Blunkett Backs Down on UK ID Cards 374
Anonymous Brave Guy writes "Some people don't like the civil rights concerns. Some think they'll cost too much. Some think they'll lead to more identity theft than identity verification. Some think governments can't manage big database projects and there are bound to be mistakes and over-runs. Any way you look at it, compulsory ID cards have a lot of potential drawbacks, so is the UK's Home Secretary, David Blunkett, starting to back down from the idea? Combining ID cards with passports and driving licenses was the key way to force them on an often unwilling UK population, and seems to have gone for good, but apparently legislation to bring in some form of ID card is still likely in the next Queen's Speech. Is it the beginning of the end of a bad idea, or just more spin to dodge the remaining concerns?"
i was thinking about them today... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:i was thinking about them today... (Score:5, Insightful)
GOOD
BAD
Ask yourself, who serves whom?
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:i was thinking about them today... (Score:5, Informative)
The threat does not necessarily come from the current government. It may be the next government, or the one after that that targets you.
In Britain we have a British National Party which wants to stop a lot of the foreigners getting in. It is not a very tasteful policy, but it is a legal expression of a political view point. People are now loosing their jobs as police officers and school teachers if they are associated with the BNP. This is just one step away from having your career prospects damaged if you are NOT a member of the ruling New Labour Party.
You see, governments are led by people who love to exercise power. In Britain, there is political pressure from these political leaders to exercise power over what we can say and think. There is talk of laws against 'hate speech'. Of course, hate-speech is defined by current moral fashions.
A national identity database can hold details of who is a potential terrorist, who speaks out against the government... All this can be brought up on someone's screen without my knowledge. This is what is so different from drivers' licenses, etc. You don't know who has access to that information about you, or how it is used.
So, Tigress from Sweden, you may have a benevolent government in Sweden now, but beware how much power over your life and privacy you cede to it!
Re:i was thinking about them today... (Score:3, Insightful)
Data will be collected and stored in a database regardless of wether it's a centralized database or several databases at a number of different organizations.
What people should be fighting is not a national ID system but the ABUSE of such a system, and for that matter, the abuse of the CURRENT systems, that happen too frequently already.
Yes, the secret police here in Sweden did register who was a potential terr
Re:i was thinking about them today... (Score:3, Insightful)
They claim they are not 'racist', so perhaps that makes you a 'liar'. I don't really mean that, it's just a point about using labels to dismiss other people's arguments.
The BNP says people from other countries should go and sort out their own countries. This is different from the current government who wants to bring doctors and nurses from 3rd world c
A real "nightmare scenario" might be different (Score:5, Informative)
I submitted the article. One of the reasons I feel strongly about this issue myself is that I was once left hundreds of pounds short in my pay cheque after someone in a government tax office mistyped a National Insurance number (similar to a SSN, for those who have them instead) and entered mine instead. I've mentioned this here before, but here are a few scary details in summary.
The problem with this sort of database isn't just malicious use for things like identity theft or government interference. Good old user error is just as big a danger, and probably a lot more likely.
Re:A real "nightmare scenario" might be different (Score:3, Informative)
Re:i was thinking about them today... (Score:3, Insightful)
But an ID card system allows them to find you oh so much quicker than one without.
I can't recommend IBM and the Holocaust (Edwin Black, ISBN: 0316857718) highly enough for anyo
Re:i was thinking about them today... (Score:3, Insightful)
Since you're obsessed with motorways, lets lay the autobahn myth to rest. Pre WW2 Germany had one of the lowest rates of car ownership in Europe, Volkswagen did not deliver a single car to the people before the outbreak of war and almost all freight continued to be moved by rail. The autobahn were designed from the start to move troops and tanks. The propaganda angle was that Germany was m
Re:i was thinking about them today... (Score:3, Insightful)
If a traffic officer asks me for my drivers licence, radios back to base, someone will have my driving record up on the screen. But they will not (I hope) have intelligence my political views, my health record, my travel history...
This is the point about keeping these various IDs for specific purposes separate. The government has no right to know information about my health, my political views, etc., since I am not breaking the law.
Re:i was thinking about them today... (Score:3, Informative)
And don't just worry about the authorities - how about the people manning the system? Only this week an employee of the DVLA was found guilty of passing on addresses [bbc.co.uk] of people to animal rights activitists/terrorists.
Best wishes,
Mike.
Re:i was thinking about them today... (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, the current Govt. in the UK seems to have made the thought process:
"unwritten constituion=we can do anything we want" and has gone beserk with vague and ill thought out constitutional change.
