Is it worth losing your civil liberties to reduce a "terror threat"

[Greybeard]

I have never felt personally threatened by terrorism, but have a permanent anxiety about the harm that politicians will cause me.

 

It isn't Islamic extremism that has brought this country to its knees, - it's the combined greed of politicians and bankers.

[Tony]

The words 'civil liberties' and 'freedom' are greatly misused, you need a passport to leave or enter the country(legally), you need a license to drive and a national insurance number to work as well as ID to open a bank account, what is everybody moaning about ?

But as an UK / EU citizen you don't need a passport to legally enter the country (just valid ID) and all across Europe you can travel from one nation to the next without even stopping at the border under the Schengen Agreement - except in the UK which opted out.

 

It is a ridiculous state of affairs but a fancy scanner doesn't improve your security one iota, and neither does ID.

 

Your driving licence is issued when you have demonstrated your ability to drive, nothing else.

 

Your NI number is nothing more than a mechanism to collect tax.

 

Opening a bank a/c needs ID because of international money laundering regulations.

 

None of thes are predicated upon a need for government to track your identity, movements or to use extraordinary and pointless measures in the name of "security".

[Cyclone]

It's never actually been the case that you need a passport to leave the country, the legal requirement is normally a passport at the point of entry.

 

And you can walk into a bank or post office wearing a balaclava, you'll probably be asked to remove it before they'll serve you, but there's no law and no security guards stopping you walking in.

[truman]

No, of course I wouldn't, but this is more indirect and it is for one, two people tops to see, who (I would hope) had received the necessary training etc,

 

Of course they have

[truman]

Personally I would be happy to use the London Underground wearing only a pair of pants if it meant I didn't get blown up.

 

If everyone was forced to only wear pants when on the London Underground, then it would be impossible to hide a suicide vest under your clothes.

 

This would be easy to implement, get everyone to strip down to their pants as they board the train, and people simply put their clothes into a locker

 

Still might not be safe

[esme]

No, of course I wouldn't, but this is more indirect and it is for one, two people tops to see, who (I would hope) had received the necessary training etc, instead of a whole bus full of passengers. It just doesn't bother me that much, it's only for a couple of seconds then you are on your way. However, I understand that although I feel this way not everybody else will.

 

have you ever watched any of these cctv generated tv programs purporting to show us that we cannot sleep safely in our beds because of the rampaging hordes in the streets that were caught on camera

 

take a long hard look at, at least some of, the giggling morons in the control rooms and then hope that people manning the airport scanners are professionals who received the necessary training, rather than the minimum wage drudges they are more likely to be

 

and as for the idea that being naked will stop you being a suicide bomber, as long as human beings have stomachs this will not be true, it will merely limit the size of the explosion

 

an average human stomach can hold about 1 litre of food, more with practice, a fact exploited by drug traffickers to great effect, replace the drugs with explosives and include a timer in one of the pellets, so they suffer chronic indigestion for a while, big deal they're going to commit suicide anyway, I'm not sure of the explosive effect of around a litre of semtex but I reckon it would make a big enough hole in a plane to bring it down

 

still think these scanners are going to make you safe ?

[Rupert_Baehr]

...However I am against giving my fingerprints like a criminal, or carrying an ID Card around , like a criminal, or anything along those lines. There are many other ways to keep this country safe without making everyone feel like they have done something wrong.

 

Do criminals carry ID cards? - That should make life easy for the Police.

 

I've been carrying ID cards of one sort or another for nearly 40 years. I don't find that having an ID card is an invasion of privacy, but I do find that it allows me access to certain things to which I need access (always useful.) - No ID card - No access.

