No Passport For Britons Refusing Mass Surveillance

UpnAtom writes "People who refuse to give up their bank records, tax records & details of any benefits they've claimed, and the records of their car movements for the last year, or refuse to submit to an interrogation on whether they are the same person that this mountain of data belongs to — will be denied passports from March 26th. The Blair government has already admitted that this and other data will be cross-linked so that the Home Office and other officials can spy on the everyday lives of innocent Britons. Britons were already the most spied upon nation in Western Europe — more so even than Sweden. Data-mining through this unprecedented level of mass-surveillance allows any future British government to leapfrog even countries like China and North Korea."

wow

[Anonymous Coward]

it's V for Vendetta coming true!!!!

Hitler would be proud

[cheekyboy]

Why did they bother with WW2, they should have just said to Hitler, we like what you do. Lets unite, no bloodshed, let the industrial complex grow.

j/k

Re:Hitler would be proud

[NaturePhotog]

Simple...they may have liked what he did, but they wanted to be the ones in charge, not him.

Re:

[John Jamieson]

What? you think the military industrial/global entities that are driving this really care about what color the skin is of those who die? Not a chance.

The US got involved for "world domination"? No, it got involved because it is the most powerful country in the world, and is run almost totaly by money. This is ALL about money.

In case I sound like a left wing nut, I should mention that I view myself as a conservative, who just wants the USA returned to the people.

(for the people, by the people)

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Muslims

[Travoltus]

are the new Jews. Give history a little time to repeat itself.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[EvilGrin666]

Come back to me when an entire political party bases it's platform around hatred of the Muslims.

Ok, I'll bite. Perhaps you are unaware of the existence of the British National Party [wikipedia.org].

The BNP "stands for the preservation of the national and ethnic character of the British people and is wholly opposed to any form of racial integration between British and non-European peoples." The party is "committed to stemming and reversing the tide of non-white immigration and to restoring, by legal changes, negotiatio

Re:

[the_womble]

at least what they pitch to their fundamentalist "Christian" core constituency

Thanks for putting "Christian" in quotes.

As I said to a Muslim friend earlier today, most of us regard GWB and his ilk as an embarrassment.

He also does not seem to have read the bit in the Bible about rich men entering heaven (or rather not entering).

More seriously, why is there do Christian left in the US? It is quite evident in other countries - and right wing British governments have found the churches to be a significant

Re:

[Overzeetop]

There is. They're black.

Seriously, though, before you mod me down - what you are hearing from the US is primarily the rich, white Christians who are vocal and spend their money to make sure that they are heard. They are so gosh darned certain that their "right" is the only "right" that they will do everything in their power to make it so. With the right words thrown in, you can easily catch the redneck Christians to add volume and voting power. Rednecks, in case you didn't know, are generally pooly educate

Re:

[someone1234]

Yeah, except that the jews didn't explode spontaneously at military checkpoints. And didn't harm their neighbours like the radical muslims do.

Re:Muslims

[rcs1000]

Well, that rather depends on where and when you were living.

Have you heard of The King David Hotel Bombing [wikipedia.org], Irgun [wikipedia.org] or The Stern Gang [wikipedia.org]?

The world changes, but few groups of peoples have particularly pure histories.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Islam originated as an imperial ideology to justify Muhammed's ambitions. He was, after all, both emperor and prophet. The express goal of his empire was to subject the whole world to his revelation. Since it was "revealed" as a political system, it's hard for it to separate itself from that without denying its own soul. This was true of the Moorish empire. It was true of the Ottoman Turks, and it is mostly true of the various Islamic states today, and where it isn't, they're being bombed also.

Since a polit

Re:Muslims

[Travoltus]

Correction: Some Muslims are actually engaged in evil acts. All Muslims are paying the price, however.

What you're proposing is on one hand, we punish all Muslims for the acts of a few, or the alternative, which is a police state, in which the freedoms the evil people have come to destroy, are eventually taken away by the Government anyway. Try reading 1984 some time, will ya?

Classic Joseph Goebbels Propaganda

[SRA8]

wytcld -- your response is classic Joseph Goebbels propaganda, and shows clearly how Muslims are indeed the New Jews. "Some have misbehaved, lets kill all of them." Second, what makes you think Muslims in general "tolerate" suicide bombers? Do Americans "tolerate" George Bush's widespread plundering of the middle east? Do Americans "tolerate" Foreign Affairs' call that a civil war in Iraq could be "good"? Do Jews tolerate that 6 year kids are shot in the back and killed after protesting their house being demolished? NO -- I just dont think the majority of people can do anything about these war crimes, just as the majority of Americans and Jews have not done anything about their own ranks committing war crimes. And of course, this puts aside the fact that far more killing, stealing, and plundering is done by non-Muslims (think Vietnam and Iraq war 2003, two of 40 examples that come to mind.)

Re:Muslims

[DamnStupidElf]

are the new Jews? Really? Doesn't it make some difference that the Islamists are actually engaged in varieties of evil such as the Nazis falsely accused the Jews of?

So far, a few thousand people claiming to be Muslim have committed terrorist acts. There are more citizens of almost every nation on earth who have raped, killed, and tortured their fellow citizens than there are Muslim terrorists. Terrorism is not the problem, authoritarian governments oppressing foreign nations and supporting nations that do the same is the root problem and terrorism is just the symptom. Sure, religious fundamentalism is dangerous, but ultimately it can't be eradicated without massive bloodshed. It just needs to be contained, that's all. Bombing the hell out of countries just acts like natural selection for the worst and strongest terrorists who can survive it, and the collateral damage makes finding new recruits at the orphanage quite easy.

This is news?

[Anne Thwacks]

As a UK resident, all I can say is "that is what we have come to expect from this government". It seems they thought George Orwell's 1984 was a manual on how to govern.

However, we do have one advantage over North Korea: Blair has less credibility than Kim Il Jong. And unlike most facist governments, they can't get the trains to run on time either.

