Those excellent people from Stand are at it again.
This time they are asking people to register their feelings about the proposed introduction of ID cards in the UK. The government are currently undergoing a period of public consultation on this matter and they claim that the responses they've been getting have all been very positive.
Please visit the Stand web site and help them to demonstrate that we're not all positive about the idea.
how people in the UK can welcome the retinal scan for payment of school lunches yet bristle about a lowly ID card. I'll be getting a national ID when I enter Finland and it doesn't bother me since the US has been tracking people for so long in all but the reality of an ID card that it seems late and extraneous at this point. I'm sure the UK isn't much different in this respect. Why all the fuss over something that is really just a foregone conclusion?
Re:I don't understand
nicholas on 2003-01-13T10:10:56
Why all the fuss over something that is really just a foregone conclusion?The UK government is already tracking people, typically using their national insurance number (social security number, which nearly everyone has, but isn't compulsary). The fuss is more about how they are trying to slip this through without any real debate, and how they are trying to spin things (as usual) to hide what they don't want you to spot. They say "it's not compulsory", where they clarify that as "it's not going to be compulsory to carry one". What they're trying to hide is that they do intend to make it compulsory to have one.
If they were open about it, there would be less fuss. If they'd put it in their manifesto there would be less fuss. But they are not, and they did not. They are a bunch of high handed manipulative paternalistic control freaks. Unfortunately they have no effective opposition, they are unlikely to get kicked out anytime soon, and the likely alternative is on average no better.
Re:I don't understand
hfb on 2003-01-13T15:24:14
The US is in much the same position though, in all honesty, I don't see how requiring people to carry ID is really all that objectionable considering that it's merely a formality given the amount of information that is already collected daily by government and private agencies. There are laws in some US states and municipalities which require a citizen to carry no less than $10 in cash on their person lest they be arrested for vagrancy as well as some form of ID be it a drivers license or a state ID card. The Nordic countries have had this sort of national ID system for decades without too much fuss or ill consequences.
1984 came and went and the digital future we all gunned for in the 90s merely assured such things as this would come to pass. The future has arrived so why fight a battle that was fought and won more than a decade ago? Would a public debate really help this situation since they might avoid making it compulsory but bureaucrats are very adept at making your life hell in paperwork and denial of services if you don't agree to carry one.
You should read the Patriot Act sometime as that would certainly cheer you up in regard to government in the UK vs in the US. Don't ever expect politicians to be fully honest or forthcoming and you'll never be shocked or disappointed by their failings.
Re:I don't understand
essuu on 2003-01-13T16:58:50
I don't have a problem with carrying an ID card if I actually thought it would do any good. My problem is that it appears that such a card will not deliver the stated benefits. Fraud will not be reduced, crime may well increase as the cards become valuable things to forge/acquire. So over a billion pounds will be spent for little real benefit. It just doesn't seem like a good deal to me.Re:I don't understand
hfb on 2003-01-13T18:20:24
I presume you carry a drivers license or a passport....how is this ID any different or more objectionable? Any ID is subject to fraudulent reproduction so the fear of identity theft seems dated and moot. The expense seems a bit high but there are worse things a government could spend money on.
Re:I don't understand
davorg on 2003-01-13T18:30:03
I presume you carry a drivers license or a passport....I only carry my passport when I'm out of the UK. And in the UK you don't need to carry your driving license with you at all times. Even if you had one - which I don't.
Re:I don't understand
hfb on 2003-01-13T22:10:42
Do you carry some form of ID though? How would medics identify your body or next of kin if you were in some sort of public transport accident or somesuch? At least in the US, if they can't identify you or find someone who can, you sit in the ER as a 'john doe' awaiting identification unless your injuries are critical. I often have my passport with me as it's one of the most definitive forms of ID you can carry and the picture is way better than my drivers license
:) The ID card is no big whoop but what about the orwellian remote internet porn dragnet that just nabbed pete townshend and a slew of others in the UK? All of the things you fear an ID card will do have already arrived...the card is just a mere bureaucratic detail.
