[beatspete]

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".

[vyper]

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?

[beatspete]

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...

[karajorma]

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.

[Unknown Target]

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.

[beatspete]

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?

[vyper]

Mate, are you really willing to trust people like Tony Blair's government with your entire life's data?

[karajorma]

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.

[mitac]

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.

[beatspete]

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.

[Rictor]

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.

[beatspete]

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).

[vyper]

[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!

[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.

[aldo_14]

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.

[karajorma]

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.

[beatspete]

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.

[Rictor]

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.

[vyper]

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).

[Sandwich]

It's mandatory to carry around photographic ID here, and every citizen has an ID card. WHat's the big deal?

[Rictor]

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.