Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: vyper on December 20, 2004, 07:26:22 pm
-
http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=UMJUNCOHAB2JOCRBAEOCFEY?type=topNews&storyID=641663
[q]Members of parliament voted on Monday by 385 votes to 93 in favour of bringing back the cards, more than 50 years after wartime leader Winston Churchill abolished them.
Blair says the cards would help track terrorists, illegal immigration and organised crime, while critics say they pose a dangerous threat to civil liberties.[/q]
-
ID Cards? Can't you just use a driver's license?
-
i wonder how long that will take untill that sorta thing filters down to he commonwealth countries.
-
Oh joy.
Say, does anyone know how hard it is to get a green card.. or maybe to move to Spain?
-
Glad I live in America.:) :nervous:
-
Originally posted by Kalfireth
Oh joy.
Say, does anyone know how hard it is to get a green card.. or maybe to move to Spain?
Wait...doesn't pretty much everyone have a divers license and a health card anyways? I have at least TWO forms of ID on me at all times. Since I was a University student...I have three forms of ID.
-
Originally posted by IceFire
Wait...doesn't pretty much everyone have a divers license and a health card anyways? I have at least TWO forms of ID on me at all times. Since I was a University student...I have three forms of ID.
Likewise. Waste of time and taxpayers money. After the whole gun registry debacle, I wouldnt be the least bit suprised if Martin started backing something similar. Any excuse to waste our money.
-
Heh, glad to know where not the only ones out of our minds (as a country i mean)
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
ID Cards? Can't you just use a driver's license?
Yeah, isn't a driver's license used as a form of ID?
-
KT isn't sure why this is seen as overly oppresive either, other than a waste of money.
-
Waste of money, yes, otherwise, I don't see the problem...so it's another form of ID to carry. So what?
-
Exactly...
And not everyone has a driver's licence *shock horror* some people can't even afford a car...
My licence is a raggedy scrap of paper on fit for the trash. I used it as id in the bank a couple of weeks back to authorise the transfer of £21,000 out of my account....
-
1,000 to me I assume..... ;)
-
Well, no need to move to Holland, we're going to be forced to carry an ID at all times from January 1st 05. Mind, if you'd rather not carry your passport, you can get an ID card. At least, if you don't mind spending an entire ****ing day going through all the form this and form that. I even had to report my old card (expired 4 years ago) missing becuase the city administrator didn't list the damn thing as destroyed when they cut a hole in it.
Cumpolsory ID cards are quite odd, especially when you look at the reasons why. And don't get me started on biometrics, unless you have a central dbase to check against, it can't be hard to hack a chip.
-
Originally posted by ngtm1r
Waste of money, yes, otherwise, I don't see the problem...so it's another form of ID to carry. So what?
Well, no-one has actually said it's even legal under human rights legislation; the government says they've had legal advice which is 'compatible with EU human rights legislation', but they won't release that information.
Also, you'll need to have an Id card to apply for work (presumably to let the home office track you or something), so it'll be a mandatory cost. Not to mention there's no concrete guarentee what this information is to be used for, or by who; and that the cost is still completely unknown (the cards / passports are to be used to finance a new biometric database of everyone in the country).
Or what the possible security use of these cards is anyways; it can't be against terrorists, because they pass as normal people anyways. And it can't be against illegal immigrants, because they tend to work cash-in-hand on the black market (although maybe to stop them getting any treatment on the NHS).
Would you trust a goverment whose reaction to a 1st Jan Freedom of Information Act was to order all departments to destroy emails over 3 months old before then?
-
There are many issues to be resolved, but if they can make it secure then there should be some good things come of this...
If you don't break the law, then what are you afraid of?.....
-
1984
(or, of course, there's detention without trial or evidence against you under the Terrorism Act)
-
If they catch illegal benefit scroungers using this system, then I'll be a happy bunny.
The huge amount of tax I pay each month goes to supporting pond-scum who are fvcking the system over with my money, and I don't like that much....
1984 was fiction btw... You can get rid of the government every 4 or 5 years, so if you really don't like ideas to reduce crime and fraud (maybe terrorism) then it's your choice as an over 18 to vote them out.
I'm not saying this is a perfect idea, just that it might do some good, that's all. :blah:
The dentention without trial is wrong. Full stop.
-
[q]If you don't break the law, then what are you afraid of?.....[/q]
That's been said before almost every major civil rights folly in history.
Trust me, as I've said before my honours project is building a biometric security system (I'm only implementing it as a proposal for a corporate research facility or university areas with dangerous materials), and the kind of ways you can track people is scary. Skin print anyone? On the fly voice/lip-sync/facial geometry recognition?