Re:I don't understand
nicholas on 2003-01-14T13:19:08
At least in the US, if they can't identify you or find someone who can, you sit in the ER as a 'john doe' awaiting identification unless your injuries are critical.The NHS is far more fair than that. Everyone gets to sit in the ER, identified or not
:-) (There's probably a signficant observation in the above. I occasionally go out with no real identification (just keys and a hankerchief). But it has never even crossed my mind that I'd fail to get medical treatment if I could not be identified. I guess it's a side effect of living in a country with a universal public health system)
Re:I don't understand
essuu on 2003-01-13T19:21:12
I presume you carry a drivers license or a passport....how is this ID any different or more objectionable?It's different in terms of scope (i.e. a superset of both UK passport holders and driving licence holders) but that isn't really my point.
The government is trying to sell this idea on the basis that it will cut down on fraud and identity crime whereas the reality is most likely that it will increase the scale of fraud achievable because the document will be the key to many things but this potential for abuse, by both legitimate users of the system and those who can subvert the system isn't really my point either.
My point is that the UK government has such a woeful record of repeatedly failing to deliver large scale projects on time or to budget that this 1bn GBP budget is almost certainly much less than it will really cost. Combine this with the paralysis that will set in across government as departments freeze projects while they "wait for the ID system" and you have a recipe for a monstrous failure.
That's what I object to and it has nothing to do with whether I think ID cards per-se are a good thing or not.
That money could better be spent on more books with which to educate our children than in adding yet another layer to our already creaking government. </rant>
:) Re:I don't understand
hfb on 2003-01-13T22:50:26
This I can understand
:) It's much like the US and the 'Homeland Security Agency' or whatever they're calling this week which will consolidate a large number of organisations, etc. that will ultimately fail to meet its mission and merely waste a lot of money in the process while schools are currently curtailing the school year and services due to drastic budget problems.
I have to second hfb's comment. Not for the sake of starting a debate but because I'm genuinely curious. France has had ID cards forever (well, for at least quite a while before I was born) and I haven't had a single occasion to consider that a problem. I've actually found those useful: you show up at an administration and ask for something, they punch in your ID number (or scan the card) and immediately have all the info they need. It's not like it's private information, you'd have had to fill it out yourself anyway. Same thing with the cops -- and I did get arrested my share of times -- I never saw abuse, it's just simple ID control except they don't have to interrogate you but instead can do it on site (and I'm glad I didn't have to be brought to the station everytime).
So my question is, what's really worrying you? Do you have reasons to be wary of what your government may do or is it just a "libertarian" gut-reaction? Is there a good reason to worry about that more than about your government's almost unconditional support of the American Empire's war on Irak?
Re:question
nicholas on 2003-01-13T10:01:30
Do you have reasons to be wary of what your government may doThis is the same governement, in fact this is the same home secretary, who recently tried to sneak through powers to let the post office snoop on e-mail without seeking court approval. There is no may here - they do do. Is that alone a good enough reason, or do I need to give you more?
:-( Re:question
darobin on 2003-01-13T10:18:18
Oh I do understand that governments try that sort of thing, it's not the exclusive of yours... However, my question is more "how do you think having an ID card system will make that worse?"
Re:question
nicholas on 2003-01-14T13:13:41
However, my question is more "how do you think having an ID card system will make that worse?"24 hours on and I still haven't got a good answer to that question. So here's a "sorry to keep you waiting" post. You can pretend that you're being played annoying musak if it helps
:-) Re:question
hitherto on 2003-01-15T00:14:40
The propsed system is hugely wrong for several reasons:
1) It's apparently "not compulsory". Unless you want to drive, use a bank account, buy or rent a house, claim welfare, use the NHS, pay tax, vote, or travel. For starters. So unless you're homeless, penniless and in perfect health, it's effectively compulsory. When one of the basic principles of the scheme is based on a lie, I tend to get suspicious.
