where he gets fingerprinted on entry, and looses all human rights protection. Aliens are not covered by the bill of rights you know.

          That would require a "radical interpretation of the text". Given that very few parts draw any distinction between people who are US citizens and those who are not...

    • One of the worst things is that, when presenting his proposals to the House, he said (something along the lines of):

      No-one has anything to fear from being correctly identified.

      ... which has been shown to be wrong - a glaringly obvious example is the automated identification of people in Belgium in the '30s, including their race, which was oh-so-useful to the invading Nazis when they wanted to liquidise the Jewish population.

      Technically, I suppose, that would be misleading the House. It's still, just abou

    • Ok, so add biometric identification to the ID we already have; passports, driving licence, etc.

      All that does is make it easier to match the document and it's holder. It dosn't prove much otherwise. Also a driving licence was intended to indicate that the holder was competent to drive motor vehicles, subsequently abused as an identity document

      but why on earth are we having this centralisation? Surely everything we've learnt about security technologies says a layered approach is needed?

      Most people don't

  • Anonymity (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Grakun ( 706100 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @05:20AM (#8963867)
    How much longer until they implant GPS devices into everybody, so that the data can be used for proving they're telling the truth about their whereabouts. (Why they couldn't work, why they couldn't have committed a crime, that they didn't stop anywhere on the way home, etc.)
    • I dont know what scares me more - the fact that GPS tracking of civilians is already here (you didn't honestly think your phone's IMEI number wasnt going to be associated with your ID card number did you?) or the fools who post up to message boards with the "I don't mind being spied on by the Government as I have nothing to hide" "argument".

  • Join the campaign (Score:5, Informative)

    by Albanach ( 527650 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @05:21AM (#8963871) Homepage
    stand.org.uk [stand.org.uk] has a wealth of information on the plans. It's kept up to date and lets you know what you can do to help the campaign against these cards.

    Visit the site, write a letter then Fax your MP. [faxyourmp.com]

  • Does anyone know if this has passed through Parliament? Everything I've heard on this subject makes it sound as if Blunkett has just decided unilaterally.

    • Re:Parliament (Score:4, Informative)

      by MisterLawyer ( 770687 ) <mikelawyer AT gmail DOT com> on Sunday April 25, 2004 @05:29AM (#8963899)
      >The Home Office hopes the scheme will be compulsory by 2014.

      It hasn't had to pass through parliament because so far it isn't compulsory.

      Furthermore, it would probably pass without too much problem because there is generally good public support.

      >News of the pilot follows an opinion poll suggesting 80% of people backed a national ID card scheme.

      • Re:Parliament (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Gumshoe ( 191490 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @05:40AM (#8963924) Journal
        Furthermore, it would probably pass without too much problem because there is generally good public support.


        Is there? Personal anecdote aside, I honestly don't know anyone who likes the idea at all.

        Apart from anything else, the rationale behind the scheme just doesn't make any sense. According to Blunkett, it will help "combat terrorism". I want to know how it will do this exactly.

        An often ignored factoid in the this debate is that Spain has compulsory ID scheme and it's just endured a major terrorist atrocity. I honestly can't see how ID cards help anybody but the Government and the health of its coffers.

        • Re:Parliament (Score:3, Insightful)

          by CmdrGravy ( 645153 )
          I thought that during Blunketts public consultation most of the people who responded were against the idea.

          I too don't see how on earth this is going to help with anything, the various methods of ID people have at the moment; birth certificates, passports, driving licences seem perfectly adequate to me. If they are worried about the security of these methods then they should spend the money on sorting out the existing systems.

          Whatever ID card they do come up with won't be 100% unforgeable but as soon as s
          • Blunkett's consultation showed almost 80% against the idea of a compulsory ID card. The Home Office just disregarded 5000 opinions forwarded through stand.org.uk, and stated that 66% were in favour.
      • Good public support? What question was asked of the 80% who were in favour?

        Last year, the UK government undertook a public consultation into the exercise. Stand.org.uk did not trust them to honestly report negative views, so they set up a form for people to contact the government, and Stand kept a record of the responses. Well, the government did lie about the response, here is an extract of a fax I sent to my MP last year:

        According to Hansard, on 28th of April, in an answer to Mr Paul Marsden, Beverl

  • Qinetiq! (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 25, 2004 @05:26AM (#8963890)
    Qinetiq [qinetiq.co.uk] Would that be the same incompetent lot that "lost" a barge full of landmines in the English channel? Not sure I would turst them with this kind of project.