This stuff has it's good uses, but it could also be very easily perverted into one of the most pervasive control systems in Britain's history.
-
[q]1984 was fiction btw...[/q]
But every aspect of it was based on real events in one way or another.
Orwell was the Pilger/Chomsky of his day - and was leaving a warning.
-
I think opposition to ID cards is rather extreme. In a large society its foolish to try to remain annonymous and still expect the use of goverment services such as the NHS.
Credit card companies and market research agencies probably hold more information about you than the goverment does at the moment.
The introduction of ID cards isn't going to turn Britain into a 1984 style regime. Its not putting a spy camera in your front room to make sure you do your exercises every day.
And as far as the biometric details, exactly what evils are they going to use that for? Fingerprints, retina scans? "Oh dear, I dont want anyone to know who I am when I use a cash machine!", or; "Oh dear, i'll have to wear gloves when I murder people from now on or the goverment will catch me!". What serious objection do you have to this?
Do you really think its going to affect you in your own home? Its not going to have a list of your top 5 fetishes, and information about how tall the Hash plant in your cupboard is getting.
Even if ID cards do have a limited impact on terrorism, thats not their only point. Even simpler things like a reliable form of ID when it comes to buying drinks at the bar are a benefit.
Ultimately I cant see how its going to change your life that much. You already have to enter a PIN at a bank machine. You need to put in a password to log into HLP.
Its important that you can be recognised as an individual for using any modern service. If you dont want to carry an ID card then the only place you'll be happy is living in a cave, with the only information being held about you by anyone is that you have "long brown tatty hair",wear a "leopard skin cloth", and often "carry a club".
"Ugg".
-
But none of it is centralized into one system yet.
This will do that.
[q]Even simpler things like a reliable form of ID when it comes to buying drinks at the bar are a benefit.[/q]
And that is exactly why this herd of sheep we call a population will let it happen: Aww it'll easier to get bevvy man.
The US population is huge compared to ours, but do they have ID cards?
-
Originally posted by vyper
The US population is huge compared to ours, but do they have ID cards?
Originally posted by kasperl
Well, no need to move to Holland, we're going to be forced to carry an ID at all times from January 1st 05.
Well Holland is smaller than the UK but ID will be compulsary there.
The US population is , what? 6 times bigger. Thats irrelevant really. Unless you live in a country the size of a small town and everybody knows your name, some form of ID starts to become more important.
Think of it this way:
Developed country (ie The UK) - information held about you; NHS record, National Insurance/tax, credit history, dental record, education, etc...
Developing country - information held about you; one more hungry mouth to feed...
-
Originally posted by beatspete
I think opposition to ID cards is rather extreme.
The big problem is that they haven't stated who has access to that data.
For instance. Suppose your girlfriend suggests getting both of you checked out before you stop using condoms. Fairly sensible idea to me. However since you did it on the NHS you've now got a record of an AIDS test on your card. Who's going to be able to see that?
Your prospective employers?
Insurance companies (Who will bump up the price of your insurance because you obviously engage in high risk practices)?
What other NHS data will be available to anyone who wants to look? Will prospective employers be able to check if you ever had an abortion? Cancer? Long term back pain?
These questions need to be answered now. Not after they are being exploited by greedy corporations.
-
I don't like this ID card ****, but the truth is: they already know who you are and where you are.
Do an internet search, and you can find out the last 10 houses someone has lived in, where they're living now, what their house looks like, what car they drive, etc. This is all public information.
ID cards have already happened, just no one knows it yet.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
The big problem is that they haven't stated who has access to that data.
Its a good point. Hopefully the goverment will be fairly sensible about this.
Medical records should really be private/confidential. If you go to see a doctor at the moment its confidential, just becuase that's on a database doesnt mean anyone should be able to look at it.
One main point I think is important is that you can see any information held about yourself. Doesnt the Data Protection act cover this sort of thing at the moment?
-
Mate, are you really willing to trust people like Tony Blair's government with your entire life's data?
-
It does but it costs you £10 every time you want to look at that data for every company/agency you want to look at.
-
Interesting. In Germany, it is compulsory to have an ID card, starting at the age of 16. It's used as a travel document inside the EU and as primary means of identification for administrative stuff like change of living place, elections, banking stuff etc.. The driver's license is often accepted or needed as a means of identification, but since it's issued only once, while the ID card is updated every few years, it's not as effective. A passport is only required to travel to non-EU states - I don't even own one. So I find this discussion rather odd. :)
P.S.: and that's nothing about Gestapo stuff, ID cards were compulsory long before the third reich. And the information is kept strictly confidential at a central place.