2) Note the number of institutions who will have access to it. the DVLA (driving), the NHS, the Home Office, the Inland Revenue, the DSS, the Education department, Customs, all Banks, all Mortgage lenders, and quite possibly Estate Agents. Probably the Post Office too. That is a *hell* of a lot of people with access to all your personal data (including potentially medical records, criminal record, banking history and details, address, phone numbers, biometric data, and so on and so on).
3) Having so many people with access to so much data might be manageable, if there were stiff penalties for misuse. But there are none whatsoever. Not a single proposed law. On the other hand, not notifying the Government when you move house will become a criminal offence. So, we have hundreds of thousands of public and private sector employees with access to all your personal data, and no penalties for misuse. Given that the Police have already been caught misusing and even selling personal data when it's against the law, are you telling me *no-one* is going to abuse the database? Excuse me if I remain an unbeliever.
4) Centralised data on every individual. Kinda tempting for a well-funded criminal gang for who identity theft brings real benefits, don't you think? And even with every electronic signature, watermark and other trick in the book, these things will still be forgeable. I find that *so* reassuring. Oh, wait...
I'm not interested in what other countries do regarding centralised ID. This particular proposal is wrong beyond belief, and if it's enacted, will severely impact the freedom and everyday life of every citizen of the UK. We have a chance to stop it now, and with any luck we will.
As I write, Stand have handled 3506 dissenting commentaries against the proposals. The cynic in me just hopes that the Government don't have time to dredge up 2000-odd mysterious "commentaries" in favour of the idea from thin air before Jan 31st.Re:question
hfb on 2003-01-15T01:16:05
The US has the Social Security Number, SSN, which is required and used for everything from bank accounts, health care, employment, credit cards, buying a car, getting a drivers license, buying a home, getting a cell phone, etc. the list is seemingly endless. Many of these agencies share information reciprocally based on your name, DOB and SSN so as long as you have these numbers it's a cakewalk to 'steal' someone's identity. A government issued ID card isn't likely to increase this type of fraud and may even help to reduce some cases of fraud. The US had a case this November of an employee of Equifax, a major credit reporting agency, who sold the information to credit thieves which made it easy since all they needed was the DOB and SSN whereas if a picture ID along with biometric data were required for any kind of transaction it would likely have made the job a lot more difficult.
The US gov had had centralised data on most individuals for at least 2 decades now and the credit card companies have an utterly frightening amount of data collected on spending patterns so the fear of more fraud or big brother is a little too little and a little too late.
I think the focus of the objections should be not of the fear of what has already been around for 20 or more years but how to make it more secure and less vulnerable to casual hacking along with bringing the laws up to scratch for people who commit these sorts of crimes. The national ID would be an administrative convenience that might even save money in the long-term though that might be too optimistic considering there is a giant bureaucracy behind it.
:) Re:question
pudge on 2003-01-24T13:37:15
Yes, the US has the SSN, used for identification. But this is no argument for the validity of a national ID card, because we should be working to NOT use the SSN for identification, not to compound the problem the SSN contributes to. Our centralized credit data system is a horrible crime of invasion of privacy against the people of this country.
It is not "too little too late." It is not too late. There are still things that could be done; the opposite of trying to improve them is trying to centralize MORE data and take away MORE freedom. "Since I have this toothpick poking my eye, I might as well sit on a pike." No thanks.
And yes, it is a big deal to be required to carry one. You ask why I don't want to carry one? I don't need a reason. That's what freedom is. There is no reason why I need to give anyone a reason. Just Because is sufficient.
Re:question
Fletch on 2003-01-15T14:22:59
4) Centralised data on every individual. Kinda tempting for a well-funded criminal gang for who identity theft brings real benefits, don't you think?From the Life-Imitates-Journal-Musing Department: There was a recent theft of medical records for about 500,000 US military personnel and their families from an Arizona company that provides healtcare services (Google News Search).
Re:question
pdcawley on 2003-01-14T15:23:21
Does it really matter? It sure as hell isn't going to make it any better, and it's going to cost a bloody fortune.