Look at Hunting. They intend to use the Parliament act to force it through the Lords. Think about that for a moment. The Lords is a mechanism to prevent Parliament enacting bad law. The Parliament act is a way to overrule that check in an emergency - for example if the Lords is blocking a Finance act and so preventing the Govt doing anything. The hunting bill isn't an emergency. Regardless of it's merits either way, it's not an emergency. What it is, is politically necessary for Tony Blair to keep control of activists in his party. Not the same thing.
Anyway, dragging myself closer to the topic:
Is it pretty unlikely to be added to the list of terrorists? Ask Ted Kennedy about that one.
Is it going to be compulsory? You yourself insist that it should be needed to get health care or to buy a beer in a pub or to get a job. That sounds pretty compulsory to me.
The expense will be huge. I cannot recall a major computer system implementation in the UK that has not been a complete disaster. Air traffic control? Disaster. Magistrate Court? Disaster. Passport Office? Disaster. Criminal background checks on School employees? Disaster. and on and on.
In fact, my objections to this scheme are almost entirely theoretical because I don't reckon they have the ability to implment it.
Here's another point: what about the guy who just got jailed for providing information from the DVLA databases to terrorists? Or the temp, who used to work for a newspaper, that got employed by the Cabinet Office, and is being investigated for leaking to the press? You trust people with that kind of hiring record?
We must envisage worst case scenarios. Hitler was democratically elected. to return to my first point: every Govt. is corrupt in one way or another, because it is full of people.
Amen to that (Score:3, Interesting)
This doesn't seem like a new conclusion (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This doesn't seem like a new conclusion (Score:5, Funny)
Sir Desmond Glazebrook : Surely once a Minister has made his decision, that's it, isn't it?
Sir Humphrey Appleby : What on earth gave you that idea?
Sir Desmond Glazebrook : Surely a decision is a decision.
Sir Humphrey Appleby : Only if it is the decision you want. If not it is just a temporary setback.
I want to know if this decision is a decision, or a temporary setback.
quote found on imdb's "Yes, Minister" quotes section [imdb.com]
Re:This doesn't seem like a new conclusion (Score:2)
At least in the sense that each tiime Blunkett punts the idea out to his civil service advisers, they seem to come up with more reasons why the idea is bunkum.
Mrs. Thatcher... (Score:2)
(I wonder... Does Sir Humphrey Applebey read Slashdot? Is he Jon Katz' evil twin? Find out in next week's exciting episode...)
Re:This doesn't seem like a new conclusion (Score:2)
Re:This doesn't seem like a new conclusion (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:This doesn't seem like a new conclusion (Score:2, Insightful)
I think the BBC is pretty independant.
Re:This doesn't seem like a new conclusion (Score:2, Informative)
It is neither of those things. Must we have the same silly conversation every time the BBC is mentioned on Slashdot? If you can't grasp the concept of a Crown Corporation and the mandate which enables the BBC and the TV Licencing Authority then please just be quiet in future.
Re:This doesn't seem like a new conclusion (Score:3, Insightful)
Saw an excellent BBC documentary last night called "The Power of nightmares" which shows how the right has manufactured 'imaginary enemies' and exagerated threats (we all know which ones) so that they can tighen their grip on power.
Hardly toeing the government line is it?
Re:This doesn't seem like a new conclusion (Score:3, Insightful)
Did you see last week's episode? They've been doing it for a long time. Apparently the neocon cabal had a go at this sort of thing in the seventies. First off, they decided that the CIA wasn't doing its job properly. So they had their own people go over the data as well. What did they come up with? A whole lot of Soviet superweapons that were so
Re:This doesn't seem like a new conclusion (Score:2)
The Thatcher Script [yes-minister.com]
Moral: Liberty (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Moral: Liberty (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Moral: Liberty (Score:2, Insightful)
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
I agree with this dead dude, btw
Re:Moral: Liberty (Score:2)
You obviously dont have kids. Jokes aside though there must be limits to everything, including liberty or we are straight into anarchy which is not all that good for us either. There must be a certain balance and regulation in society or else it implodes. The difficulty is in finding the balance that protects society without excessive constraint while at the same time ensuring that the system guardians cant easily overide the mechanisms for their own ends.
N
Freedom with no boundaries is no freedom at all (Score:2, Interesting)
So, ID cards take away the freedom? That's news to me. I've got a unique social security number on an ID card. It's required when I use public services such as health care, when I vote, to show that I am permitted to drive a car or that I am the owner of the bank/credit card when I'm making a significant purchase. And you know what? I like it. I like to know that requiring positive identification reduces health care fraud, that it's hard for
Differs from a drvier's license, how? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't see how an National ID card changes anything. Especially for a country like the UK where the driver's licenses are issued by the national government.