-
Originally posted by vyper
Mate, are you really willing to trust people like Tony Blair's government with your entire life's data?
The goverment isn't completely irresponsible/reckless, you know.
-
That's beside the point. The fact that you are giving so much power over your person to *any* group is what's troubling. I don't want anyone, not even the most benign, just, wise government (or any group for that matter) to control my life and identity to such a point.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
The fact that you are giving so much power over your person to *any* group is what's troubling.
Is information really power? They can't arrest you (for instance) becuase of information on you, unless that information says your doing something illegal. In that case your breaking the law anyway.
The goverment isn't going to pass new laws to arrest people who have size 9 shoes, or people who visit they're dentist less that once a year; becuase they know they'd get voted out of power (at the very least).
-
[q]and that's nothing about Gestapo stuff, ID cards were compulsory long before the third reich. And the information is kept strictly confidential at a central place.[/q]
I'm well aware of it, I was merely using the reference as an example of the modern use of information based authority over a population.
I never said the Govt. was reckless beatspete, I was implying THEY would misuse it! :lol:
[q]The goverment isn't going to pass new laws to arrest people who have size 9 shoes, or people who visit they're dentist less that once a year; becuase they know they'd get voted out of power (at the very least).[/q]
Ahuh, and you base this assumption on what? All the history points to centralized power being the most corrupt, that socialist governments are authoritarian to the extreme, and that the more control the state has over it's citizens the more it will abuse that power.
I don't like Maggie Thatcher normally, but I liked her reponse the other day: (paraphrased)This is not British, and it's not freedom.
-
Originally posted by beatspete
Is information really power? They can't arrest you (for instance) becuase of information on you, unless that information says your doing something illegal. In that case your breaking the law anyway.
The goverment isn't going to pass new laws to arrest people who have size 9 shoes, or people who visit they're dentist less that once a year; becuase they know they'd get voted out of power (at the very least).
They don't need to. Current legislation - which is not being dropped despite being ruled illegal - allows you to be detained indefinately without trial and without the right to see the evidence against you. Under the anti-terrorism act, 644 people have been detained, searched, etc; only 9 of those have actually been tried and convicted.
-
It also allows them to carry out stuff like this
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4107373.stm
Note that the guy had no bomb, no dangerous equipment and yet they still blew up his luggage.
-
Originally posted by vyper
All the history points to centralized power being the most corrupt, that socialist governments are authoritarian to the extreme, and that the more control the state has over it's citizens the more it will abuse that power.
But ID cards aren't a direct move towards a socialist goverment, nor are they a move towards giving the state ultimate power over the people. Addmitedly a power crazed socialist goverment probably would introduce ID cards, but thats irrelevant. Thats like saying just becuase its hot you must be in the desert - the rainforest is hot too.
Imagine if everyday things like the driving license or passport were to be introduced next year for the first time;
"What!? you mean I have to carry a bit of plastic with my name, date of birth and a photo of me just to use my car?! This is an outrage!"
"What!? you mean I have to show imigration control my country of origin and nationality just to get into a country!? This is an outrage!"
They'd get the same round of scaremoungering that ID cards are recieving, but a few years later nobody would care.
-
Originally posted by beatspete
Is information really power? They can't arrest you (for instance) becuase of information on you, unless that information says your doing something illegal. In that case your breaking the law anyway.
The goverment isn't going to pass new laws to arrest people who have size 9 shoes, or people who visit they're dentist less that once a year; becuase they know they'd get voted out of power (at the very least).
if the government has the power, it WILL get abused sooner or later. It just happens that way. So the point is to give them as little power as possible, only enough to maintain order and protect people from violence, and that's it.
That's like saying there's nothing wrong with putting video cameras in your house, cause you have nothing to fear unless you're a criminal. I want my privacy despite the fact that I should have nothing to fear from such intrusions.
Originally posted by beatspete
But ID cards aren't a direct move towards a socialist goverment, nor are they a move towards giving the state ultimate power over the people. Addmitedly a power crazed socialist goverment probably would introduce ID cards, but thats irrelevant. Thats like saying just becuase its hot you must be in the desert - the rainforest is hot too.
Imagine if everyday things like the driving license or passport were to be introduced next year for the first time;
"What!? you mean I have to carry a bit of plastic with my name, date of birth and a photo of me just to use my car?! This is an outrage!"
"What!? you mean I have to show imigration control my country of origin and nationality just to get into a country!? This is an outrage!"
They'd get the same round of scaremoungering that ID cards are recieving, but a few years later nobody would care.
