garrence Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 What i meant was - if these cards are to be so good, then once someone has got a fake one, perhaps in the name of someone legal, how could this legal person then claim he is the real person, because the other person has this ID card that proves he is the person on it. If it doesn't prove it, what it the point of them? There are 3 types of check. 1. A visual check. The cards will be forged very quickly because of the huge value to criminals, so this check is meaningless. 2. A check of the biometrics on the card. A Daily Mail test copied these in 12 minutes, changed the biometrics and added a message "I am a terrorist - shoot on sight". So the government will soon say "types 1 and 2 are not secure, we must all use type 3". Type 3 is against a central database and each check will be recorded. The government's dream of logging all citizen's daily lives will be fulfilled and the (a perfect prison achieved through surveillance) will be complete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garrence Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 Are we talking checking biometric data against a database? Given the recent ruling that non-criminals DNA can only be held for a maximum of 6 years, if i refuse to have my data held, what are they going to do then? Yes type 3 is against biometrics stored on the central database. The Identity Cards Act 2006 allows for storing of any biometrics. At first this will be all 10 fingerprints and 3D facial images (for tracking you with facial recognition CCTV). Other biometrics include retina scans, voice patterns, hand measurements, style of walking and ear shape. If you're mad enough to want to join (for life) then you have no choice but to give up your fingerprints. The intention was that everyone renewing their passport from 2010 would also be required to join the National Identity Register and pay £30 to be fingerprinted, though this date may have slipped. At present you can refuse to have an ID card and can renew your passport without joining the NIR. In a year or two's time you may only refuse to have your data held by "volunteering" to not have a passport. And soon after that Labour intend to make it compulsory for all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garrence Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 I wish that were the case. However the government have been pushing hard at European level to make other European countries adopt biometrics. When the cards become compulsory and you refuse to register on that basis, I think they'll just fine you a few thousand pounds and leave it to you to pay for the court cases to fight your argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 2. A check of the biometrics on the card. A Daily Mail test copied these in 12 minutes, changed the biometrics and added a message "I am a terrorist - shoot on sight". There are several major flaws and errors in that article. Plus, its the Daily Mail - a source continually discredited on this forum, whether the information is true or not! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ju-Ju Posted November 17, 2009 Author Share Posted November 17, 2009 There are several major flaws and errors in that article. Plus, its the Daily Mail - a source continually discredited on this forum, whether the information is true or not! Glad I posted it though - feel like I've learnt a lot from everyone's posts, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 The problem is that you won't ever get a really good reaction on ID cards. They're a good idea, but flawed by data loss, the stupid claim they will "eliminate terrorism", naysayers who base their rants on fiction like 1984, the huge expense, and the fact the companies involved are all cosy with Labour. There are some good reasons for ID cards and DNA databases, but these valid reasons will always get trampled on by the above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 I was talking about the UK ones What i meant was - if these cards are to be so good, then once someone has got a fake one, perhaps in the name of someone legal, how could this legal person then claim he is the real person, because the other person has this ID card that proves he is the person on it. If it doesn't prove it, what it the point of them? Simples, in the case of the French ones: a real card proves ID, a fake one can't, and a convincing fake one is (currently still) technically impossible. You can't amend a real one (e.g. convincingly over-print a photo or text), because of some of the tech built in them: besides many other 'hidden gems' which I won't talk about (because I'd have to kill every thread reader ), they include some oxygen-or-other-activated 'self-destructing' agent, which is activated as soon as you breach the plastic coating (a bit like stolen banknotes spayed with paint) and renders the card entirely useless. Needless to say, it also works if you accidentally damage your own card, and you have to apply for a replacement (costs €25). You can't make a fake one either, because of these other 'hidden gems' (proprietary tech to the one single place in France, which manufactures all the cards). You might be able to mock one which will fool stores to buy booze when under-age, maybe even banks (they'd have to be real good, and not the kind you buy under the counter for £500, oh no), but definitely not autorities. The only way to successfully deceive all with a dodgy card (in which case the card must be legit but obtained fraudulently (through theft or other) is to engage is extensive cosmetic surgery to resemble the owner, and do that and use the card quickly before the original owner reports it lost or stolen Once it's reported stolen, central database does the rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Br8inend Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 neither did I, scary! I take it they did inform the parents? Nope not at all, some people might not agree! Says it all doesn't it.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 The problem is that you won't ever get a really good reaction on ID cards. They're a good idea, but flawed by data loss, the stupid claim they will "eliminate terrorism", naysayers who base their rants on fiction like 1984, the huge expense, and the fact the companies involved are all cosy with Labour. There are some good reasons for ID cards and DNA databases, but these valid reasons will always get trampled on by the above. you argued the opposite sides case and put nothing forward for your argument? in fact I haven't heard a single argument for them yet. All I have heard is that some people don't mind and it will help the very low number of people that don't have a driving licence or passport, who could just get a passport anyway! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garrence Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 They're a good idea, but flawed Trouble is that no-one has yet told us why they are a good idea. As Cyclone says, they are a solution desperately seeking a problem. If there was a good reason for them, the Home Office would have told us by now. The best the Home Office could come up with recently was that they might be handy for getting into nightclubs! You can get a CitizenCard for a tenner for that, which doesn't really matter if you lose it and doesn't subject you to a lifetime of fees and penalties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.