So one want to explain (in relation to driver's licenses):
1) How this costs me any freedom I haven't already given up?
2) How this is supposed to stop terrorism?
OK, if you want to solve other problems like (a) long haul truck drivers having multiple IDs to avoid insurance/ticket issues, or (b) the fact that we are running out of Social Security numbers and will have to assign babies the numbers of dead people, I am OK with solving things like that.
And, if it is just one more card I have to carry in my already crowded wallet (thank you gorcery store loyalty cards)
But I fail to see how this is the end of the world or the world's saviour.
You have a license to drive (Score:2)
Re:Differs from a drvier's license, how? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Differs from a drvier's license, how? (Score:5, Interesting)
They do, depending on the circumstances.
"Even with drivers licences I believe that if you get stopped without yours whilst driving you have 5 days to turn up at the police station with your licence in hand."
A 'producer' is a slip of paper that has boxes ticked to indicate what documents you have to take to a police station within 7 days of being given it. I've gotten away with 10 days and a telling off.
"Most people I think want ID for conveniance, since they percieve more and more places are requiring legal ID"
No, generally they want proof of address; this then links to the Experian credit database and the electoral register (which Experian have full access to, but most other companies do not...a recent change to mean 'opting out' of the sold copy of the electoral register is now possible). Proof of address is as simple as a utility bill. You'd be surprised how many times a Passport is refused as ID.
As for 'ID as convenience', this is a fairly daft idea that completely ignores the problem of government misuse of databases, or even the idea that the government _can_ maintain a very large database after the style of Envision, the TV License people. Who, incidentally, evade the Data Protection Act.
"security and fraud protection"
Of course, the chip and pin proponents completely fail to realise that it shifts liability from the merchant to the consumer, so instead of the supposedly superior method of having someone check the signature on the back of the card with the actual signature (which is still the accepted method for cheques worldwide), they've gone for 9^4 combination with a private key that relies on nobody shoulder-surfing in a store.
Likewise, the Biometric card identifies the person holding it. To suggest that the technologies used in such a card wouldn't be duplicatable within a couple of months of rollout is to ignore the fact that our 'new' passport design was faked within 2 weeks of unveiling, and you can _still_ obtain a chain of documentary evidence for a false persona given the desire, money and tools.
This is essentially the backdoor to the desired gene/fingerprint database that gives Blunkett the giggles and it's this that has earned him Big Brother awards galore. The man has _introduced_ 270 offences over the term of the present government, and is one of the reasons I'm questioning my socialism.
Re:Differs from a drvier's license, how? (Score:2, Insightful)
A *hugh* proportion of people in England DO NOT DRIVE.
The reasons for this are pretty understandable.
Petrol in England is really expensive, at around four times what it is in America. There is a reason why Europeans do not drive SUV and prefer same economy numbers like a Golf etc.
Traffic congestion is a major problem, with london being in almost constant gridlock and there being almost nowhere to park anyway.
There just isn't the association with, dri
Re:Differs from a drvier's license, how? (Score:2)
Most adults in the UK do drive.
SUV's are popular although not as popular in the US.
Scotland has never counted as part of England. For some reason the Scots always seem to get upset when we English refer to the whole island as "England".
Scotland certainly does count as part of the UK and the northern most tip of the UK is a little less than a thousand miles from the furthest extremity to the South.
Re:Differs from a drvier's license, how? (Score:2)
Scotland isn't in England.
Re:Differs from a drvier's license, how? (Score:5, Informative)
You don't mind having to identify yourself on demand?!
Then why did you post as an Anonymous Coward?
Re:Differs from a drvier's license, how? (Score:3)
1. In the UK, even when driving, you don't have to carry your license. It would be an offence not to carry your ID card if compulsory - this means everyday forgetfulness can easily be a criminal offence.
2. You don't have to drive. Many people in the UK don't, and therefore don't have a driving license or passport. At the moment, the only people who this really impacts are those who look like they might be under 18 going to buy alcohol. However, even if you didn't d
Re:Differs from a drvier's license, how? (Score:2)
Re:Differs from a drvier's license, how? (Score:2)
That you do carry it with you is not the same as if you had to. You don't even have to have one.
And the driver's licence is connected to a quite limited (and by all accounts crap) database which doesn't doesn't have the ability to connect it to everything else about you.