    As for people being in favour of this scheme. There was a big online have your say for this last year. Several thousand people objected, they some how lost all of these negative votes and decided to count them as 1. That way they still had a majority in favour vote from the Chancellors freinds (me cynical?)

  • Compulsory how? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by October_30th ( 531777 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @05:28AM (#8963897) Homepage Journal
    scheme will pave the way for compulsory identity cards for everyone within the next decade.

    Does this mean that if a cop stops you on the street you must either be able to produce a valid ID card or take a trip to the police station so that your identity can be confirmed?

    Where I live a government issue ID (or at least a valid social security number) is practically required if you wish to drive a car legally, open a bank account, get insured, get a job, benefit from the public healthcare and so on. Yet, we do not have a legal obligation to carry an ID and show it to any cop on the street. Sounds rather draconian to me.

    "What has anybody to worry about having their true identity known?" he said.

    Ah. Yet another version of "If you have done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to fear".

    • Does this mean that if a cop stops you on the street you must either be able to produce a valid ID card or take a trip to the police station so that your identity can be confirmed?

      According to Mr. Blunkett on Breakfast with Frost this morning, the proposal is they they will be as with driving licenses - you don't have to carry them all the time, but you can be given a 'producer' and have to report with valid ID to a police station within 7 days.

      Of course, just because that's the initial proposal it doesn

      • How the hell will that work?
        Policeman: "Hey, you! What are you doing?"
        ManOnStreet: "I'm out for a walk."
        Policeman: "At 3am?"
        ManOnStreet: "Yes, I just finished a shift at the call centre where I work."
        Policeman: "Can I see your identification sir?"
        ManOnStreet: "I don't have it with me."

        Scenario 1: Policeman: "Oh well...here's a producer, if you don't bring it to the station within 3 days then....there's not really a lot we can do, but...err...you better do it."

        Scenario 2: Policman: "Oh well...yo

  • Arggghhh! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by shrykk ( 747039 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @05:29AM (#8963900)
    It's true what they say, we don't live in a democracy, we live in a dictatorship where we get to choose the dictator every five years.

    The EU constitution, presumably soon the Euro, identity cards... The government seems intent on its "progressive" schemes no matter what the public opposition.

    • Emphatically not flamebait! (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Many people in the UK feel like this.

      Frustration at the autocratic actions of the government is widespread. The lack of an effective opposition makes it even more frustrating.

      (Sorry, I know it's lame to follow up my own post)
      Shrykk.

    • Actually the European Constitution was an extremely good thing for the UK to adopt: finally we actually have a written Constituion and some (limited) restrictions on the power of the Government.

      Prior to that the Government could legally do *ANYTHING* as long as it could get it through Parliament: and given the way Parliament operates (or doesn't these days) that means *ANYTHING*- as Blair/Blunkett's pushing of ID cards proves.

      The difference is that now they can do almost anything. Not perfect but a move i

      • Re:Arggghhh! (Score:3, Informative)

        by jeremyp ( 130771 )
        Actually, it's a myth to say that the British constitution is not written down. Large parts of it are, but in lots of different places. It's just that there is no one document labelled "British Constitution".

        Further: the EU constitution will do very little to curb the powers of the UK government. If the UK government decided to suspend general elections, the EU constitution would have nothing to say about it. However, they would never get the required law through parliament and our Head of State would
      • Not to nitpick, but I believe that the PM was against the national ID scheme until a short while ago...

    • Re:Arggghhh! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Telex4 ( 265980 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @06:26AM (#8964028) Homepage
      Yes, yes, elected dictatorship, closer to the truth than "democracy" but still a little extreme.

      Except that, according to opinion polls, the vast majority of British people are in favour of ID cards. Why? Probably because of the FUD whipped up about terrorism and asylum seekers.

      The majority of the British people are also anti-the EU Constitution, and we're now having a referendum on it. Why? Probably because of all the lies, half-truths and other crap run by the "little England" right-wingers in the Daily Mail, and the anti-EU, pro-USA Murdoch press.

