Oddgitt Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 Please tell us why you like the idea-noone has given a reason and I just don't see the point??? Why not? There's only 2 reasons I can see that people could oppose this: 1 - "I don't want the government to have all that information. Why should I give my fingerprints, dna, biometrics? I'm not a criminal" - so if you're not a criminal what's the problem? Or would you like the option of being able to commit a crime and having a chance to get away with it? 2 - "If all my information is on one card I'm screwed if it gets lost" - not really... it's not much worse that if you lose your driving license, bank card or passport now... what do you do? Cancel it, order a new one. Even if you do lose it, they won't be able to use it for anything without your PIN, finger prints, eyeballs. The only risk is your identity getting stolen, and that's a risk we have now, so what's the issue? The fact is whether it's 1, 5, or 50 years something like this will become common place and we'll all need one if we want to travel etc. So why not embrace it and stop being a bunch of doomsaying wimps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ju-Ju Posted November 18, 2009 Author Share Posted November 18, 2009 Why not? There's only 2 reasons I can see that people could oppose this: 1 - "I don't want the government to have all that information. Why should I give my fingerprints, dna, biometrics? I'm not a criminal" - so if you're not a criminal what's the problem? Or would you like the option of being able to commit a crime and having a chance to get away with it? 2 - "If all my information is on one card I'm screwed if it gets lost" - not really... it's not much worse that if you lose your driving license, bank card or passport now... what do you do? Cancel it, order a new one. Even if you do lose it, they won't be able to use it for anything without your PIN, finger prints, eyeballs. The only risk is your identity getting stolen, and that's a risk we have now, so what's the issue? The fact is whether it's 1, 5, or 50 years something like this will become common place and we'll all need one if we want to travel etc. So why not embrace it and stop being a bunch of doomsaying wimps. You have given reasons why you don't mind ID cards, but the question you quoted asked people to give a reason for ID cards. Haven't heard a good one yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 As I have said before the government is not a moral beast, there have been times in our past when it has been illegal to practice certain faiths, there has been times in the worlds past where you were killed if you were from a certain race. The reason it is important to learn history is so that we don't repeat the same mistakes. What if suddenly it becomes illegal to be of your faith or your political persuasion. That information is there on your card ready to get you in trouble and there is no reason they need to know that information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 What if suddenly it becomes illegal to be of your faith or your political persuasion. That information is there on your card ready to get you in trouble Is it? Is this information on your passport? and there is no reason they need to know that information.Agreed. I can understand, and would fully support, objections to inventory that information, because it is not required to identify a person. But lets' have some more of the facts, and less of the hysteria Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zongamin Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 If it saves me having to carry the 17 different forms of ID I currently have to have in my wallet for different companies, places, purposes ... then I'll bite their arm off to get one! It wont - it will just mean you now have 18 pieces, of ID, 1 of which will have cost you 90odd quid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 Is it? Is this information on your passport? Agreed. I can understand, and would fully support, objections to inventory that information, because it is not required to identify a person. But lets' have some more of the facts, and less of the hysteria it is going to have more information than a passport otherwise we would stick to a passport. They want to link every aspect of your electronic life to the database and once we have ID cards who will stop them doing that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magilla Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 Why not? There's only 2 reasons I can see that people could oppose this: 1 - "I don't want the government to have all that information. Why should I give my fingerprints, dna, biometrics? I'm not a criminal" - so if you're not a criminal what's the problem? Or would you like the option of being able to commit a crime and having a chance to get away with it? The problem, like the DNA database is that if there's even the most tenuous link to your biometrics at a crime scene and no other data, then the police will persue you and make your life a misery. The data supplied will be used *against* you, not to prove your innocence. If you know that you have no intention of committing crime, or will be innocent of any crime, it's in your interest to keep your personal information to yourself. 2 - "If all my information is on one card I'm screwed if it gets lost" - not really... it's not much worse that if you lose your driving license, bank card or passport now... what do you do? Cancel it, order a new one. Even if you do lose it, they won't be able to use it for anything without your PIN, finger prints, eyeballs. The only risk is your identity getting stolen, and that's a risk we have now, so what's the issue? When you have an identity document stolen now, the theif can only use it within a limited scope. That won't be the case with a universal ID card. The fact is whether it's 1, 5, or 50 years something like this will become common place and we'll all need one if we want to travel etc. So why not embrace it and stop being a bunch of doomsaying wimps. I tend to agree, which is why we must be especially vigilant now. There's nothing wimpish about wanting to maintain your own identity. We see plenty of posts about the DNA database saying "if you have nothing to hide", but I know several people who despite being innocent of any crime (infact they were victims of