Of course, even a limited ID and database can and will lead to bad consequences. A man was sent to prison last week for using his position at the DVLA to pass
Re:Differs from a drvier's license, how? (Score:3, Interesting)
When I passed back in 1994, there were NO photos on the Driving License, and the actual license is a peice of A4 size (Almost letter, for the Americans here) paper that is folded into four.
Imagine the look on the faces of American Car Hire companies when i show that when they request to see my license when I drive in the US!
Althoguh now we do have a photo License card, in-line with most otehr countries, you are not required to carry it
Election next year - possibly (Score:3, Insightful)
Not that this has anything to do with delaying implementations of unpopular laws though....
Labour will win anyway (Score:2)
The election system is first past the post. That means that voting for anything but the 2 largest parties is a waste of time, and currently the Conservative vote is split between the Conservatives and the UK Independance party. This means that the Conservatives can't win. The Liberal party aren't large enough to win.
HTH
Re:Labour will win anyway (Score:2)
Oh, and the Liberal party is a completely different entity to the Liberal Democrats. The Liberals are actually liberal (the inheritors of the old Liberal party beliefs), the LibDems are European style Social Democrats.
Re:Labour will win anyway (Score:2)
Feh. (Score:2, Funny)
Anglo-saxon countries have those terrible hangups about State-issued ID (amongst other things), mostly for neurotic reasons that
Re:Feh. (Score:2)
I recommend you investigate the provenance of the phrase "Show me your papers." (Google is not your friend on this one, I tried.)
Neurotic, or another one of those "those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it" sort of things?
And what about the misuse and abuse of social-security numbers? Video-clubs will ask for it to rent a
Too Much Data on One Card? (Score:2, Insightful)
ID cards have *NOT* been scrapped! (Score:3, Insightful)
From the article....
Plans to combine new compulsory identity cards with passports and driving licences have been dropped by Home Secretary David Blunkett.
and then it goes on to say that .....
The legislation to allow ID cards is widely expected to be promised in next month's Queen's Speech.
So, all they have done is backed down on plans to combine ID cards with other forms of ID.
We will still have to get ID cards, and *pay* for the prililage!.....
But the Home Office said the prices remained unchanged: people would pay either £35 for a stand-alone ID card or £77 for a passport and ID card together.
WTF! I have to get this by law, *and* i have to pay for it. So it's a TAX then?!
ID cards are unnecessary. They are just jumping on the 'Total control prevents Terrorism' bandwagon, and we all know that's a load of BS.
This is why no one in the UK trusts labour anymore. The sooner GW's lap dog is kicked out of office the better.
Re:ID cards have *NOT* been scrapped! (Score:3, Informative)
LibDems and the nationalist parties wholly against (there has even been talk of the Scottish Parliament refusing to play ball with the scheme).
The Conservatives haven't made up their minds, indeed the Shadow Home Secretary (and I thought Blunkett wouldn't cast a shadow) has been pro-ID and against them in the same speech.
UKIP - probably for them as they'll then be able to identify foreigners.
Best wishes,
Mike.
National ID cards are a distraction!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Pragmatically we already have national ID cards. Between drivers liscensces, passports and social security cards we have all the disadvantages of a national ID card. I can barely get through a day, much less a lifetime without these IDs.
The fact that I *could* theoretically get along without these cards doesn't mean anything. If I created a national DNA database (full DNA which could be tested for diseases) it wouldn't be okay if I allowed people to pay $100 to opt out.
Continuing to crow about things like national ID cards distracts from real issues of privacy. Defating national ID schemes gives us empty victories that make us think we are maintaining our privacy.
--
Personally I think maintaining privacy, at least in the traditional sense, isn't a viable option. Even if we win every legislative victory it is too easy to give corporations access to our personal data for a minor convenience. The fact that a few privacy minded individuals might avoid this net makes no difference in the big picture. Any societal harms will still occur even if 1% of society is not in any database.
Privacy, despite the name, is not a personal issue. The harms are not individual, accuring to you because your information is in a database but rather societal resulting from the fact that a large enough percentage of people are in databases.
Instead of fighting minor skirmishes against ID cards while our privacy is eroded behind our back we should try and minimize the negative social effects of privacy. The primary danger that erosion of privacy provides is that effective privacy will be availible only to the rich. This is already happening....cameras aren't put in well to do suburbs.
I contend this is the primary danger from losing privacy. Everyone does socially unacceptable things behind closed doors, be it smoking joints or having kinky sex. If we don't make sure privacy is lost by the well-off at the same rate it is lost by the poor we risk exagerating the problems we have in the war on drugs. Namely, where the poor and minorities are targeted, either legally or just by insurance companies and public opinion, for their 'inappropriate behavior' while the rich get a free pass.