Oh, so you'll capitulate, as long as fascism is introduced gradually, right? The arguement "people will get used to it" is stupid. Yeah, after a few years, people would also get used to cavity searches at checkpoints and telescreens in your bedroom, but that's no reason to do it. People would get used to pretty much anything, no matter no terrible, as long as it's introduced bit by bit. And then one day you turn around and wonder where all your liberties went.
And for the record, I think the government already has too much control, and it should be rolled back. Why in the name of hell would you want to give them more? You think ID cards will actually make you safer? Poor deluded fool. Even if they did, the lives of a few hundred people are a small price to pay for the rest of the population living free of tyranny.
-
beatspete: There are rational arguments for passports, and for driving licenses (although my father wasn't happy with the new version). The ID card system is a centralization of systems that already exist and already do their job as well as can be expected: So why introduce ID cards? Even the government can't answer that question - in fact the BCS blasted them for not having any solid stated goals! (the rationale for the project changes three times throughout draft legislation).
-
It's mandatory to carry around photographic ID here, and every citizen has an ID card. WHat's the big deal?
-
Because it gives the government information, and information is power, and I don't like the government having any more power over me than is absolutely necessary. Any power WILL get abused at some point. Also, its called privacy, the right to keep information confidential for no other reason than that you value your privacy.
Though you have to admit, Israel isn't exactly a typical situation. You have a real threat going, which is not the case in most European countries or the US.
-
There's nothing this ID card doesn't do that, say, a credit card wouldn't. Or a drivers' license. Or a student ID. Or a passport. Let's face it, this ID card is not giving the government any information they don't already have, folks. They already know your name, age, residence, etc. So you have to carry another card. Big frickin' deal.
Besides, you practically MUST have photo ID to use your credit card or write a check (and have people accept it) these days in the US, and from what I understand that's true over on that side of the pond too.
-
since when does a driver's license have fingerprints and other such biometrics?
-
Originally posted by ngtm1r
There's nothing this ID card doesn't do that, say, a credit card wouldn't. Or a drivers' license. Or a student ID. Or a passport. Let's face it, this ID card is not giving the government any information they don't already have, folks. They already know your name, age, residence, etc. So you have to carry another card. Big frickin' deal.
Besides, you practically MUST have photo ID to use your credit card or write a check (and have people accept it) these days in the US, and from what I understand that's true over on that side of the pond too.
But not all in the one place; the ID card is a central repository (or rather being sold to fund one) for all your personal detail, which only the government and secret services can access, and without telling you when they do, why, or what they can get. (excluding when they let businesses have a peek, of course; for 'fraud' reasons you understand...)
It'll enable the government to have a direct record of your travel abroad, what books you borrow from the library, everything you buy, what videos you rent, where you work, when you claim benefit and how much, and also your medical records (by simply comparing your UUID on that database to the NHS one). Of course, the bill for ID cards only defines what is held on the central database; what's on the card itself is left entirely up to the Home Office to decide.
The arguements are dodgy; the government claims 30% of terrorists use false IDs, but declines to release any evidence of that on the grounds of 'national security'. They claim £1.3bn a year is lost due to identity fraud, but this won't tackle the main problem; fraud when the cardholder is not present, such as by stealing PIN numbers or internet transactions.
Only £50m of the much vaunted £2bn in benefit fraud comes from use of a false identity, anyways. And the scheme has been cost at being at least £5.5bn over the next 10 years, anyways.
Also, the card will effectively be mandatory anyways; you'll need to produce it to work, to claim benefit, or possibly to claim use of any public service, such as the NHS. Well, mandatory unless you refuse and are willing to pay a regular £2,500 fine; so if you're a sufficiently wealthy criminal or a Russian oil billionaire you should be fine.
(and it'll eventually become compulsary, with the government being allowed to store your details against your will; and including cards for children, as the bill allows the lowering of the 16 year old minimum age)
Oh, and there is no real legal protection for the citizen against the misuse of their details.
See also; http://www.privacyinternational.org/issues/idcard/uk/id-card-review-1204.pdf
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/01/id_card/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/05/complete_idcard_guide/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/16/idcard_cost_fiddles/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/17/id_register_entries/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/03/business_immigrant_checks/
NB: UK doesn't require photo-id for credit / debit card. It's either signature based or PIN code based transactions (the latter being adopted now).
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
It's mandatory to carry around photographic ID here, and every citizen has an ID card. WHat's the big deal?
indeed, what is the big deal?
It's not as if no faceless organisation knows who we are already.
just carry the thing and quit whining. Democracy isn't going to end because of it.