Re:This is news?

[anaesthetica]

And unlike most facist governments, they can't get the trains to run on time either.

I always thought this was a rather curious statement. What is it about train system efficiency that inculcates a preference for or against fascism in the general populace? For all the people that equate Bush and Hitler, one would think that Amtrak would be in better shape. Perhaps Amtrak's worthlessness is a sign that our political system clearly retains its fundamental vibrancy.

I've never seen a political party base its platform on the railroad time schedule, but I wonder how the tradeoff is justified between transportation regularity and political or civil liberties. Ought liberal governments strive first to reform the train systems such that the fascist option is obviated? Is this our first line of defense against the black shirts?

I suppose it's no coincidence that fascism only arose after the advent and spread of railroad transport throughout the Western world. One wonders if subsequent developments in transportation technology--automobiles, airplanes, segways--have opened up new forms of political and social organization, such that the fascist constituency (those that passionately care about rail transport) have been minimized.

Is the ongoing threat of far right political parties in Europe (the BNP, Le Pen, etc) the reason why Europe's socialist governments sink so much money into subsidizing their rail systems, whereas the United States has no need, and therefore couldn't care a whit about poor Amtrak?

Are there any political theorists out there who can resolve this question?

Re:This is news?

[bfree]

Is the ongoing threat of far right political parties in Europe (the BNP, Le Pen, etc) the reason why Europe's socialist governments sink so much money into subsidizing their rail systems, whereas the United States has no need, and therefore couldn't care a whit about poor Amtrak?

Take maps of greenhouse gas emmissions [unu.edu], signatories of the Kyoto protocol [wri.org] and a comparison of petrol prices [see-search.com] and maybe you'll come up with a different reason.

Re:This is news?

[timeOday]

Facism means giving all the authority to the executive branch in order to make things happen. Facists rise when people are frustrated with inefficacy in their government, and a charismatic leader arrives promising to solve everything if only he is given the authority to do it. "Making the trains run on time" is a good example of a problem in execution (as opposed to decision making) - everybody wants it done, it's a matter of somebody taking charge and making it hapen.

I don't think many people believe that Bush or the current British government are facists. The problem is simply that they are moving in that direction, by erasing boundaries such as judicial oversight in order to "git 'er done." The problem with these massive surveilance programs and police powers is that they grease the tracks for an irreparable slide into facism the next time there's a national crisis or an especially power-hungry leader. When it's a crime to report executive overstepping (such as the current national security letters issue), we are all too close.

Re:

[Original Replica]

I don't think many people believe that Bush or the current British government are facists.

You must be new here.

The difference between Hitler and Bush is not so much in their degree of facism as their love of country. In his own horrible evil way Hitler was very interested in improving Germany, which is what made them such a formidible enemy. Bush on the other hand has show time and again that he doesn't give a shit about America, beyond it's ability to funnel power and money to his family and friends, w

Re:

[Original Replica]

You are so right. This administration has endeared us to the world. The leadership and compassion shown through out the Katrina crisis could only be achieved by a true "man of the people". The careful stewardship of our rights and freedoms is commendable. Those men and women who were wounded in battle have been given the very best of care and respect by the government they serve. /sarcasm
It is because I love my country that I so despise our current president. Stop listening to speeches and start looking at

Re:This is news?

[lawpoop]

"What is it about train system efficiency that inculcates a preference for or against fascism in the general populace?"

This might sound kind of silly, but hear me out. I think it's a question of whether society as a whole prioritizes the lives of individuals, or the regular functioning of societal institutions.

Will the train wait for you if you are running two minutes late? Or will it leave exactly on time? What if you are going to visit your sick mother in the hospital? Will the conductor let you on if you run up at the last minute, after the doors have closed, tears in your eyes?

Are the people in charge sticklers for the rules, or will the allow an except for your particular life story and situation? Are we cogs in the machine, to be cast off in the ditch if we are unable to keep up with the machinations of the city? Are we here to support the institutions, or are the institutions here to make our lives easier?

I grew up in the US and got used to reliable infrastructure. I have done a lot of travelling in South American since I was in college, and it has really changed my perspective. Not that I am saying that one is better (I'll get to fascism later), but just observing at this point.

I just got back from Bolivia. In La Paz, any body with a car can put a sign on their windshield and do their own taxi service. Anybody can set down a blanket on the sidewalk and start selling potatoes or trinkets to tourists. Open air markets have fresh meat rotting in the high-altitude sun, and freshly picked vegetables sitting out in the open, dirt still on them. There are no police who are going to stop you, there are no taxes to pay. There *are* registered, licensed taxis, and regular retail shops like we are used to here in the United States. However, official institutions don't have total control over every aspect of life like they do here. Here in the US, you need permission to do wipe your ass, pardon the expression. But in Bolivia, at least, informal 'institutions' exist alongside the official ones.

In La Paz, there are full-size vans that run regular routes as taxi/buses. After 5 O'clock, when people are getting off of work, they will squeeze in as many people as can fit. Everyone is just trying to get home to their families, and nobody is going to throw you off if you are just sitting one butt-cheek on the edge of a seat. I've ridden several times in crowded, swaying full-size buses over dirt roads on mountains. I'm agnostic, but I prayed an awful lot.

Now, of course, there are a lot more deaths due to safety hazards in Bolivia, in traffic and in homes. A lot of people get food poisoning. I think Bolivians are more accepting of the suffering and death in general.

Here in the US, people seem to have what I call a hysteria of action. If something bad happens to anyone , Sometime Must Be Done, so that nobody ever has to suffer ever again. If a child dies in a shooting, all guns everywhere must be registered and locked up. If somebody gets food poisoning, we must institute totally new rules and procedures about handling food. If somebody dies in a car accident, we have to put air-bags on the roofs of all new cars. If somebody dies of a rare, expensive disease, we must establish a new non-profit so that nobody ever need suffer this disease again. If something bad ever manages to happen again, it was because somebody was lazy, not doing their job, and they must be fired. America is a paradise, and if bad things happen, it's somebody's fault for not doing their job.

