Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Your Rights Online

UK Home Office Admits Public Don't Want ID Cards 33

Posted by michael from the you'll-get-one-anyway dept.
The Rev writes "Well after the previous articles on this subject the BBC is carrying a story about how the UK Home Office has finally admited that the overwhelming public response to its public consultation was against the idea of a National ID Card System."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UK Home Office Admits Public Don't Want ID Cards More

UK Home Office Admits Public Don't Want ID Cards

Comments Filter:

  • Yeah (Score:1)

    by Jonsey ( 593310 )
    2 out of 3 people supporting it became....

    5 out of 7 not wanting it...

    • Re:Yeah (Score:3, Informative)

      by WolfWithoutAClause ( 162946 )
      Actually that may be what happens in real life.

      There was a discussion program on TV about it a few months back, if this program is representative of what I've seen, 2 out of 3 people supported it; until they find out what it involves and how much it costs, and what advantages it gives (or not): then 5 out of 7 people don't want it.

  • When does the givernment ever listen to the general public? And why should they. Inmates running the asylum? I've always heard that was a bad idea. If the givernment listened to public outcries, no one would pay taxes, and weed would be legal.

    • Re:Weird (Score:4, Insightful)

      by mhesseltine ( 541806 ) on Friday June 20, 2003 @02:09PM (#6255844) Homepage Journal
      When does the givernment ever listen to the general public? And why should they. Inmates running the asylum? I've always heard that was a bad idea. If the givernment listened to public outcries, no one would pay taxes, and weed would be legal.

      If you live in a "government of the people, by the people, for the people" [govforpeople.org] as Abraham Lincoln said; then, yes, the govenment should listen to the opinions of it's citizens. After all, your congressional representatives exist to represent your opinions.

      • Re:Weird (Score:1, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Maybe they're not really a democracy. Maybe the U.S. military should "liberate" them. I suspect their government has weapons of mass destruction. I can see it now, "Operation U.K. Freedom".

      • Re:Weird (Score:2, Funny)

        by Igor47 ( 557180 )
        well...yes, it should. But it doesn't happen that way.

        Orin Hatch is a case in point. If 60 million people download music, I'd be willing to bet that if the people voted for decriminalization of music sharing it would pass.

        Do you think it will ever happen? NO. EVER.

        There's not a representative or senator today who will take the other side and say the people should be allowed to download music if they want to. I'm not claiming the courts would accept this, but thats how "the people" would vote.

        • Re:Weird (Score:5, Insightful)

          by phantomlord ( 38815 ) on Friday June 20, 2003 @04:00PM (#6257095) Journal
          I'd be willing to bet that if the people voted for decriminalization of music sharing it would pass. There's not a representative or senator today who will take the other side and say the people should be allowed to download music if they want to.

          Which is precisely why we're a republic and not a democracy and why the US government has (well, is supposed to have) a very limited scope of power. Most people can't or won't keep up with all the legislation that passes through Congress, so can you imagine them not only keeping up but having a deep understanding of every bill that's introduced? For as often as slashdot posts about a new bill, hundreds more are introduced that you never hear about.

          Now, as dumb as I think Hatch is being about this, he does have a duty under the Constitution to "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries". To that extent, he is talking about a way of securing the exclusive right, whereas the other side would completely eliminate that right. If you're one of the ones who insists that the RIAA shouldn't be able to demand the user information attached to an IP address without a warrant because of the fifth amendment, you have to take the rest of the Constitution with the parts you like.

          The interpretation of Abe Lincoln was wrong - the federal government doesn't exist to serve the people, but to regulate interstate affairs (including coining of money) and international affairs. It's not there to hand out money to special interest groups or to hand out subsidies. In fact, the federal government's role was never meant to have much bearing on the life of an individual at all because it's too easy for a distant bureaucrat to use the might power of a centralized government against people without really having to answer for it.

          Back to the topic. Yes, the RIAA's model is horribly outdated but that doesn't mean we have the right to terminate their copyright. If you want them to change, don't steal their music, thinking you're on some holy cause, you're just removing sympathy for your cause. Instead, don't support the RIAA in any form at all. Go to concerts, buy CDs from your local bands, etc. The best way to get the RIAA to change or disappear is for them to not have anyone but themselves to blame for their business model failing. Make them fail, don't give themselves someone to blame.

