L00b Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 yes I am surmising that they will behave in a particular way based on my experience with my government which is different though not necessarily superior to anyone else's experience just as you are surmising that they will behave in a different way based upon your own experience which is different though not necessarily superior to anyone else's experience No claim of superiority have been made at all, just stating my opinion (which, like everyone else's, is my mine only and therefore certainly not authoritative!) (I have been living here about 13 years altogether, though. I think I've garnered a little experience where your Gvt is concerned...for my sins ) Lighten up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esme Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 lighten up ? sorry I thought we were discussing a serious topic, not that anything said on here will change anything, but even so I didn't realise we were being frivolous, otherwise I'd wear my trout hat and tutu and say wibble a lot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 The passport swipe gets an electronic version of the information on it, but from the passport I believe, not from a DB. My passport is still an old style paper only, no chip or biometrics in it. Makes it a bit harder to forge them I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esme Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 The passport swipe gets an electronic version of the information on it, but from the passport I believe, not from a DB. My passport is still an old style paper only, no chip or biometrics in it. Makes it a bit harder to forge them I suppose. well if you discount the 3000 blank ones that were stolen back in July (see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2468644/Blank-passports-stolen-in-gang-raid.html) though we are supposed to be assured that the chip contained in them is safe because access is encrypted, so I'm not to worry about someone disabling and removing the chip and programming a different RFID chip that has no encryption and inserting it into the passport or even just disabling the chip which causes officials to fall back to the good old open the passport and look at the photo technique they have 3000, they can burn a few along with a handful of mules trying to perfect their techniques because what's left will be worth their weight in gold Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 seems to be fierce opposition vs apathy to me. We still haven't heard the point of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 lighten up ? sorry I thought we were discussing a serious topic, not that anything said on here will change anything, but even so I didn't realise we were being frivolous, otherwise I'd wear my trout hat and tutu and say wibble a lot We are discussing a serious topic, but you were (IMHO) getting a bit heavy with "my experience this, your experience that" and truisms (which Gvt hasn't enacted and/or interpreted its rules for its benefit at some point or other?) We can enjoy a constructive discussion without resorting to black helicopter scenarios, can't we? The passport swipe gets an electronic version of the information on it, but from the passport I believe, not from a DB. My passport is still an old style paper only, no chip or biometrics in it. Makes it a bit harder to forge them I suppose. So, essentially, the terminal reads the passport code, outputs the code onscreen, and the Customs officer checks the print against the onscreen code? Seems pointless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Much like an ID card would be pointless, but very expensive to implement and a threat (in the current proposed form) to civil liberties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esme Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 We are discussing a serious topic, but you were (IMHO) getting a bit heavy with "my experience this, your experience that" and truisms (which Gvt hasn't enacted and/or interpreted its rules for its benefit at some point or other?) We can enjoy a constructive discussion without resorting to black helicopter scenarios, can't we?my apologies if I seemed to be getting a tad "heavy", and yes we can have a constructive discussion avoiding "black helicopter scenarios" as long as we also avoid the "sweetness and light government acting in our best interests scenarios as well" the truth will be somewhere in the middle, and all attempts to find where this middle is by questioning ministers has been met with evasiveness and blank refusals to answer, so forgive me for veering towards "black helicopter scenarios" the government could very easily lay all these arguments to rest by stating exactly what will happen and why, but it refuses to and has refused to for over 12 years now, so the question is why ? I should add that each and every justification the government has put forward for the scheme has been comprehensively knocked down without recourse to civil liberties and the response is usually to give a different reason when that happens for example it started off as anti terrorist legislation, then anti serious crime, then anti benefit fraud, then immigration control then back to serious crime and repeat they haven't justified the scheme but it has merrily continued on it's way while the arguments for it have been successively knocked down it looks like the reasons so far are probably just delaying tactics, to keep us busy knocking them down while the scheme rolls on unaffected, and they won't tell us the real reason now that's a bit paranoid I agree but the government could clear these muddied waters just by answering the question of what is the purpose of the scheme with an answer that cannot be knocked down Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 seems to be fierce opposition vs apathy to me. We still haven't heard the point of them. Taken from the Home Office website: ID cards — the benefits * a universal and simple proof of identity that brings convenience for organisations and individuals – that means an end to the disorganised use of photocopied bank statements, phone bills and birth certificates * the Service will give you control of who can see your personal details – that means an end to revealing details about your finances or personal life just to prove who you are and where you live * ensuring that foreign nationals living, working and studying here legally are able to easily prove their identity and prevent those here illegally from benefiting from the privileges of Britain * convenient travel in Europe using the identity card. I have to say that I'm not currently happy about people seeing my credit card details and purchases when I have to use it as a form of ID proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 A passport fulfils all those requirements except for that of foreign nationals. Currently they have to use their own passport or other acceptable ID, which should be just as an effective way of stopping illegal immigrants 'benefiting from the privileges of britain'. I don't remember ever being required to show a credit card statement to anyone. A council tax bill, maybe, a phone bill, yes. But that's normally in addition to your proof of ID as it's proof of your current address. That probably won't change just because a new bit of plastic is introduced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.