-
Originally posted by beatspete
Imagine if everyday things like the driving license or passport were to be introduced next year for the first time;
"What!? you mean I have to carry a bit of plastic with my name, date of birth and a photo of me just to use my car?! This is an outrage!"
Wrong. Carrying a driving license isn't compulsory. In fact the only way you can be forced to show it is if you're ordered to produce it at a police station (which gives you 7 days to find where you put it.)
This one little step actually prevents ID theft because it means that you don't have to carry your drivers licence around the entire time. Forcing people to carry one only makes it easier to steal it.
-
Originally posted by ngtm1r
There's nothing this ID card doesn't do that, say, a credit card wouldn't. Or a drivers' license. Or a student ID. Or a passport. Let's face it, this ID card is not giving the government any information they don't already have, folks. They already know your name, age, residence, etc. So you have to carry another card. Big frickin' deal.
Besides, you practically MUST have photo ID to use your credit card or write a check (and have people accept it) these days in the US, and from what I understand that's true over on that side of the pond too.
Some people don't drive, are not students, and don't have credit cards or passports....
I have nothing with a photo on, apart from my passport which I never carry, and I never have trouble paying for stuff because the chip and PIN system is almost foolproof. BTW: Every card in the UK will have to be chip and PIN next year, they will stop accepting old cards in March I think.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
since when does a driver's license have fingerprints and other such biometrics?
And what power does the government derive from having your biometric data? So they know size, weight and other stuff of citizens. If it helps preventing acts of crime, that's fine for me - I don't plan a career in drugs or weapon deals. Neither do I plan a terrorist attack. I'm quite willing to give up some privacy to prevent other people from suffering.
Seriously, thinking the government will know or wants to know every move of the citizen, like where they buy food, take a walk or fuel their cars, is just paranoid. You overrate the state's interest in the average Mr Smith.
-
Originally posted by mitac
And what power does the government derive from having your biometric data? So they know size, weight and other stuff of citizens. If it helps preventing acts of crime, that's fine for me - I don't plan a career in drugs or weapon deals. Neither do I plan a terrorist attack. I'm quite willing to give up some privacy to prevent other people from suffering.
Seriously, thinking the government will know or wants to know every move of the citizen, like where they buy food, take a walk or fuel their cars, is just paranoid. You overrate the state's interest in the average Mr Smith.
That's ok, ID cards won't prevent terrorism or crime anyways (maybe increase the market in forgery, though). They will allow the government to track your employment record, cross check your medical records, and probably also track id-validated purchases though. Very useful if, for example, you wanted to identify demographic information on possible voters for the opposition.
Put it this way; will you write your full name, address, postcode, and phone number (for a start) in this thread?
Y'see, it's not what will be done that people worry about; it's what can be done. And the 2 aren't exactly all that different when you think of how little governments tell the truth anyways........
-
I guess the major difference is that I don't live in the UK. :p Since the Nazi disaster in the 30's/40's, civil rights have been a "national treasure" around here. Allowing the police to trace telephon calls took like ten years, due to the "lively" discussion among lawyers, politicians and civil organisations. And even what's put into the legal authorisation is checked, double-checked and triple-checked. So, if any attempt on gathering all data on any person was made and became public, the respective government would be politically dead. That's why I have a hard time comprehending what this "uproar" is about. :) Same goes for the demographic information on voters, as our political system is vastly different from others, and basically wouldn't make it possible to influence elections that way.
-
Originally posted by mitac
I guess the major difference is that I don't live in the UK. :p Since the Nazi disaster in the 30's/40's, civil rights have been a "national treasure" around here. Allowing the police to trace telephon calls took like ten years, due to the "lively" discussion among lawyers, politicians and civil organisations. And even what's put into the legal authorisation is checked, double-checked and triple-checked. So, if any attempt on gathering all data on any person was made and became public, the respective government would be politically dead. That's why I have a hard time comprehending what this "uproar" is about. :) Same goes for the demographic information on voters, as our political system is vastly different from others, and basically wouldn't make it possible to influence elections that way.
The key point there is 'became public'.
Of course, I'm guessing you don't have the same constant terrorist fearmongering as in the Uk.....
-
There are 700 million people living in Europe, of which 300 have been killed in terrorist attacks within the past 3-4 years. And you're telling me that you see that as a genuine threat to your safety? Now who's paranoid.
You have far, far better chances of winning the lottery than getting so much as a scratch on you due to terrorist related activity. And you're willing to give up essential liberties to maybe, possibly protect you from a threat that's practically non-existant?
eh, you deserve whatever you get.