Anyway, relating this to Nazi-ism, what kind of person throws people into the oven? I believe the same attitude of the person who makes sure that the trains run on time, regardless of who actually needs to go where. They prioritize the machine above the person. All of the death camp guards were just doing their jobs, following orders, doing what they were told. It didn't matter that this prisoner had a life and a family; he needed to be loaded up on the train or suffocated

Re:This is news?

[Flavio]

While I understand your point about feeling the "vibrant essence of life itself", it's one thing to take a trip to Bolivia, and it's another thing to have this experience every day of your life.

I've lived my whole life in Sao Paulo, Brazil, and while conditions here are nowhere near what you've described, the general population's lack of commitment and accountability eventually gets to your nerves. What impressed me most is this part of your comment:

Here in the US, people seem to have what I call a hysteria of action. If something bad happens to anyone , Sometime Must Be Done, so that nobody ever has to suffer ever again. If a child dies in a shooting, all guns everywhere must be registered and locked up. If somebody gets food poisoning, we must institute totally new rules and procedures about handling food. If somebody dies in a car accident, we have to put air-bags on the roofs of all new cars. If somebody dies of a rare, expensive disease, we must establish a new non-profit so that nobody ever need suffer this disease again. If something bad ever manages to happen again, it was because somebody was lazy, not doing their job, and they must be fired. America is a paradise, and if bad things happen, it's somebody's fault for not doing their job.

I greatly admire The Something Must be Done philosophy. It suggests a degree of discipline that pushes society as a whole to improve itself, act on its problems and not try to excuse itself as a victim of circumstances. It shows people value personal responsibility and back their feelings with real actions. And while in some aspects this may be an idealization, it shows a set of values which are lost on the general Brazilian culture.

Re:This is news?

[lawpoop]

You have a great point. I took great care to not idealize neither American nor Bolivian life or culture. There are good and bad elements and both.

"I greatly admire The Something Must be Done philosophy."

I agree. I don't want to eat raw meat that's been sitting out in the sun all day. However, pulling spinach from the shelves *all over the nation* because 10 people died of food poisoning is a severe over-reaction, IMHO. I think there needs to be a healthy balance between "Something must be done" and an acceptance of life.

Yes, your mom has a rare form of cancer. The best that the Mayo clinic can do is give her three months, if you want to spend a million dollars. You know what? Your mom is going to die. The best thing you can do for yourself, psychologically, is mourn and accept it. Not that it's easy to do, but no amount of work and and science will save your parents or you from death. As a society, we could take those millions of dollars spent on rare diseases, and immunize young children. We don't have to undertake hysterical, desperate work at all costs when life presents a problem to you.

Here in the US people are overworked and stressed out, taking anti-depressants because their lives aren't perfect. We don't know how to enjoy the simple, everydayness of life. That doesn't mean that we stop doing any science and research. Life is not a paradise, and pretending that science and engineering will make it so will only lead you to disappointment with life.

Re:

[Goalie_Ca]

I think the OP was trying to make the comment that people have knee jerk reactions. A lot of the reactions are stupid and the priorities have been inverted. These things have caused a lot of problems on their own. Politicians like to make pronouncements about how they'll fix the system. Almost 100% of the time this is just propaganda because what they really believe or what the experts really support "doesn't have a nice ring to it". Security is an obvious one. People are giving up freedoms with no real ben

Re:

[Walt Dismal]

I int illiberat, u roten trole. *cough*

Re:This is news?

[Gotta ask yourself..]

If you UKers really cared about it, you'd go into the streets and protest.

You have the power, you elected those people.

Re:This is news?

[Spad]

That's cute, you think the current British government gives a flying fuck about protests, or indeed, what "the people" think.

Re:This is news?

[digitig]

That'd be the government that has effectively banned protests everywhere [liberty-hu...hts.org.uk] unless advance permission is obtained. And it is unlikely to be granted if the powers that be disagree with the protest.

Re:

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Ah, idealism. How quaint.

In case you hadn't noticed, the current Labour government were elected by only about 22% of the population, thanks to our bizarre first-past-the-post system. (It was only around 1/3 of those who actually voted, and actually lost the popular vote in England, for the record.)

The current Labour government did face millions of people in the streets protesting against the war in Iraq, yet ignored them and went ahead anyway.

The current Labour government set up an on-line petitions w

Re:

[geoff lane]

Actually, only about 26% of the people voted for the current government.

Re:This is news?

[pjt33]

1. How much effect did one million Brits protesting in the streets have on Blair's policy towards Iraq?
2. We didn't elect these people: the Conservative party polled more votes overall than Labour, but Labour won a substantial majority of seats due both to skewed boundaries and the skewed first-past-the-post system.
3. If we went into the streets to protest against every hair-brained authoritarian scheme they enact, let alone propose, we wouldn't have time to earn a living wage.

Re:This is news?

[MrSteveSD]

If you UKers really cared about it, you'd go into the streets and protest.

Depends what streets you are talking about. If you mean out of the way streets that the media would not be very interested in, then yes. If you are talking about protesting within a kilometre of Parliament, then no. Protests have effectively been made illegal outside parliament and no satisfactory reason has been given. I suspect the real reason is the million strong anti-war march that occurred. That rattled them and they do not want a repeat performance. You can apply to protest, but they give you all kinds of conditions such as you can only have a small group, your placards can only be so big etc etc. Basically the kind of mass protests we have seen in the past will be no more. Not so long ago, a young woman was arrested for simply reading out the names of dead soldiers outside parliament, so they really are enforcing it.

You have the power, you elected those people.

Well only 35% or so actually voted for Labour, but due to the crazy "first past the post" system, they won. The problem is that many peoples votes count for nothing if they live in the wrong area. Labour once promised to change the system, but have gone quiet about it.