 

One of the ID cards I have has a very dated photo (doesn't look much like me, but I'm assured that I can be identified biometrically from the photo.) It also has my fingerprint (for what that's worth.) When I pass through immigration control in some countries I hand over my passport and that card. The guy says 'Oh' and pushes over a print reader. I put my finger on that and 2 seconds later he says: "Welcome back, Mr Baehr ... did you have a good trip?" Getting through immigration usually takes all of 5 seconds. The card is an Identity card. That's all it is. It doesn't have any information linked to my finances, medical status or anything else. The only information you could obtain from that card is:

 

My name (not a big secret)

My date of birth (I'm not too bothered about people knowing that either)

The date and place of issue of the card

The file number to which the card is linked - a Number which, in turn, is linked to the stored fingerprint, my name and d.o.b. (but not a lot else.)

A photograph of what I used to look like a long time ago. (Amusing, perhaps)

 

I'm not sure why there is a fingerprint on the card ...given the state of the card and its age I doubt that would be much use - other than to suggest that there is a record of my fingerprint in the computer.

 

A number of European countries require people to register their addresses and to have ID cards. Those ID cards must be produced to Mr Plod (on demand)(I think ... I've never been asked to show anything other than my driving licence to the police) and are sometimes (albeit rarely) required by shops to prove the identity of a customer who wants to buy a high-value item other than with cash.

 

I'm not aware that very many people find that an invasion of privacy. - If they do, then presumably they go to a country which does not bother whether people are who they say they are.

 

I'm aware that there's considerable opposition to ID cards in the UK and I can understand that. Over here, you have to have an ID card which you have to show if you want to get money from the government or if you need to prove who you are to somebody who has a genuine need to know.

 

In the UK, then if you had ID cards I've no doubt that the government, the bureaucracy and every little tin-pot dictator would require you to show them on every possible occasion. - Having an ID card isn't an invasion of privacy per se; the invasion of privacy occurs when every little jobsworth insists that (s)he needs to see it.

 

If (or when) the British government finally get around to issuing ID cards to everybody, then no doubt they will start tracking people.

 

Do you get tourists coming to the UK anymore?

Are they aware that they can be thrown in jail for using a camera?

 

Kenny Rogers wrote a 'ballad' in the 70's which had the words:

'Enger-lund swings like a pendulum do,

Bobbies on bicycles 2 by 2,

Westminster Abbey, the tower of Big Ben,

The Rosy red cheeks of the little child-ren.'

 

If you're a foreign tourist going to England, I suggest you forget all about that and leave your camera at home!

 

'Bobbies on bicycles 2 by 2'? - No chance! And if you dare to take a photograph of a policeman, you can be arrested for that! It is a Criminal Offence! (Under S76 of the UK'S Counter Tourism Act, which came into force in February last year.)

 

'Westminster Abbey' ?... hmmm ... could be used as a terrorist target - you can't take a photo of that. - Against the law.

 

'The Tower of Big Ben ? ... No way! That's a government building! You might be planning a terrorist attack against the government!

 

And as for 'the little child-ren', if we catch you taking photos of them, you're going to jail, you pedo!

 

There's a bright side, though. Tourists won't really need cameras while they're in the UK - they can expect to be photographed perhaps hundreds of times a day (and no doubt there will be many 'business opportunities' selling tourists candid snaps of them enjoying their holidays.:hihi:)

[Cyclone]

Do criminals carry ID cards? - That should make life easy for the Police.

 

I've been carrying ID cards of one sort or another for nearly 40 years. I don't find that having an ID card is an invasion of privacy, but I do find that it allows me access to certain things to which I need access (always useful.) - No ID card - No access.

Making it a legal requirement to carry a card at all times strikes me as a bit like being in a police state.

And linking a huge amount of data to the card and storing it in a massive database is a) unnecessary and b) a huge risk to my data.

Forms of ID already exist as you've pointed out, why do we need another?