-
:rolleyes:
Who are you talking to?
-
Originally posted by mitac
And what power does the government derive from having your biometric data? So they know size, weight and other stuff of citizens. If it helps preventing acts of crime, that's fine for me - I don't plan a career in drugs or weapon deals. Neither do I plan a terrorist attack. I'm quite willing to give up some privacy to prevent other people from suffering.
OK, so you wouldn't mind having your phone bugged, cameras installed in you home, your purchases traced, you library records looked into and having to submit to random searches of your person or property, right?
After all, only criminals want privacy, and those with nothing to hide having nothing to fear, eh?
What a load of bull****. Once you give up certain rights, guess what, you're never getting them back. The "state of emergency" will never pass, the "War on Terror" will never end. Tyranny doesn't just arrive one day in all its terrible grandeur, it sneaks in bit by bit, and people always think "oh, its not so bad, I'll get used to it". Its a slippery slope, once you give up one freedom, the rest follows inevitably.
Originally posted by aldo_14
:rolleyes:
Who are you talking to?
mitac
-
Freedom is not free - that is a concept that has been perverted recently by various governments in the western world. The price of freedom is not the bloodshed of others (Iraq, et al) who must suffer for your own sake, it is the lessened security we must all face in a free and open society. That is a price worth paying.
That is all for now. :p
-
Hehe, good point.
People talk about how soldiers killing Vietnamese peasants were "fighting for our freedom" or how ****ing up tiny island nations ensures "our freedom" or even how those fighting in Iraq are doing it to "protect our freedoms", and yet when people have to take a 1/200,000,000 chance that they will be killed, they so readily give up their freedoms.
I guess its OK, as long as its others that are suffering.
-
I'm more likely to be killed choking on a pretzel, than from a terrorist strike... :p
-
Security and Freedom are not inversely proportional. If you have no security you have compete Freedom. If you have no freedom however you still don't have complete security because there is nothing to stop the government turning up at your door and shooting you just cause they feel like it.
So it's a spectum with a completely lawless state at either end. Yes some small measure of freedom must be given up to have some security at all. You must give up the freedom to murder people etc. But other freedoms shouldn't be curtailed because the price you pay is too high.
Let me put it this way. How many Brits realise that the presumption of innocence until proven guilty has been wiped away thanks to the RIP bill (Which allows the government to say that under certain circumstances if you refuse to incriminate yourself you go to jail).
How about the fact that Echelon has been used several times to spy on European businesses in order to provide American companies with a edge.
If you give up your freedom you only end up with a more and more despotic society as the government comes up with the next freedom you should surrender in order to be safe.
-
The Government puts ID card implementation costs somewhere around the £8bn mark, without any reference to annual maintenance costs. Independent bodies have put the initial cost at almost double that. The fact is that if our lords and masters cared about terrorism they'd be pushing to invest that money in police forces and the intelligence services rather than this already-defunct idea. The system isn't foolproof, the technology is new and untested, and the cards themselves can be easily forged. And as with every other new major, government-driven system developed in the UK over the past decade the civil service'll go for the cheapest contractors to come in and **** up the implementation, which will be full of bugs and 4 years late.
It just won't work, mark my words. And that's not saying anything about the privacy issues this system will dig up
-
Agree with you 100% there Sid.
Even if the cards were a good idea who here really believes that the government can bring it in on time and on cost?
-
No one. But I find the objections based on privacy issues to be somewhat overblown.
Since your healthcare is nationalized, wouldn't the government already know everything there is to know about your measurements and medical history? You pay your taxes to them, which gives them access to information about your monetary doings already, in addition to an address.
-
Originally posted by ngtm1r
Since your healthcare is nationalized, wouldn't the government already know everything there is to know about your measurements and medical history? You pay your taxes to them, which gives them access to information about your monetary doings already, in addition to an address.
With the british government the left hand frequently doesn't know what the right hand is doing. The networks controlling most of the data can't talk to each other since they are built on decades old proprietary systems.
Besides as I said before the government may have all this data but does your doctor? Your employer? Your credit card company?
Imagine your credit card company turning you down for a loan cause they've noticed that your medical records show you have the gene for testicular cancer and are about the right age to contract it.
There needs to be a firm control on who can access what data. This needs to be decided now. It can't be decided once the cards are already in circulation and are being abused.
Besides. If what you said is correct why should the british public pay billions to bring in a system that doesn't do anything government can't already do? The government like the idea cause a lot of this money won't be coming out of taxes. We'll have to pay a flat fee for the cards. So basically we're being taxed again for the same government services.