The other problem is that privacy issues are not really protest material, although they should be. The best we can hope for is lots of negative coverage about it in the press, and other parties coming forward opposed to the measures.

Re:This is news?

[Spad]

Ah yes, how's that working out for you?

Re:

[Dun Malg]

Great! I bag my limit on policemen and federal agents on the first day the season opens.

Re:

[meringuoid]

Or did, until you allowed yourself to be disarmed.

I am always amused by this fantasy on the part of the American right that the British public was ever armed. Handguns were banned after some fuckwit shot up a school. About 50,000 [wikipedia.org] people were affected - or rather less than one in a thousand of the British population.

We let guns be banned because practically none of us have ever had guns, or ever had any inclination to want such things.

Re:

[zuiraM]

You seem to forget... guns aren't about changing governments, they're about removing them.

Sure, you can remove a government with enough force-of-arms, but how are you going to go about setting up a new government that is better than the old one?

This is a government that represents a significant percentage of the population (26%, I think someone here said). That means 26% of the population is opposed to a revolution, and you'll have to supress them or kill them. Not generally considered a good way of governi

Re:

[John Courtland]

If RPGs are classified like grenade launchers, then they are considered "Destructive Devices" in the eyes of the Federal Government. If you live in a state and a municipality that allows citizens to own such items, and you want a DD, you'd need to register it with the BATFE (which is a big pain in the ass, involving a long amount of time and from what I can remember, at least a signature from the Chief of Police or Sheriff of the jurisdiction the weapon will reside in; however, from some simple reading, it

Re:

[Blue Stone]

"This is news?" you ask?

It is news.

It has to be news, it has to keep being mentioned, and mentioned and mentioned, because the vast majority of people just don't realise how sinister the moves being made by the ruling classes are. People are still slumbering. People still haven't been roused, still haven't put all the pieces of the jigsaw together (I dare say, neither have I) and as a result we are being herded into our pens, stamped and tagged and the fences and barbed wire are being erected around us.

So f

Re:This is news?

[TobascoKid]

We will be a Nation of Suspects, watched.

We already are a nation of suspects, being watched. All the recent alarm bells about "sleep walking into a surveillance society" have been too little, too late. The UK is a already a surveillance society, that we slept walked into. Now it's just a matter of degree.

Re:

[erroneus]

The real question is how much more of this crap will people accept before there is revolution. (Revolution is a word that means 'turn around.' It doesn't mean war or violence. Just to be clear on that point.) Is the government serving the people or are the people serving the government. That's the issue that should be addressed and corrected where needed. What I find the most interesting is how much people are already accepting. More than 200 years ago, people accepted a lot less before there was reb

Re:

[digitig]

The real question is how much more of this crap will people accept before there is revolution.

I felt that the UK was very close to revolution indeed when Thatcher introduced the poll tax. I don't get anything like that feeling in the streets and pubs at the moment. I think Thatcher succeeded in breaking the will to resist of most people in the UK, and it will take probably at least another generation before we get it back :-(

Re:

[Olix]

But the war is still going on, right?

Here in the UK, this stuff is publicized, people do care about it... but the government ignores all the voices of obection.

And like Americans and frogs

[fredrated]

they just sit there in that pan of slowly heating water...

Re:And like Americans and frogs

[User 956]

And like Americans and frogs ... they just sit there in that pan of slowly heating water...

Look, I don't know where you get your french stereotypes, but I've never heard of one sitting in a tub of hot water.

Re:And like Americans and frogs

[mabhatter654]

but they've BEEN subject to ACTUAL terrorism via the IRA for much longer... like 20 years, it's actually got better over there since before 9/11. Why didn't the British govt need this in the 70's and 80's when IRA bombings were several times a year? It's like things get better, so they feel the need to "look busy" and punish the same number of people because they have the spare time.

Re:And like Americans and frogs

[Dunbal]

Why didn't the British govt need this in the 70's and 80's when IRA bombings were several times a year?

      Bollocks. You propose some sort of conspiracy theory. The real reason this is happening now is that the technology (and more importantly the COST) is at the point where it's feasable. There is no way in hell such a system could have been implemented in the 70's or 80's with $800 analog cameras and $3000 computers that could do about 5% of what a modern low end computer does. But now having digital cameras on every street corner at under $100 each, fiber optic or even wireless networks, and clusters of regular $500 computers giving supercomputing power, any city can implement this. No need for conspiracy.

Re:And like Americans and frogs

[VJ42]

The point of terrorism is just that, to cause terror, not necessarily deaths. With the IRA, we never knew if a bomb would go off in our city for 30 years. They kept a lot of people scared for a long time. Al Quieda are no where near the league that the IRA was in. As a terrorist organisation, the IRA was very successful, Al Quieda has not been. During the recent Northern Ireland elections I've still been cautious and alert for IRA splinter group (such as the "real" IRA) activities; I haven't given a second thought to Al Quieda cells, everything I've seen and heard about them shows that they are both inept and that the security services seem to overplay their significance (almost all arrests seem to end with the vast majority of people being released).

Re:

[VJ42]

The IRA would give warnings (usually coded, and largely useless) before many of their attacks, IIRC they claimed their primary aim was to destroy property, not people (though they didn't care much if people were caught up). This causes just as much terror, but when people died they can do as the military does and label it collateral damage (I don't think they ever used that term, but the sentiment was the same). So things like the 11\09\01 attack were condemned by their political wing (Sinn Fein) immediatel

Re:

[Pig Hogger]

I really don't agree. I realize that around here it is popular to bad mouth America, but I really cringe when I wonder what would happen to the UK if they were subjected to the same level of terrorism that the US was with September 11th. Not to be too condescending, but the tube bombings were really nothing in comparison to the numbers killed in the WTC.

What bullshit!!!!