 

One of the ID cards I have has a very dated photo (doesn't look much like me, but I'm assured that I can be identified biometrically from the photo.) It also has my fingerprint (for what that's worth.) When I pass through immigration control in some countries I hand over my passport and that card. The guy says 'Oh' and pushes over a print reader. I put my finger on that and 2 seconds later he says: "Welcome back, Mr Baehr ... did you have a good trip?" Getting through immigration usually takes all of 5 seconds. The card is an Identity card. That's all it is. It doesn't have any information linked to my finances, medical status or anything else. The only information you could obtain from that card is:

 

My name (not a big secret)

My date of birth (I'm not too bothered about people knowing that either)

The date and place of issue of the card

The file number to which the card is linked - a Number which, in turn, is linked to the stored fingerprint, my name and d.o.b. (but not a lot else.)

A photograph of what I used to look like a long time ago. (Amusing, perhaps)

 

I'm not sure why there is a fingerprint on the card ...given the state of the card and its age I doubt that would be much use - other than to suggest that there is a record of my fingerprint in the computer.

This sounds an awful lot like a passport with the addition of a finger print.

 

A number of European countries require people to register their addresses and to have ID cards. Those ID cards must be produced to Mr Plod (on demand)(I think ... I've never been asked to show anything other than my driving licence to the police) and are sometimes (albeit rarely) required by shops to prove the identity of a customer who wants to buy a high-value item other than with cash.

 

I'm not aware that very many people find that an invasion of privacy. - If they do, then presumably they go to a country which does not bother whether people are who they say they are.

And in some countries if you criticise the government you might disappear in the night. Just because somewhere else already does it doesn't mean that we need to copy them.

 

I'm aware that there's considerable opposition to ID cards in the UK and I can understand that. Over here, you have to have an ID card which you have to show if you want to get money from the government or if you need to prove who you are to somebody who has a genuine need to know.

 

In the UK, then if you had ID cards I've no doubt that the government, the bureaucracy and every little tin-pot dictator would require you to show them on every possible occasion. - Having an ID card isn't an invasion of privacy per se; the invasion of privacy occurs when every little jobsworth insists that (s)he needs to see it.

It's not even the card really, it's the massive database that everyone and their dog will end up with access to and the leaks of the data that will ensue.

 

If (or when) the British government finally get around to issuing ID cards to everybody, then no doubt they will start tracking people.

 

Do you get tourists coming to the UK anymore?

Are they aware that they can be thrown in jail for using a camera?

They can't, unless they're on a military base or they've broken into the SiS headquarters.

 

Kenny Rogers wrote a 'ballad' in the 70's which had the words:

'Enger-lund swings like a pendulum do,

Bobbies on bicycles 2 by 2,

Westminster Abbey, the tower of Big Ben,

The Rosy red cheeks of the little child-ren.'

 

If you're a foreign tourist going to England, I suggest you forget all about that and leave your camera at home!

 

'Bobbies on bicycles 2 by 2'? - No chance! And if you dare to take a photograph of a policeman, you can be arrested for that! It is a Criminal Offence! (Under S76 of the UK'S Counter Tourism Act, which came into force in February last year.)

No it isn't, taking a photo that is intended for terrorist activity is. The police have been slapped down by the IPCC and the home office for misuse of this legislation along with several other bits.

 

'Westminster Abbey' ?... hmmm ... could be used as a terrorist target - you can't take a photo of that. - Against the law.

 

'The Tower of Big Ben ? ... No way! That's a government building! You might be planning a terrorist attack against the government!

 

And as for 'the little child-ren', if we catch you taking photos of them, you're going to jail, you pedo!

 

There's a bright side, though. Tourists won't really need cameras while they're in the UK - they can expect to be photographed perhaps hundreds of times a day (and no doubt there will be many 'business opportunities' selling tourists candid snaps of them enjoying their holidays.:hihi:)

 

Fortunately the police have been corrected about what this legislation covers, and fingers x'd the next government won't pass such ill considered and ridiculous legislation as the last one has.

[Michael_W]

All this paranoia about ID and data blah blah blah, do you know what, when you get blown out of the sky, it really won't matter will it

[HeadingNorth]

The question would be, why are we fighting the terrorists at all?

 

Is it to try and preserve our own way of life? Well then, we've lost, because we've given it up in the interests of security.