-
Rictor,
this is not about giving up civil rights, this is about limiting their range to a point that allows effective control over criminal subjects. This does absolutely require a strict system of checks and balances, no doubt. But as someone said before, no control = total freedom. And I'm absolutely no fan of either that variant or the other extreme. The right path leads somewhere to the middle, but denying any possibility for a compromise by pointing fingers and shouting "bull****" is of no help.
Any political or legal system has an inherent possibility of failure or abuse. You can't get rid of that. But it is a must to try and find a compromise that works.
And to stress that point : no, I wouldn't want cameras all over my place, or random searches or any of that stuff. But sticking to this example : I'm willing to support searches and cameras wherever they're necessary and helpful, like to check suspicious folks at airports or large fairs. I know some examples, where the police makes video recordings at large events, which often help in identifying criminals or preventing crime. However, these recordings have to be destroyed after 24 hours. That's how it should work.
Call that "bull****" if it makes you feel better.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Of course, I'm guessing you don't have the same constant terrorist fearmongering as in the Uk.....
:nod: Exactly.
-
Originally posted by mitac
Rictor,
this is not about giving up civil rights, this is about limiting their range to a point that allows effective control over criminal subjects. This does absolutely require a strict system of checks and balances, no doubt. But as someone said before, no control = total freedom. And I'm absolutely no fan of either that variant or the other extreme. The right path leads somewhere to the middle, but denying any possibility for a compromise by pointing fingers and shouting "bull****" is of no help.
Any political or legal system has an inherent possibility of failure or abuse. You can't get rid of that. But it is a must to try and find a compromise that works.
And to stress that point : no, I wouldn't want cameras all over my place, or random searches or any of that stuff. But sticking to this example : I'm willing to support searches and cameras wherever they're necessary and helpful, like to check suspicious folks at airports or large fairs. I know some examples, where the police makes video recordings at large events, which often help in identifying criminals or preventing crime. However, these recordings have to be destroyed after 24 hours. That's how it should work.
Call that "bull****" if it makes you feel better.
I'm not advocating going to either extreme, only that I would prefer a less powerful government than we have now, yes even at the cost to saftey (though we both know that the "terrorist threat" is so remote that is hardly a threat at all, mostly just scare tactics by the media and those with an interest in having people scared.)
Here's the deal: I mistrust anyone with power. The more power, the more I mistrust them because the greater the consequences of them abusing it will be. You say you would support searches etc "where necessary and helpful", but who decides when they are necessary and helpful? Do you? Is it decided via a referendum, or any other democratic process? Of course not, the experts decide. Essentially, what you are doing is letting one group, who are by definition power-hungry (not law enforcement, but rather the politicians who give the orders and make the laws), simple promise that they won't try to take more power to themselves but meanwhile give them means to simpl ignore their promise with little consequences ("they'll get voted out next election" is kind of stupid, New Labour isn't going anywhere no matter how badly they **** up.)
I think the difference between you and me is that, fundamentally, you believe that the government is a caring entity, who has the best interests of the people at heart and not the advancement of their own power. Let me ask you this: can you point to a single example in the past 50 years in a Western democracy where the government has willingly given up even one iota of its power? I can't think of any. Its a one way street, you slowly get your rights take away, of course for your own good, but you will never get them back.
Quite aside from that, the threat of terrorism is, as I've said, so small as to be almost negligible. 700 millon people in Europe, 300 of which (more or less) have died in terrorist attacks recently.
That's a 1/2,000,000 chance of death. Now, assuming that the ID card scheme will reduce the threat of a terrorist attack by an astounding 50%, you are essentially giving up your liberties because the government promises to protect you from a threat that has a 1/4,000,000 of occuring.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
I think the difference between you and me is that, fundamentally, you believe that the government is a caring entity, who has the best interests of the people at heart and not the advancement of their own power. Let me ask you this: can you point to a single example in the past 50 years in a Western democracy where the government has willingly given up even one iota of its power? I can't think of any. Its a one way street, you slowly get your rights take away, of course for your own good, but you will never get them back.
Late reply, but I've been quite busy these days.
I do indeed think that the government should be a caring entity. I'm not so blind to believe that's actually happening all of the time, yet it has to be the target of action taken by the government.
Actually, I know some examples of increasement in civil rights. The planned european constitution includes massive changes in legislation processes, essentially strengthening the position of the european parliament, the only EU institution that is legitimized through a direct vote. Furthermore, german municipal law allows petitions on a regional basis; this law has been introduced only a few years ago. I can't recall the correct date, I read that in the newspaper a few days ago.