Britain had much more experience dealing with domestic terrorism than the US, thanks to the Irish Republican Army who never wasted any

What does the average citizen get from this?

[khasim]

How does this benefit the average citizen?

It won't reduce terrorist activities.

It won't reduce crime.

All it will do is make it easier for the government to find SOMETHING on you if they ever want to.

Re:What does the average citizen get from this?

[pilgrim23]

If you live in a society that lives by the credo of "Stay in line, this is your number" and where the most common expression is "May I see your Papers Please?" you accept the paranoia of those in charge as an immutable natural law and go on from there. So how to live with it? Protest or work against it? -easy way to get a larger file, that.
No, the best way is to always smile, say "Yes Sir" and do exactly as you please while APEARING to be a common little proliterait. I once knew a janitor who told me that every time he had a kid born he applied for and recieved at least 20 social security cards. The pencil pushers are used to the paperwork and just roboticlly fill in the correct blanks. This way, he had at laset 5 his kid could use, 2 or three he could use, and he could sell the rest. I always thought this fellow a smart man; trading paranoia as a commodity. Spys call it a "legend"; Building up a absolutley solid ID that is totally different from you. I would suggest anyone itnerested in freedom investigate open literature on how this is accomplished. f you are unwilling to stray that far from the matrix, try this: Always lie, always typo, always answer with a smile and a mis-spelled name. such mistakes are expected, forgiven and never result in problems for you but if ENOUGH do it, the monkey wrench colides with the machinery in such a way as to render the whole thing disfunctional,. Do your part to show the insult to individualism and freedom it truely is.

Re:What does the average citizen get from this?

[makomk]

I once knew a janitor who told me that every time he had a kid born he applied for and recieved at least 20 social security cards. The pencil pushers are used to the paperwork and just roboticlly fill in the correct blanks. This way, he had at laset 5 his kid could use, 2 or three he could use, and he could sell the rest. I always thought this fellow a smart man; trading paranoia as a commodity. Spys call it a "legend"; Building up a absolutley solid ID that is totally different from you. I would suggest anyone itnerested in freedom investigate open literature on how this is accomplished.

One of the points of this whole exercise is to stop this sort of activity, by using biometric data to ensure that each person has only one identity - their own (whatever that may mean). So if this works, you can say goodbye to that idea...

It is our duty

[symbolset]

To get as much bad data into their database as we can.

Socialism? Bah!

[andersh]

Why is it Americans always brings up this "Socialism" rubbish? Why do you still live in the 50s? Socialism in Europe has long since disappeared. The Labour governments of most European nations are far more centrist and market friendly than you believe. Actually your Republicans are more interested in creating "large" government agencies than European politicians. Here it's more: "how much can we privatize link [thelocal.se]" and "is it legal under EU competition laws".

In fact please have a look here for how many European nations are run today [usatoday.com].

Re:Socialism? Bah!

[Hoi Polloi]

Americans want Socialism without giving up their illusion of the "self made man". They want medicaire, medicaid, social security, guaranteed jobs, government loads for businesses, lots of cops, etc. But DON'T tell them it is Socialism.

Re:

[TobascoKid]

because Europe has parties that are actually left leaning and get elected.

The UK doesn't. The two main parties are both centre right, and the Lib Dems don't have a coherent policy on anything (they're too busy trying to be the "true alternative" to have any policy other than "we will increase taxes").

Re:What does the average citizen get from this?

[VJ42]

making adults demand to be treated as children?

I don't know if it's anything to do with socialism, but the adult population in this country (the UK) is substantially infantalised. No one is willing to accept responsibility for anything any more, everything is always someone else's fault; and it's usually one of a few narrow groups: "the government", "the media" or "do-gooders\Political correctness". Never "me", everyone thinks that they are totally helpless to change anything, and of course Big-brother takes advantage of this apathy. Personally, I'm working on leaving the country like a coward. I can still get to Eire without a passport, and they currently have a booming economy. Hopefully before that time comes we will have replaced this labour government, and ID cards will be no more (all major opposition parties have pledged to scrap ID cards and the associated database).

Re:

[TobascoKid]

This is actually the problem I have with people saying "the government should"

And it's all that "government should" nonsense that lets the government get away with all this. If people in the UK started taking more responsibility for both themseleves and the community they live then it wouldn't be such a mess, both literally and figuratively.

Instead, it's always the government that should be doing something. As though the government was somehow omnipotent and could solve every problem with just a snap of Ton

Europe very different than US

[CitX]

People in the US value their privacy and expect more of it than in Europe. I've lived in London and Paris for a time and both cities are full of surveillance. Even the French now data mine public transit. I've never been to Scandinavia but I can tell you that there is a totally different attitude about it there. More people accept and even want cameras etc...on every light pole. transactions are monitored and mined more there. That is why banks use data centers in Europe to store information. All Interpol t

Re:

[Tony Hoyle]

.. and Walmart in the US have one of the largest data mined databases in the world, whereas in the UK we have the data protection act that makes it a criminal offence to sell on your customer data without permission.

You can always pick examples but there really isn't that much difference... the only time I've really felt scared of the authorities was when I visited the US.

Re:Europe very different than US

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't like Walmart's policies, you can simply not shop there. If you don't like the govornments policies, you still have to deal with them.

What you just presented was not only an example of "well, the US does it too!" but of comparing apples to oranges.

Even though it's a completly worthless counter argument it takes a shot at both the US and Wal*Mart so it get's modded up in the seconds between when the page loaded and when I clicked to see what your reply was.

Re:

[radtea]

You should be afraid of our ICE, our police, our enforcement arms.

No innocent person should be afraid of law enforcement personnel. The purpose of the police is "to protect and to serve", and if they are doing that rather than "being enforcers for the criminals and thugs elected to high office" then no one needs to be afraid of them except the guilty.