          Now, as for an ID card. I don't mind a government mandating a certain look/details for the card. It's hard for someone from NY to know if they're looking at a valid WI license because they've probably never seen one. The feds can get away with that much based on the interstate commerce clause (if you're driving outside of your state, they can claim that, by crossing state lines, you fall under the federal purview). However, under the Fourth Amendment, the federal government doesn't have the right to warehouse personal information about you, barring action of due process.

          • Re:Weird (Score:3, Insightful)

            by mhesseltine ( 541806 )

            As you said above, and I couldn't agree more,

            " The interpretation of Abe Lincoln was wrong - the federal government doesn't exist to serve the people, but to regulate interstate affairs (including coining of money) and international affairs. It's not there to hand out money to special interest groups or to hand out subsidies. In fact, the federal government's role was never meant to have much bearing on the life of an individual at all because it's too easy for a distant bureaucrat to use the might power o

            • Re:Weird (Score:3, Interesting)

              by phantomlord ( 38815 )
              I VERY firmly believe there will be another "civil war" within the next 50 years. There are a ton of people who see the government as a means to every end and a ton of people who simply want to be left alone. Both ideologies are mutually exclusive. At this point, we can't roll back to where the government belongs because a whole bunch of people will start whining about how the federal government owes them this and that... and very few people would want to "progress" to where the others would take us if they

            • I think California (and maybe Oregon and Washington) should secede from the Union. Californians are unfairly subsidizing those welfare states. California's economy is the world's fifth largest. Including Washington in the new Left Coast (Left Bank?) would be helpful because of tax revenues from Microsoft. ;-)
          • "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries".

            Where is this "limited"? When did something last fall out of copyright?

            Where is this "Promote the Progress"? Copyrights have been used as much to squash as anything else.
            • the times are limited by the Constitution, not the method... and copyright, at it's current duration, doesn't promote progress. The Supreme Court ruled wrongly on it, IMO... of course, it's not like the Supreme Court is always right (see social security and abortion).
    • WARNING WARNING WARNING

      My previous post was missing the super essential and super hilarious pseudo HTML Tags.

      My (sincere) apologies.

  • Great, they admitted it. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Unknown Poltroon ( 31628 ) * <unknown_poltroon1sp@myahoo.com> on Friday June 20, 2003 @02:08PM (#6255841)
    Theyre gonna do it anyways, wanna bet?

  • How many people who have an opinion, on average, have a clue what's going on?

    I mean, so what if they don't want something? if the government feels it is in the best interests of the people, and it is reasonable, I say go for it. I carry 2 pieces of government issued ID in my wallet. (Drivers Lic and Concealed Handgun permit.) I would love to make that just one.

    • How many people who have an opinion, on average, have a clue what's going on?

      Few.

      I mean, so what if they don't want something? if the government feels it is in the best interests of the people, and it is reasonable, I say go for it. I carry 2 pieces of government issued ID in my wallet. (Drivers Lic and Concealed Handgun permit.) I would love to make that just one.

      Oh well, that's a good reason to spend 1-2 billion GBP then. Clueless with a gun? Oh goood. ;-)

  • Cost of a Free Society (Score:2, Insightful)

    by digime ( 681824 )
    The question to the government should not be whether or not the public would favor an ID card, but whether or not they would like to keep their society free. Implementing a national ID system would be a huge victory for terrorists, not the people of the UK. Terrorism would still happen, it would just happen in a society where the people had some of their freedom removed.

    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin,
  • Some one must have been hit with the clubat!

  • What The Public Wants (Score:3, Funny)

    by limekiller4 ( 451497 ) on Friday June 20, 2003 @03:01PM (#6256433) Homepage
    The UK Home Office Later Admitted That The Public Do Want More English Teachers Though.

  • The vast proportion of the population are against so...

    WHAT THE FUCK! Lets introduce it anyway!

  • RIAA admits public don't want DRM music.
    MPAA admits public don't want region coded DVDs.
    Microsoft admits public don't want BSOD.
    Britteny Spears admits public wants tits, not music.
    Morticians admit public don't want to die.

    -
  • I've heard them proposing such an ID card for the US as well. Why? Most adults have some sort of ID anyway, such as a driver's license. What would requiring people to get another ID card actually accomplish? Or, from the politician's point of view, what is a national ID *intended* to accomplish (it will actually accomplish nothing).
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • How about a little chip in the forehead or back of the hand? You can't buy or sell without it! http://digitalangel.net built a little biochip a couple of years ago. They don't seem to be talking about it anymore - government contract? Who knows?

Slashdot Top Deals

It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.

Close