But I concur in one (central) point : a direct influence on national top-level governmental politics is not possible, though I can't tell where the balance might have shifted during the last 50 years. But I think that this limitation is legitimate, at least from a historical perspective in my country. In the time between WW1 and WW2, our constitution allowed referendums on several issues of top-level-politics. Those referendums regularly lead to massive riots, street fights and propaganda campaigns. That won't happen in every state, of course, it's just something that should be taken into account.
Quite aside from that, the threat of terrorism is, as I've said, so small as to be almost negligible. 700 millon people in Europe, 300 of which (more or less) have died in terrorist attacks recently.
That's a 1/2,000,000 chance of death. Now, assuming that the ID card scheme will reduce the threat of a terrorist attack by an astounding 50%, you are essentially giving up your liberties because the government promises to protect you from a threat that has a 1/4,000,000 of occuring.
Agreed. But I was not only talking about terrorism, I was talking about crime : drugs, arms, (people) smuggling, for example. You can't deny that tracking data on suspects through the information collected for the ID card could help, can you?
Apart from that : merry christmas. ;)
-
I have an ID card too... :wtf:
Let me get this straight, you are screaming bloody murder for having info that the government already has attached to you, in a single piece of paper? If the problem was about the money being spent, I'd understand, but violating privacy?
Am I the only one finding this odd? :confused:
-
Like I said, the government (don't know about Portugal, but certainly the British government and I suspect yours as well) doesn't have fingerprints and other biometrics for each citizern. So new information IS being given. And the threat is also of all the information being centrally accessible in a single database, which makes surveilance easier.
-
So biometrics = big brother for you?
EDIT:
Interesting read...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2078604.stm#chart
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2078604.stm
also
http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/privacy/id-card-technology.shtml
-
I never said that ID cards=Big Brother, and especially not one single aspect of them only. But I am saying that it is a step in the wrong direction.
Better to have more crime than less privacy, though the arguement that ID cards in and of themselves reduce crime is dubious.
-
But what privacy is lost by having a ID card? No info is gained by the government than biometric info about the person (that I know of).
For example, in Portugal a ID card has:
- Full name and signature
- Picture
- Fingerprint and height
- Birthdate and birthplace
- Place of residence
- Name of parents
- Misc stuff (where and when the card was made, ID number and expiration date)
Any of these, (asside from fingerprint and height) could be gotten by other compulsory forms, like birth register, etc...
-
I'll say it for the hundredth time:
It all gonna be in the one place, including medical records et al, which means all someone needs is access (legit or otherwise) to access every authority record on you.
THAT is the problem. That's too much power.
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
I have an ID card too... :wtf:
Let me get this straight, you are screaming bloody murder for having info that the government already has attached to you, in a single piece of paper? If the problem was about the money being spent, I'd understand, but violating privacy?
Am I the only one finding this odd? :confused:
It is more information than currently stored by the government; the biometrics alone are more - at most the government currently has a photo (passport / driving license) or fingerprints (police record) as ID, in disparate locations.
-
MI5 and MI6 already know enough about you/and could make up stuff to put you away for good, so why worry about ID cards?
The truth is that they don't bother the vast majority of people, but anyone that does catch thier eye can be borked up permanently.
We never see behind the scenes.....
-
If anyone seriously wants info about someone, do you really think the data being scattered is going to stop them?
Biometrics may be added to their database, but as I said before, they have nothing to do with privacy, seeing that they are only used for identification purposes (I can't see what else they can be used for), and I doubt people are trying to hide their fingerprints when they grab a cup of coffee or try to make themselves look taller as they walk past a street.
-
No because there are still checks and balances in place to stop people gathering that information so quickly, the problem is these cards begin to erode those safety nets.
Government exists to serve the people, not spy on them.
-
The government in order to serve the people, must know who they are...
Also note that ID cards don't necessarily have to have a database in which they connect.
-
No they don't have to, but that's the project the government is proposing. (A very badly thought out project as well)
-
Just out of curiosity, how do people that don't have passport nor driver's license nor student's ID in the UK identify themselves?
Library cards? :D
-
If you don't drive, nor go to uni, nor go on holiday, all you would need would be your national insurance card for employment, and some utility bills for opening bank accounts.
Now who need an ID card?
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
Just out of curiosity, how do people that don't have passport nor driver's license nor student's ID in the UK identify themselves?
Library cards? :D
Like vyper said, bills with their name & address on.
NB: the id cards are being brought in to pay for a national database of personal information.
Oh, and need I remind you that this is the same government whose shredding about 3 times the usual number of documents prior to the introducation of new freedom of information laws?