Re:

[Nimey]

highway 99 around here is REALLY well lit at night, it's not appreciably brighter with your lights on

That's not the point. The point is that people can't see you so well if your lights are off. Someone could be passing someone else on the highway (if it's 2 lanes), not see you because you're running EMCON, and have a nice head-on.

I see this thoughtless behavior around here lots; some people drive with their lights off when it's raining and the sky's dark, not thinking of other people, not bright enough to

Re:Europe very different than US

[TubeSteak]

I know it sounds trite, but it's the truth - at least in the US, the only ones who really need to fear the authorities are those with something that's punishable by the authorities.

Your trite comment is nothing more than another way of saying "don't be afraid if you've got nothing to hide".

That statement is not compatible with the ideals that make America something to be proud of.

P.S. Your anecdotal experience is not the basis for an argument that makes broad generalizations.

Re:Europe very different than US

[digitig]

I agree. And I've never been afraid of law enforcement unless I knew I was doing something wrong.

Do you happen to be white middle-class?

Re:

[thatshortkid]

Why yes I am! I suppose you're going to say I haven't had a problem because I'm white? In Seattle, the police department is actually over-represented with minorities, wouldn't that skew things the other way?

Never had a problem in pretty much anywhere I've been, around the world. Maybe it's just attitude? Maybe it's not freaking out if an officer wants to talk to me? Maybe...

to answer your questions: yes, no, attitude gets you nowhere if you're biased against before you speak, see previous answer. and fyi: even overseas, whitey is protected vs. those of brown skin.

"Sorry, you can't leave."

[ZorbaTHut]

So, does this mean that it's impossible to leave the country unless you first give over all your personal data? Even if you want to leave solely because you don't want to give that data?

I wonder if and when the first people will start running smuggling operations out of Britain.

Re:"Sorry, you can't leave."

[lawpoop]

Passports are for getting back into your country, not for leaving. Leave any time you want. However, anybody who wants to get in to Britain must show that they have a right to be there.

On the most abstract level, you can argue that this is just another step needed to verify the identity of the person presenting a passport to enter Britain. But personally I'm highly suspicious of this.

Re:"Sorry, you can't leave."

[blowdart]

There's a special arrangement between the UK and Ireland which means you don't need a passport to travel between the two countries. Even now. Getting into the UK from any other EU country does take a passport or a national identity card

I'm in the process of applying for an Irish passport, as I was born in Northern Ireland. I won't be renewing my UK passport this time around.

Inconvenience?

[LinuxInDallas]

From the article: "I think people will recognise that its appropriate once in their lifetime to go through a little bit more inconvenience..."

Are passports issued for life in Britain? I doubt it.

Uh puhleeze

[Tony Hoyle]

The Daily Mail?

That's like an american getting views on the democratic party from Fox News.

Daily Mail Watch [bigdaddymerk.co.uk] is a good read, if you've not seen what this 'paper' prints before.

Re:

[VJ42]

The Daily Mail?

That's like an american getting views on the democratic party from Fox News.

That was my first thought as well, but the summary has articles from the Independent and Guardian (the other end of the political spectrum) as well, it just goes to show that NuLabour hasn't got support from any paper on this issue, except perhaps the Sun.

Personally, I lost faith in the British press long ago, and only buy Private Eye, IMO the least bias news organ in this country.

What could they be looking for?

[Brad1138]

Maybe it's this [intriguing.com].

This sceptred isle

[Puff of Logic]

I used to be very proud of being English. I believed Britain to be a light in the darkness and a bastion of freedom. I believed that the U.K., along with the U.S., stood as examples to the rest of the world as to what was possible when freedom won out over fear. But today, I no longer feel that way. I see freedoms being given up for illusory safety, and an unprecedented level of control being given to a government that has never proven itself even remotely worthy or capable of such a responsibility. Mostly, I feel anger and sadness, and a sense of frustration that the proverbial shining city on the hill has become so horribly tarnished with the shit of misinformation, misdirection, fear-mongering, and mediocre talking-heads proclaiming that just a few more liberties need to go to make us all safe.

Many Americans, I suspect, can relate.

Re:This sceptred isle

[mattpalmer1086]

Me too. We were never as good as we thought we were, but we were never as pathetic as we are now.

Re:This sceptred isle

[the eric conspiracy]

Well, I've been around long enough to remember almost everything that is happening now from having happened in the past at least twice. During WWII there were plenty of abridgements of what most Americans believe to be due process. During the "Red Scare" ditto. It used to be illegal to be a member of the Communist Party. And of course during the Nixon administration there were plenty of problems. Now post-9/11 we see the same mistakes again. Eventually the pendulum will swing back, mostly because some serious abuses will be discovered.

What disturbs me most about all this is the failure to learn from past mistakes, and the possibility that it will take more time than it should for the reversal to begin. And of course maybe someday the reversal won't happen. That's when the Republic will be over.

And who is watching those who are watching?

[3seas]

Really? what kind of human you are is not determined by what side of the camera you are on.

It seems to me that real terrorist would want to find suckers to set up, so to keep the public on the edge of terrorism scare, while hiding behind the guise of supporting anti-terrorism.

Remember, remember...

[amper]

Do I even need to finish the quote?

It would be rather ironic if, 230-some years after the Americans decided they'd had enough of being subjects of Parliament and the King, the people of the United Kingdom were the first to overthrow their modern fascist government. Perhaps it might set an example for the rest of us.

I wonder which government would be easier to tackle, given the severe restrictions of firearms in the UK versus the sheer inertia of the US population? Perhaps it should start with the Republican movement in the UK, by getting rid of the monarchists, the fascists, and the authoritarians, and drawing up a true Constitution. That ought to at least buy you another couple of hundred years of relative freedom.

I think the Revolution may be coming sooner, rather than later. Personally, I'd explore the possibility of moving to the UK, but not as a subject, and not without a guaranteed right to bear arms against a tyrannical government.

This world is becoming a truly scary place.