Why? (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure, we do have driver's licenses and passports, but are people wanting to combine them just in the name of efficiency or what?
On the other hand, what's so bad about having a card like this?
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Can someone explain why there is a push for ID cards of this sort?
The explanation is that David Blunkett is a facist control freak in a department of facist control freaks.
The justification given for these cards has varied over the last 5 years with the current bogey man e.g. asylum seekers(codeword for illegal imigrant), benefit fraud(at one point they were trying to pass them off as "entitlement cards"), terrorism, identity theft etc. but they have not produced a coherent explanation as to how any of these problems would be solved by their cards.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Informative)
Can someone explain why there is a push for ID cards of this sort?
Blunkett wants a solution for his immigration problem and the police are in favour.
Currently, illegal immigrants are impossible to track whilst their claim takes months to be processed.
Naturally, the police are a little bit more focussed on stopping criminals than protecting civil liberties.
On the other hand, what's so bad about having a card like this?
I'm much more concerned about the impending database state. So much data is co
I'm a DBA for a large government (Score:2, Funny)
I take offense to this. Why, just the other day I managed the following:
SELECT * FROM the_people WHERE sex = 'female' AND marital_status = 'divorced' AND divorce_date >= date_sub(now(), interval 2 month) AND age >= 16 AND age Just doing my duty as a civil servant by catching them on the rebound.
3rd normal form? whats that?
Query optimisation (Score:2)
The database is the problem, not the card! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the 8th try... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This is the 8th try... (Score:5, Insightful)
Mind you, the British have changed their minds in the past. The reason Nynex laid all the cables in Britain is that British Telecom were banned from doing so in the 1940s. The reason for the ban was that cable networks were seen as dangerous, as in the event of a dictatorial Government, the media would be controllable from a central point. (It was also argued that if people didn't have radio receivers, it would be harder for resistance groups to communicate unobtrusively by radio.)
Today, of course, we wouldn't dream of having an unelected foreign Government dictate British policy, control British troops, invade British businesses,
A good idea (Score:3, Funny)
Why are ID cards a bad thing? (Score:5, Insightful)
You may well think you have nothing to hide today, but tomorrow ID cards are the perfect discrimination tool, that is after all the whole purpose for an ID card.
Why ID cards are useless, or at least, the arguments given for them so far are bogus:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/ican/A2561834
UK campaign against ID cards:
http://www.no2id.net/
Re:Why are ID cards a bad thing? (Score:2)
I'm asian, living in Sweden. Anyone who as much as looks at me will be able to tell. I'm legally allowed to NOT have an ID-card. Even if I got rid of all my ID-cards, there'd still be records about my ethnicity. There'd still be records with my address, phone number and so on.
Anyone determined enough would be able to tell that I support GLB-issues. Another point for discrimination.
An ID card allows people stopped at roadblocks (Score:2)
e.g.
http://www.preventgenocide.org/edu/pastge n ocides/r wanda/indangamuntu.htm
I have no intention of giving that kind of power to the people in charge.
ID cards are tools of discrimination, they make it *easy*, they make it attractive. You might well be discriminated against for being Lesbian by people who know you or h
Re:Why are ID cards a bad thing? (Score:2)
What about all the countries that *DO* have an ID card? Do the Germans still use their ID card to track down Jews or anybody else? How come they are quite happy to only have a small card instead of a passport to carry around. Do they really have less freedom than anybody else?
What about the Americans with their driver's license which is a defacto ID card? Are those used to find and exterminate anybody? Or the French with their ID card. Is it used to kill people on a g
Re:Why are ID cards a bad thing? (Score:2)
Really? Are you saying that it didn't happen?
Are you saying that 60 years ago in what had previously been a democracy, Jews weren't identified by their cards, herded into concentration camps and gassed by the million? Are you saying that 10 years ago in Rwanda, Tutsi weren't identified by their ID cards, taken to village halls and butchered with machetes by their government?
Because it did happen. In the real world where governments change and extremists get into po
Re:Why are ID cards a bad thing? (Score:2)
What about all the countries that *DO* have an ID card? Do the Germans still use their ID card to track down Jews or anybody else?
You are somewhat missing the point. I do not think (or at least hope!) that our government would turn on us (or more importantly, me!) in such a manner. What we (some of the Anti-ID Card people) are trying to point out, is that it makes it possible! I suppose the Jews in Germany didn't think they were going to be rounded up when they got
Misleading title of article. (Score:3, Informative)
And it will still cost £35 and contain I don't know how much biometric data.