      If all these screaming idiots on Slashdot would stop, step back, and give some thought to the way democracy is working at the moment, you could observe perhaps two key things:
      1. It has always been like this, or even less democratic at times
      2. There is a problem with giving power to a stupid, misled public vs. the problem with giving autocratic power to a Government; i.e. it is NOT as simple as the parent to this post suggests (nor even as simple as this point suggestins ;)


      Of course it can backfire when it comes to things like wars, "ethical" foreign policies and the like. And when you have a socialist party like New Labour doing everything it can to curry the favour of the corporate elite (who run the press and the expanding part of the economy), it really backfires sometimes.

      But please, let's not be so melodramatic about ID cards for Gods' sakes. Yes, there are some privacy concerns, but I don't really see the big deal. They have them across the EU, they're not that different to something like a driving license, and though there are questions that need answering, they're hardly as big an issue as some of the other things Blunkett is ramming through.

      It's like CCTV cameras. Though there are problems associated with mistaken identities, have yours or anyone elses' lives been made substantially worse because of their introduction? Privacy, in my opinion, is only a matter of your home and your private life, and violating other aspects of your privacy is only a problem if you are affected adversely, the invasion of privacy aside.
      • The majority of the British people are also anti-the EU Constitution, and we're now having a referendum on it.

        Perhaps someone can explain this referendum thing to me because the newspapers assume an understanding of European politics that I just don't have.

        Is the referendum at attempt to rewrite the European Union constitution or is it an attempt for the UK to pull out of the European Union? I really hope not the latter, as I'm living in London [colingregorypalmer.net] under an Irish passport.

        And while I'm off topic, why i

  • ID cards have support in the UK (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dan dan the dna man ( 461768 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @05:33AM (#8963908) Homepage Journal
    80% in favour clicky [bbc.co.uk] which to me is rather worrying. Interestingly these are being phased in by the Government due to concerns about terrorism, whereas the typically xenophobic British public is far more interested in them as a method for keeping immigration "under control". These are supposedely going to be compulsory by 2010 and the Government wishes to change the law so that carrying falsified papers leads to a HEFTY (10 year IIRC) maximum sentence. Blunkett scares the crap out of me, every week there is a new story about how he wishes to erode our civil liberties. I don't wear my tin-foil hat that often, but I have always said that as soon as ID cards become cumpulsory, I would take my citizenship, and my skills elsewhere.

    Are there similar pushes for this in the USA? - who lets face it (along with Spain) were on the sharp end of the current terrorist activity.. not the UK..
    • Thats not stricktly true.
      The UK police have been quite successfull in stopping a few events.
      1)Downing civil airliners with portable SAM launchers

      2)Gas attack on underground

      3)Confiscated 1/2 ton of fertilizer bomb

    • statistics (Score:4, Insightful)

      by tuxette ( 731067 ) * <(tuxette) (at) (gmail.com)> on Sunday April 25, 2004 @07:15AM (#8964103) Homepage Journal
      Recently in Norway, a survey showed that only a very small number of Norwegians believed in Hell. Some church people thought it was too small a number and decided to do their own survey. Suddenly more Norwegians believed in Hell. Article here [aftenposten.no] if you don't believe me.

      Yeah, I know this has nothing to do with biometric data, but it has something to do with conducting survey after survey and playing around with statistics until you get what you want. This includes surveys showing 80% of the UK population in favor of national identity cards containing biometric data.

  • Herr Adolf Blair (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CountBrass ( 590228 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @05:37AM (#8963914)

    A fair amount of debate yes: and all of it indicates a) it will be very expensive and b) we don't want it.

    But Herr Blair and his propaganda minister Josef Blunkett (aka the blind facist) have decided that that is what we must have, and have it we will.

    I think we Brits are getting to the point where we're as desperate to get rid of our right wing Prime Minister as you are to get rid of your right wing President.

    The ironic thing is that Blair is the leader of the Labour party: which was historically established to protect the rights of the working class (ie Socialist, left wing). Blair however seems to see his mission to kiss the arse of Corporate Britain and fuck the workers because if they disagree they're probably don't understand what he's saying.

    The scarey thing is a comment by Roy Hattersley (a leading old-school labour politician) that Tony Blair has a second rate mind: ie he's as thick as pig-shit. yet another thing he has in common with Bush it seems.