Note to Brits

[Phoenix666]

This would be the time to declare independence. Seems Whitehall and Parliament DO need to be kicked in the teeth once every 200 years.

We needed the Cold War

[SummitCO]

We, the West, needed the Cold War to remind us of what was soulless and wrong with communist surveilance society police states. Now that the USSR has fallen, we have lost our perspective and are becoming what we used to despise.

ID cards are not the problem

[oohshiny]

Notice that the Netherlands, Germany, and Austria all are listed as blue/green countries in the Privacy International map, while the UK and the US, both nations with no national ID system, are in the red/black zone.

Overall, national ID cards by themselves don't threaten privacy, inadequate privacy legislation, tolerance of governmental intrusion into privacy, and tolerance of legal abuse of private information threaten privacy.

Curiously, all the fuss raised over national ID card systems usually come from same governments and political groups that then turn around and commit massive invasions of privacy and civil rights. I think they are actually simply using the national ID "debates" to bamboozle and distract people while they quietly realize their real agendas of a total surveillance state.

And they keep using that strategy elsewhere: they keep talking about less intrusive government, privacy rights, and states rights, but then turn around and create legislation that reaches into people's bedrooms and substance use. They keep talking about reducing the size of government, self-reliance, free markets, and fiscal conservatism, but bankrupt the government with bloating the size of the military, create artificial and unjustified monopolies through ill-conceived modifications to the copyright and patent systems, and waste billions on government handouts to their buddies in industry.

The national ID card debates are political strategy by people who don't have your interests at heart. Cut through the crap, participate in the democratic process, and deal with the real issues.

In Soviet Russia - not a troll

[mi]

In Soviet Russia you were legally obliged to have your passport with you at all times — although many weren't carrying it with them, that could was grounds for involuntary visit to the precinct...

Oh, and no, you could not leave the country with that passport — you needed a different, special one. An impossible one to receive for ordinary citizens, BTW.

Sad to see UK getting a step closer to that, but it is still very far away from it...

and why not?

[oohshiny]

If a person in country A wants to travel to country B, then country B is certainly justified in demanding assurances from country A that that person is not going to cause problems in country B. It is reasonable, therefore, that country A does a detailed background check and documents that background check; that can be either part of the passport application or part of a separate visa process. Furthermore, the nature and depth of that background check is largely determined by the requirements of country B. These requirements pretty universally include sufficient financial resources and an unblemished police record.

So, yes, the UK looks like it's turning into a surveillance state, but that's an internal matter in the UK, unrelated to either national IDs or the issuance of passports. Requiring background checks in order to travel to other countries is justified and unrelated. UK citizenship does not confer the right to travel to other countries, and other countries who consider the UK background checks unnecessary can still choose to admit you without a passport (like the nations of the EU do, for example).

Re:

[oohshiny]

Basically, yes. For the visa waiver program, the US requires biometric identification, as well as background checks, and that both triggered and is driving this effort.

Re:

[vidarh]

OK, so maybe that's because the UK doesn't have a national ID program. For travel in continental Europe, and I think even for continental Europeans coming to the UK, a national ID suffices.

No, it's because the UK has never agreed to accept the passport control part of the Schengen agreement. The Schengen agreement is what allows people to not present a passport when traveling between all EU states (not all of them have implemented it yet) except the UK and Ireland, as well as at least Norway and Iceland

U.S. instituted you-can't-leave list last January

[Catbeller]

Amazing that not many people in the world, even in the U.S., know that the U.S. instituted a you-can't-leave list with the passport reform law last January. If you are on the list, no matter what, you are not leaving the country, not by car, cruise ship, cargo ship, plane,foot, or train. Like the U.K, your country is your prison. And don't expect Canadians to help hide you, because entering while on that list is a crime, and they are now using our "criminal" lists to block entry; sneaking past the American wall would qualify you as a federal criminal, therefore your ass is being sent back to the Home of the Free.

Re:U.S. instituted you-can't-leave list last Janua

[the eric conspiracy]

That is not correct - this proposed rule only covers public carriers and I think was limited to air and sea, so you are free to leave by car or foot and maybe train. Also as far as I can tell it was never actually enacted, so it may not actually be in force at all. And the rule was proposed for January 2007.

Re:U.S. instituted you-can't-leave list

[Animats]

The U. S. Department of State says this: [state.gov]

The United States government does not have exit controls at the border. There is no way to stop someone with valid travel documents at the United States border. The U.S. government does not check the names or the documents of travelers leaving the United States. Many foreign countries do not require a passport for entry. A birth certificate is sufficient to enter some foreign countries.

But that's now obsolete. Now there's the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiativ [state.gov]

what 99% of you fail to realize...

[c6gunner]

A passport is a request by your government for foreign nations and domestic agencies to safeguard your passage and extend you basic courtesies based on your nationality. By extension, they are also an assurance by your government that you will not abuse these privileges or in any way harm your host nation. How can your government make such an assurance if the only data they have on you is your name, address, and date of birth?

what you 100% failed to realize

[iggymanz]

is that a truly free country does NOT assume its citizens are criminals, the people are "innocent until proven guilty!" A free and innocent person, not convicted of anything to prevent the acquisition of a passport, should thus be treated with courtesies and safe passage. A government that assumes otherwise of its citizens, as Britain does, is evil.

Something I once read that is very true even here

[SmallFurryCreature]

A social security system depends on the support of the middle (the worker) class. Not the rich and not the poor but that large majority in the middle.

If they think social security benefits them (directly, because they think they might one day need it themselves, or indirectly because they think it makes a better society for them to live in).

Sweden is a country were, so far, the population clearly believes a strong social security system is to the benefit of all AND therefore continue to support it.

The US is clearly a country were the majority doesn't believe it, and so it has a weak social security system

The point here is NOT a debate about who is right but that wichever system is chosen depends on the majority vote, the middle worker class usually, willing to support it.