ID cards are great, because... (Score:4, Insightful)
And if you're having a small car accident somewhere and both parties don't want to bother calling the police you can quickly exchage your (authenticated!) name.
In effect, the ID card is a downsized version of the ID card that is already part of EU passports (the plastic, machine-readable part). And there's no secret information stored on it either, because you can tell how the information is encoded in the two machine-readable lines of text:
- The lead string "ID" to calibrate the card readers.
- Surname
- First mame
- Number of the ID card
- Country issued
- Date issued
- Expiration date
- Checksum
Say Cowboy Neal was born in Britain on 1 January 1977 and had an ID card that expired on the UNIX epoch (just making this up), then his entry could read (assuming the British card follows the European model):(X, Y, Z being check digits I can't be bothered to compute right this morning, and the spurious blank is inserted bySo it's very simple and transparent, no Orwellian tech built in. That's why I love my (German) ID card and always carry it (even in Britain) to give evident that I'm me (and not Elvis), fly around without having to remember did I forget my passport, and yet nobody can easily abuse the system.
A biometric passport, on the other hand, would be a completely different matter...
--
Try Nuggets [mynuggets.net], the first UK SMS search engine. Answer your questions via simple text messages, all across the UK.
Re:ID cards are great, because... (Score:2)
You want a fake card? (Score:2)
The real reason... (Score:4, Insightful)
No silly - there is an election coming up.
No he's not! (Score:4, Informative)
He's backing down on the idea of a combined card to serve as a drivers licence, ID card, etc. Instead, we will have to carry separate cards for each of these functions.
And the clever thing is the way that he is forcing them on us. When you renew your passport you will be forced to get an ID card as well. And you will have to pay GBP35 for the privilege! If you don't want an ID card, the only way to avoid it is to not get a passport - this is a problem for many of us who have to travel on business.
Re:No he's not! (Score:2)
That way, you would only need EITHER a passport, ID-card or drivers license to identify yourself.
But I already carry my eyes and fingerprints (Score:4, Insightful)
Why do I need to carry biometric data about my eyes and fingerprints with me, when I'm already taking my actual eyes and fingerprints?
If we are going to be identified by biometric data, how can looking at a forgable, breakable, swappable, stealable card be more reliable than looking at the actual evidence?
Re:But I already carry my eyes and fingerprints (Score:3, Informative)
The technology is not capable of matching your biometric data (eg your retina scan) with a unique individual on the database - your retina would match you + several other people, so the system wouldn't know whether the person standing there was John Smith or Osama Bin Laden, who (from the system's point of view) have identical retinas.
national ID != national database (Score:2)
What's a bad thing is to make carrying and showing a national ID mandatory. What's also bad is storing the biometric identifiers or other new information contained on it in a national database (the other information on it is in numerous national databases already anyway).
It's not just the govenment. (Score:5, Interesting)
A man who worked for the driving licence authority misused his access to their database to pass details to Animal Rights protestors about people who may be involved with Chris Hall - a breeder of guinea pigs for medical testing.
The details of 13 people were handed out and a variety of offences of criminal damage were conducted against them, including smashed windows and pushing a hosepipe through the front door to fill the house with water.
It's not just the government who'll have access to the database, it's every employee too.
Re:It's not just the govenment. (Score:3, Informative)
Well, it is just the government who'll have access to the database. But you have to understand what the government is in the context of "who requires access to this system?"
It's not Tony Blair.
It's not the Labour Party.
It's every single government agency. That's driving licenses, social security, healthcare, local councils, law enforcement and education just off the top of my head.
Does the person who thinks they
This headline is all wrong! (Score:5, Informative)
David Blunkett is not backing down on ID cards.
The headline is misleading. The change that the BBC is referring to is that the the government will not make the ID card the same item as the passport and the driving license like the government was originally planning.
What has not changed is that anyone applying for a passport will still have to submit to biometric data collection, pay an extra fee for a new card, and be issued an ID card. The Register [theregister.co.uk] is more informative on the subject than the BBC in this case.
David Blunkett is still ignoring criticism of the scheme from the Home Office Affairs Committee, the public consultation, and thousands of people writing in to object. Not only that, but he knows that most of the members of parliment object as well so he has lied constantly about what the card will be and do in order to get parliment to accept it. It started out as an imigrants entitlement card, then an NHS card, then a voluntary ID card, and now it's to be compulsory to be issued a card but not to carry it. Expect that to change soon after everyone has one.