    Both Bush and Blair strike me as shining examples of why Universal Suffrage doesn't work. Personally I think you should have to pass an exam before you can vote. Only simple stuff like: "Who are the leaders of the 3 main parties?", "Who is the Constituional head of state?". Let's face it, if you can't answer questions like that a) you're not well enough informed to vote and b) you don't fucking deserve to be able to vote.

    • Re:Herr Adolf Blair (Score:2, Interesting)

      by timftbf ( 48204 )
      And to think that before the last reshuffle I was complaining about Jack Straw (who incidentally is a dead ringer for the Demon Headmaster, for those of you who remember) and *his* erosion of civil liberties with things like RIP. (It's down to you to prove you *don't* have the key to decode an encrypted message? Wouldn't that be, like, guilty until proven innocent?)

      It's a walk in the park compared to Herr Blunkett of ze Gestapo.

      Regards,
      Tim.
    • The ironic thing is that Blair is the leader of the Labour party: which was historically established to protect the rights of the working class (ie Socialist, left wing). Blair however seems to see his mission to kiss the arse of Corporate Britain and fuck the workers because if they disagree they're probably don't understand what he's saying.

      This is basically a socialist/communist move. Just because your basic rate of tax hasn't gone up, doesn't mean that this isn't a socialist government. Look at how mu

  • Biometrics becoming the default (Score:3, Funny)

    by PhilHibbs ( 4537 ) <snarks@gmail.com> on Sunday April 25, 2004 @05:39AM (#8963922) Journal
    One of these days, a non-biometric card will be introduced, and it will be cool and retro, and therefore newsworthy.

  • Bah! Whatever. (Score:3, Funny)

    by teamhasnoi ( 554944 ) <teamhasnoi AT yahoo DOT com> on Sunday April 25, 2004 @05:46AM (#8963934) Journal
    When do we get the RFID tags in our hands and a UPC symbol tattooed on our foreheads?

    I won't be happy until we've all lost our humanity and we're eating Soylent Green.

  • Economics of national identification (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MisterLawyer ( 770687 ) <mikelawyer AT gmail DOT com> on Sunday April 25, 2004 @05:49AM (#8963943)
    >The plans are designed to tackle identity fraud, which costs Britain an estimated 1.3bn pounds each year.

    This [bbc.co.uk] is another article on the BBC that discusses the last time Britain had a national ID card scheme, back during World War II. According to the article, it was not concerns about security shortcomings or civil liberties that ended the ID cards so much as that "the system was expensive and difficult to administer, and offered few benefits."

    >ID Plans: 2008: 80% of economically active population will carry some form of biometric identity document. Estimated cost of 3.1bn pounds.

    Administering a system where over 50,000,000 people each have to hold an identification card to carry on their daily business is going to have many direct and indirect costs and benefits. The people of the nation, and the government meant to represent those people, should think long and hard about those costs and benefits before implementing the system.

  • Politics/slashdot joke (Score:5, Funny)

    by bcmm ( 768152 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @06:02AM (#8963970)
    I for one welcome our New Labour overlords...

  • persona non grata? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by NewtonsLaw ( 409638 )
    The new ID cards will hold biometric details - facial dimensions, an iris scan or fingerprints

    I guess if you're an blind Islamic female double-amputee then they'll have a few problems here.

    If your blindness is due to cataracts, you've lost both hands, and your religion requires you to wear a yashmak at all times then will they give you a blank card or what?

  • The trouble with ID cards... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ...is that they don't solve the problems they claim to solve.

    Their only real use is to track ordinary, average people.

  • quick rant (Score:5, Insightful)

    by chegosaurus ( 98703 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @06:50AM (#8964064) Homepage
    What has shocked me about the ID card scheme isn't that new labour have introduced it - they seem hell bent on removing as many civil rights as possible - but the unquestioning way in which so much of the public has accepted it.

    When the subject comes up and I express my feelings against it, the two responses I always seem to get are "Well, why not have it?" and "I've got nothing to hide".

    Firstly, the question isn't "why not", it's "why". It will cost a fortune, make a whole new layer of beaurocracy, upset a lot of people etc etc and no one has yet given a good example of what we really gain, so, why bother?

    Secondly, *everyone* has something to hide. Everyone. It may not be something criminal, it may not be something wrong, it may even be something you have no logical reason you want to keep to yourself, but you still have a whole raft of things you don't want the policeman who has just randomly stopped you to know.