crime), have been harrassed by the police or refused employment positions because they're on it. "No smoke without fire", seemingly. Who knows how this biometric data will be used in the future. It may seem benign at the moment, but it may not be in the future. People are right to be concerned, especially considering this governments track record for feature creep in relation to measures passed. You simply cannot trust the government (at least our current one) to keep the data secure, and not abuse it for some self serving motive. The ID card will be the thin end of the wedge in terms of surveilance I feel. Interestingly, the US in the process of adopting a system that appears to have been rejected by this government in 2000, presumably because it allows the owner of the card to say what info is stored about them:- http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/17/digital_identity_strategies/ In theory ID cards aren't inherantly a bad idea, aslong as you can trust everyone in the chain who has access to the information. Unfortunately I don't ever forsee a day when that can be said to be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 it is going to have more information than a passport otherwise we would stick to a passport. Dispassionately, I'm looking at a small-sized, more residual plastified card rather than a larger, less residual (paper/card) 'book', with the same information: DoB, name, address, height, eye colour, maybe place of birth, and these encoded electronically in a machine-readable form. I'm looking at my French ID card now, and I can't see where my thumbprint is or what it might be encoded as, so I cannot be sure that this data is actually on the card at all. If anything, I surmise they may use my thumbprint for double-check purposes, in case there is ever a likelihood of confusion (i.e. use if/when there is a DB glitch or an ID theft attempt). Essentially, an alternative to a passport (no different in content) which is easier to carry, less expensive to replace, and the loss or theft of which is less of an issue (i.e. you can travel the world over with a passport, not so with an ID card - think of the consequences). They want to link every aspect of your electronic life to the database and once we have ID cards who will stop them doing that?That's eminently doable right now, in fact I'd lay good money on such a DB already existing behind a heavily guarded door at MI5 or MI6. And another such DB, behind a heavily guarded door at the NSA. And another such DB, behind a heavily guarded door at the DGSE. Etc, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garrence Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 That's eminently doable right now Oh, indeed. So the the security services have the ability to look in databases for national security already. Therefore they don't need this. The problem isn't so much the card but the National Identity Register database behind it. The state becomes everyone's master and gives them all a number. This number eventually gets on your record on all the other databases, so it's dead easy to link all the records up. You might call it StateBook. Spying on people should take some effort. The NIR provides the glue necessary to make it really easy, by linking everything together and let all manner of public servants and private companies access lots of private data with a few clicks. They might be your neighbour, a , etc. Databases are likely to be linked in: Records of your telephone calls, who you email, what websites you visit (Communications Data Retention Directive & Intercept Modernisation Programme). If telecoms providers are storing the ID numbers of their customers then it's easy to link up. The work for this is in progress. The National Vehicle Tracking Database of all car journies. The DVLA can provide the NIR-to-registration lookup. This is running now. The ContactPoint records of children's school careers will become their NIR record. This is running now. Records of your public transport journies. The ID card provides a convenient equivalent to the Oyster card and for some reason the government are very keen on introducing card ticketing on all trains and buses. Next time there's a public transport bombing, expect them to decree that anonymous tickets are out and everyone must use their ID cards to travel (not that it would have prevented any of the bombers so far, but that's irrelevant). Where you've been and who you associate with. For example, pub landlords could be forced to make electronic checks on all guests, leaving a record (they trialled this in Yeovil by making guests give their fingerprints before they could buy a pint - imagine a landlord having to fingerprint his regulars each day!). You can work out who someone identifies with, making it easier to stifle political agitators (in conjunction with telephone database). Where you've been. Why do they want 3D facial scans? Because they're trialling facial recognition CCTV in various places. So those cameras that were put up to protect you will, when the tech is good enough, be used to log your movements. Add the Home Office plans for linking all the public and private CCTV cameras into a national network accessible to many. Details of any other document. The ID Cards Act allows anything to be added to the data with just the signature of a minister. When you attend a protest, the police will record who was there. They don't even need to take your ID card from you, the chip can be read from a distance (a distance that will increase as the tech improves). Will people stand up and be counted when they will be permanently marked with "political agitator"? This kind of monitoring was used by the hated East German STASI. People took great lengths to protect their privacy and defeat them. The UK scheme makes it all far far easier! You may say "oh but it couldn't possibly happen here!" but that is to put too much trust in the state and to ignore the lessons of history. Why install the apparatus of a surveillance state if we're not going to use it? And still we have not heard a good reason for these things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ju-Ju Posted November 18, 2009 Author Share Posted November 18, 2009 Yes garrance -we are yet to hear why this is a good idea, rather than just answers to the objections we have. Ditto, again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.