For those of you who don't like ID cards... (Score:3, Informative)
- no2id [no2id.net]
- Stand [stand.org.uk]
- Liberty [liberty-hu...hts.org.uk]
Also, I should point out the the Liberal Democrat [libdems.org.uk] party is the only major UK political party that's against ID cards.Useful in some cases (Score:3, Informative)
Mostly in Germany and Switzerland, nothing happens without your ID but it makes life easy getting an apartment, opening bank accounts, getting mobile phone contracts and so on. In the UK, in the absence of an ID card, opening a bank account was a complete pain.
I am British, with a passport and NI number. But these are no good for opening a bank account in the UK (unless you already have a UK bank account...). The rules are that you have to show a recent utility bill (or equivalent) with your name and current address plus other forms of identification. Of course, to get such a utility bill, I had to get an apartment but a lot of landlords want your bank account so that they can be assured of regular and timely payment. A vicious circle which proved frustrating to break.
The banks do offer to write to your foreign bank but the British, being such insular little islanders expect everything to be conducted in English, even if you have only just arrived from a small island off Japan. They will not attempt to communicate even in another major European language. In contrast, European banks often conduct their operations in several major languages.
To survive, I had to use the services of a friend's bank account (gotta be someone you can trust implicitly) until after several months, I was able to get an apartment and then, after having a utility bill, open my own account.
I've spoken to other foreigners (Swedish, Spanish, Bulgarian etc.) who all had to go through the same farcical process. All come from places where ID cards are the norm and wonder why the UK has to make life so difficult.
I note that 'Blind Man' Blunkett (the current and, one fervently hopes only temporary, Home Secretary) is possibly rejecting the notion of an ID card, not because it might make things easier for ordinary citizens but because there might be workarounds for crooks and terrorists. This is typical of the horrendously authoritarian Blunkett, nothing he does is for Joe Soap but only to simplify (to make more 'efficient') police powers and processes. See, for example the US-UK Extradition Treaty 2003 [statewatch.org]
Pilot scheme is a failure (Score:3, Interesting)
Each person has to register within a month paying a 50 pound fee sending their passport and a letter from their Employer.
This scheme has had problems mainly relating to the processing of applications, taking too long to return passports, failure to recognise that some workers are students and will work here in the summer only- much as students do all over the world.
however, there is a second process which has to be gone through too which is the issuing of a permanent National Insurance number.
Having provided the necessary evidence to the goverment once, to get the id card issued you would think that issuing a national insurance number should be automatic.
Nationality proven, identity proven, a legitimate job but no it seems the goverment doesn't trust its own ID card scheme and requires a second round of applications and interviews this time with the DWP department of work and pensions. they require passport, letter from employer
As was explained to me by the WRS Manager this scheme Establishes Nationality it doesn't establish Identity.
The scheme is improving however now they will check and return passports on reciept and record the recorded delivery number which is issued by the royal mail so now they will be able to know what they have done with peoples passports.
The issueing of permanent National Insurance Numbers is quite critical for non uk nationals,the employer in this country has the responsibility of ensuring someone he employees is legal and a number of employers are not prepared to take on someone without a permanent NI number, with the existence of a National database of legal non uk nationals being created it and the issue of the ID card it should make it easier for non uk nationals to find work but since the goverment will not recognise it as being proof of ID who will?
As a further example, where the Id card should make a difference is the provision of a general practioner (family Dr), as people employed in this country and paying taxes and national insurance the Id card could be used to establish that this person is entitled to treatment under the NHS.
currently there is complete confusion about how and when somebody is resident and eligible for treatment in the UK and no clear guidelines have been issued to GP's how to proceed.
(correction in one part of the country at least the NHS trust is looking to see if they can use the ID card as one simple proof of entitlement to NHS treatment. )
Now they are aware of its existence it could simplify an administrative nightmare for the NHS.
maybe soon there will be a positive side to the Id card scheme at least in one area. There are many other area's that could also benefit such as library services and provision of education to migrant workers children.
simply by simplifying the red tape.
I know some people might say why should britain provide its goverment provided services to migrant workers, well since these people pay uk taxes and pay UK National Insurance payments contributing to UK society why should they be excluded from the services they contribute to?
I started this post with a negative view of the Id card scheme, but if it can simplify the procedures to gain access to services or conversely be used to deny them to people wishing to abuse uk services then it may have a positive use.
The Id card doesnt in itself give anymore information than you are a legitimate member of uk society with rights given to uk residents.
sure there may well be a lot of data held about an individual all referenceable to the Id card but it doesnt mean that all your records will be available to any agency at random.
certainly the data protection act is in place to prevent abuses of this kind.