    I could (and previously have) go on and on, but I'll spare the gentle reader and leave it at that. If you are a halfway intelligent person who bothers to think for yourself you'll be able to come up with a dozen more reasons against introducing ID cards in no time. You don't need me (or anyone else) to tell you what to think.

    • Re:quick rant (Score:3, Interesting)

      by aallan ( 68633 )

      Secondly, *everyone* has something to hide. Everyone. It may not be something criminal, it may not be something wrong...

      Yup. The introduction of mandatory ID cards is something I'm happy to go to prison about. I'm not a criminal, I've "nothing to hide". But that doesn't mean that I'm willing to have the government poking around in my life. The introduction of biometric ID cards is a possible foot in the door for much larger things.

      Al.

    • Re:quick rant (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Tim Browse ( 9263 )

      When the subject comes up and I express my feelings against it, the two responses I always seem to get are "Well, why not have it?" and "I've got nothing to hide".

      For future reference, on the second question (nothing to hide), here's the simplest and most effective response I've yet heard to that point of view:

      Ok, so why do we have a secret ballot?

      I sometimes wish watching repeats of "Yes, Minister" were a precondition to being allowed to vote. Especially the one about 'salami tactics'.

  • some of my concerns... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tuxette ( 731067 ) * <(tuxette) (at) (gmail.com)> on Sunday April 25, 2004 @06:51AM (#8964065) Homepage Journal
    The pilot will involve 10,000 volunteers

    Volunteers, as in people who think the ID cards are an OK thing in the first place? Who will more likely than not give positive feedback?

    Neil Fisher, from QinetiQ - one of the companies developing the new technology, said the public would want to be able to prove their identity to show they were not a risk.

    A risk of/for what?

    > The plans are designed to tackle identity fraud, which costs Britain an estimated 1.3bn each year.

    > The government has said it sees ID cards as a weapon against terrorism.

    I keep seeing statements like these over and over again but I have yet to hear an adequate argument as to how it works as a weapon against terrorism, identity theft, etc.

    He said the biometric system proposed would end multiple identities and give a boost to the fight against terrorism and organised crime.

    I hope I'm not the only one who sees how naive this statement is...

    And lastly, considering these cards will be obligatory but not free of charge, I see them as nothing more than a money making mechanism for the government than anything else.

  • Qinetiq -- clueless company (Score:3, Funny)

    by geoff lane ( 93738 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @07:26AM (#8964133)
    You may remember Qinetiq from a couple of years ago. They won a government contract to place some Census data online so that it could be accessed by people researching family trees.

    The web site opened, crashed and remained unavailable for about a year.

    Does anyone think that a company that can't build a simple web site can provide a working id cards system? I certainly don't.

  • We already have ID cards (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mivok ( 621790 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @07:43AM (#8964173) Homepage
    They're called driving licences. I already get asked to show my ID quite often: When going to certain pubs/nightclubs, when buying a mobile phone, verifying my identity when the signature has faded on my debit card, and probably a lot more that I can't remember. I don't see how having an Identity Card with just that purpose could hurt things.

    As for why ID cards and not the current system of one of several forms of ID (for things like buying a mobile phone they require two forms of ID from a very short list - an my provisional driving license wasn't on them), it would give a form of identification that everyone would accept. Sure, they could be faked. But so could _every_ _other_ form of identification currently in use.

    So I ask the question, why not?
    Most responses seem to be along the lines of 'we don't know what they could do with the data', or that the police could stop you and demand ID. The police could stop you now if they suspected you, and ask for some form of ID, and if they thought you were a known criminal and couldn't prove otherwise, you would still be taken to the station for questioning.

    All the worry about privacy concerns seems to be way too overexagerated. It's just a card that says who you are, not something that broadcasts to the world that you slept with your mates girlfriend last night, or whatever it is you don't want everyone to know.

  • But why a card? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Andy_R ( 114137 ) on Sunday April 25, 2004 @03:33PM (#8966661) Homepage Journal
    If I (as a Britain) am going to be identified by my iris and fingerprints, what do I need a card for?

    I already tend to carry my eyes and fingers with me at all times.

Slashdot Top Deals

For God's sake, stop researching for a while and begin to think!

Close