I think the same is true of 'privacy'. The simple fact is that no matter how hard some people attempt to shout, a lot of people just don't seem to think it is a big deal.

I think that the privacy/bigbrother level of a country is going to depend on what the middle working class believes is right for them. Not that I am saying they are "right" in anyway.

Goverments, especially goverments that like to be elected will therefore follow the vote of that middle class. They are not going to list to fringe nutcases on either side because fringes don't have enough votes.

There is however a problem, the middle class tends to stay silent, they have better things to do then organize protest rallies or post on forums. A good politician must be able to tell apart a mass of voters from a small group that just happens to make a lof of noise.

From daily experience I just don't see all the much concern about bigbrother in the "common" man. If anything I see a great amount of concern about to much freedom. One in the netherlands at the moment is about TBS (It is a sentence given to a criminal who is consdered mentally ill, apart from a regular prison sentence (fixed maximum time according to human rights laws) the prisoner also has to report for treatment. In theory this only ends AFTER the patient is cured. This could lead, and has, to a person being send to 10 years and then spending the rest of their lives in a mental hospital (this is against human rights as you need to be told the length of your sentence, this is a lifesentence without being told).

So are the people upset about this, that the state can just pro-long the sentence of a human for as long as they can find a shrink to call him mentally ill?

No, in fact, the system is under attack because patients who are let out on leave commit serious crimes and people want them to be locked up permanntly.

You also hear loud voices about traffic camera's, yet the major complaint from real people is about people who speed and other traffic assholes.b Could it be the anti-speed camera is just very loud and the real "middle class" thinks they are a good idea? Some polls suggest this.

We will have to see what the brits think about this, england has regular elections so they can send a signal to the goverment every couple of years.

Will they? Does the man on the street, really care? I think not. He might be wrong in this but that is not the issue, the issue is what the majority will vote for. Doesn't help that england effectivly is a one party country.

You have to remember one thing, england is the place of london, I believe the first the place in the world to have congestion charging (you pay for using the road at peak times). It was widely believed to be political suicide. Until one man dared to introduce it, he succeeded, it worked and the plan has been extended and is going to get a whole new level on top AND he has been relected. Despite ALL the extremely loud fringe groups claiming it was going to be a disaster.

I have learned to stop paying attention to what some people shout and instead am trying to hear what a lot of people are NOT saying. Until the majority says NO to bigbrother it will happen, because apparently the majority thinks it is good for them. Right or wrong they might be, but they are not going to be swayed by people shouting loudly, they never have and they never will.

An interesting thought from an Irish perspective

[Joh_Fredersen]

Ireland and the UK share a free travel area, exclusive of the Schengen agreement [wikipedia.org].

It is a well accepted fact here in Ireland that if the UK introduces mandatory identity cards, the Republic of Ireland would have to follow suit in the interests of maintaining the privileged position we have with respect to travel to the UK. The British are by European standards quite paranoid about border control but, Irish and UK citizens can travel within the UK & Ireland sans passport. This free travel area with the UK is of enormous benefit to the Irish economy, clearly.

Thus if the Blair/Brown government does indeed start to place tough requirements on obtaining a UK passport this means that defacto such a system will be introduced in Ireland, in order to guarantee Ireland can maintain it's privileged access to the UK border

The Irish government would no doubt claim that they *have no choice* and that, of course it's not their fault... it's Tony Blair's fault.... if we, the Irish government don't spy on you to British standards... we might have difficulty traveling to London and Manchester for our stag parties, football games and occasional golfing sessions...

Solution: Grow your hair, buy a log cabin in the mountains and a shot-gun and go wait for *the day* the "Feds" come calling... trying to take your fingerprints for your "biometric" passport.

Re:Don't like it? Leave! Germany wants terrorists!

[Xeth]

Don't like it? Leave!

But Mr. Anderson, what good is a desire to leave if you have no passport?

Re:Don't like it? Leave! Germany wants terrorists!

[voice_of_all_reason]

The first thing I thought of when I saw this was the tower of Cirith Ungol in Lord of the Rings. After Frodo and Sam pass through it, they realize it's purpose is not as much to keep Men and Elves out of Mordor, but to keep Sauron's armies in!

Re:

[zoney_ie]

At present you can travel without passport from UK mainland to Northern Ireland (if you don't fly Ryanair). From there you can cross the border to the Republic of Ireland without a passport. You can live and work there freely if you are a UK subject (you'll possibly need ID to prove this if your prospective employer doesn't believe you, or the immigration people get onto you - very unlikely - they are ill-equipped), and so you can stay long enough to get citizenship. UK and Ireland haven't signed the EU agr

Re:

[adnonsense]

Citizen-Subject Ruvim889102

you are hereby charged under the Prevention of Terrorism Act for conspiring to commit an act of terrorism.

However we at the Anti-Terrorist Department (Motto: "remember, if they're not for you they're against you") had a good laugh at your suggestion of using a train as the delivery method, as it would probably end up derailed on a set of poorly-maintained points in the wrong kind of snow, hence foiling your devious plan. So we'll be letting you off with a warning this time, son.

(T

Re:

[TobascoKid]

You can be a citizen of both the US and UK, with 2 passports (or at least you can if you're considered to be a citizen of both countries "by birth"). If you're a dual national, you can also opt to have a "Cerificate of Entitlement To The Right of Abode" placed in your American passport, which makes your US passport "double" for a British passport at immigration control (I used to have this as a kid until my family moved back - now I carry both US and UK passports).

One thing to note about getting a UK passpo

Re:

[vidarh]

At least you don't get photographed and fingerprinted on entry and exit when visiting the UK. Nor when visiting China, for that matter - I found it rather amusing that my recent first and only (so far) visit to Beijing involved far less hassle with border control and customs than my regular visits to the US.

They hardly even bothered to look at me when I arrived at Beijing, contrary to the silly questions, finger printing, photography, scanning of my passport and close looks at my picture whenever I arrive