Re:Bringing this back to the America's topic (Score:4, Insightful)
While I'm sure you enjoyed bashing Kerry, the fundamental difference between the US and Western Europe is that in most countries over there, the individual still has control over his/her data, meaning a company cannot resell the data without the individual's consent so having some form of national ID is not such a problem over there as it doesn't open the door to big corporations tracking your every move...
For what it's worth, Putin has endorsed Bush (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Who am I? (Score:5, Insightful)
With a single form of ID, there is a single point of failure. When the One True Database has bad data about you, you will be screwed. If the One True Database says that you are a sex offender, then you are.
Furthermore, since the One True Database is always right, by definition, you will find it harder than ever to fix those mistakes.
Government inefficiency is the most immediate bulwark of our freedoms in the U.S. We don't want to risk eliminating it.
Here's a useful litmus test: if something would make life harder for would-be terrorists, it's going to take away freedoms we can't afford to loose, and the government wins. That's worse than letting the terrorists win, since the government has the ability and moral authority to kill far more of us than the terrorists could ever dream of hurting.
Re:Who am I? (Score:5, Interesting)
Here in Sweden, there's been a standard for ID-cards for several years. Any SIS-approved ID-card (such as, for instance, my drivers license, bank ID or postal ID) is valid for identification.
I have yet to see any lack of civil liberties resulting from this. On the contrary, our ID-cards, along with our personal numbers (think social security numbers, except better) make it easier to make sure who's who. And that's the point if it all, anyway. To let you tell others that you're the one that your ID-card says you are.
As for databases, well, there'll never be a "one true database" anyway. Different organizations will always have their own databases. A standardized ID will let them make sure who's who though, so that you won't get confused with that terrorist guy on the floor above, who just happens to share your last name.
Identity theft (Score:3)
In terms of civil liberties you are lucky and a little naive, just 60 years ago fairly near where you live, millions of people were being gassed because they could be easily identified as Jewish.
And there will be one true database, the legislation is already in place, there will also be lots of very useful databases which can be trivially indexed onto the primary one using the ID number.
Re:Identity theft (Score:2)
"In terms of civil liberties you are lucky and a little naive, just 60 years ago fairly near where you live..."
Oh, and by th
Re:Identity theft (Score:2)
Indeed. The difference? An ID card is taken as gospel. If you have a plausible ID card then you *are* that person for all intents and purposes. The card defines the person, not the otherway round. If someone gets hold of your ID number? They become you.
"Oh, and by the way, I'm asian. You don't need an ID-card to lock up people who happens to be of a certain ethnicity."
No, but it does make a bloody good excuse to stop and s
Re:Who am I? (Score:3, Informative)
Erm... yes there will. That's pretty much the whole point of an ID card, according to David Blunkett.
Re:Who am I? (Score:2, Informative)
1. We have a national-ID card. This contains the State Register Number, name and address and marital state (reissued every few years - soon an e-ID !).
2. Then there's the driver's license, has your name but not address (never reissued, except when it changes).
3. But we also have a SIS card (Social Identity System), that contains information on deseases you have and medicins you normally take (this aids if you're at the pharmacy, and you want prescription drugs without p
You'll still be carrying multiple IDs (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it's an *additional* ID that you will have to carry.
Not only that. To be remotely effective it is an ID which it must be compulsory to carry, that means fines and jail time if you don't. The UK ID scheme requires that an individual register with the state *and tell it where you live*. You move house and forget to tell the government, you
The ID card system would have to be huge (Score:3, Insightful)
An ID card system would be far far larger and more complex than the NHS IT system. The estimated 3 billion cost is a joke. A white elephant doesn't begin to describe it, a white Mammoth might.
Re:The ID card system would have to be huge (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Privacy: West versus East (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Privacy: West versus East (Score:2)
Population in Hong Kong is jam packed, which allows 1 camera spying on 1 spot and watch 400 people.
Re:Privacy: West versus East (Score:2)
And are you really suggesting that Hong Kong is a failed society? Really? I bet that the average Hong Kong resident has received a better education and has access to better healthcare than the average American.
You come out with this sort of "them and us" bullshit and then you wonder why not everyone everywhere love
Re:I'm blindist! (Score:2, Interesting)
> This sounds terrible - but I've always thought that a guy who
> couldn't see wouldn't really be able to grasp the full privacy
> implications of any aspects of government policy.
My problem with a blindman being in charge of a large government
department is that he can't possibly assess all the data necessary to
come to a competent decision - he quite literally can't see what is
going on around him!
I am yet to see any sort of article in any sort of media about whether
Blunkett is fit to be