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

[esme]

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

 

no it won't, especially as the suicide bomber sitting next to you will have perfectly valid ID just like the madrid bombers of 11/3/2004 and the london bombers of 7/7/05 and the twin tower plane hijackers of 9/11/2001

 

ID doesn't make the slightest difference in preventing terrorism, in fact terrorists go to great lengths to make sure they have valid ID so that they and their cause can be identified after whatever atrocity they commit, they find valid ID useful

[Michael_W]

no it won't, especially as the suicide bomber sitting next to you will have perfectly valid ID just like the madrid bombers of 11/3/2004 and the london bombers of 7/7/05 and the twin tower plane hijackers of 9/11/2001

 

ID doesn't make the slightest difference in preventing terrorism, in fact terrorists go to great lengths to make sure they have valid ID so that they and their cause can be identified after whatever atrocity they commit, they find valid ID useful

 

Body scanners at airports are a potential safety net though eh...or do you think preventative measures serve no purpose at all ? Why check hand luggage or anything then ?

I would imagine many of the families of terrorist victims would be all for any measure of security that may have prevented the loss of their loved ones, we know it is nigh on impossible to prevent some things, but if they want a scannned view of my bits at the airport, it is no more affecting my civil liberties as standing or laying naked for a medical examination !

[Rupert_Baehr]

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

 

No doubt it would be. - I'm not aware that the law in any EU country requires people to carry a card at all times.

 

When I lived in Belgium, I was required to possess an ID card (They gave it to me when I registered that I was living there.) When I registered here, I was given a 'certificate of registration' (You need that as 'proof of residency' to get a driving licence and it's also useful if they ask you for proof of residency when you're trying to open a bank account) but I wasn't give an ID card (I could probably have got a German-issued ID card had I wanted one, but the card would have been an Auslanderausweis and would say that I am a foreigner permitted to live in Germany, not that I am a German.) I didn't bother; I have a German driving licence which has worked every time so far (not that I've had to use it) and I could always take my passport along if I needed anything better.

 

It seems to me it would be rather difficult to enforce a law which required people to carry an ID card at all times. I've never lived in any country where anybody has tried that (perhaps when you get ID cards in the UK you'll be able to tell me how that works.)

 

In Belgium and in Germany, if you need to produce the ID card (usually to prove your entitlement to something) then it's a good idea to have it with you - otherwise whatever it is you were trying to do probably isn't going to get done. I'm not aware that the police stop people to check identities. News articles I've seen on British TV recently suggest that the police make considerable use of 'stop and search' in the UK.

 

In the UK you are not obliged to carry your driving licence with you when you drive a car. In most European countries it is an offence to drive a car without having a licence with you. A driving licence would probably be adequate proof of identity (though in Germany, you don't have to renew your licence every 5 years, so the photo could be somewhat dated )

 

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.

 

I've read a lot of conerned comments from people who are worried about the huge 'amount of data' linked to the biometric passports (and the proposed ID Cards?) and I'm somewhat confused.

 

Where is all this data going to come from?

 

My passport ran out last year; had I wanted to renew it, then I would have had to go home to do so. - The issuing agency does not have an office in Germany. I got a British Passport instead (I understand a number of people have opted to do that recently )

 

Mine was issued by the FCO. It has my name, my date and place of birth, my signature and a picture which does look (slightly) like me - though I don't actually have orange skin and blue/green hair.

 

It's got a small chip and a loop antenna. I don't know what data are stored on the chip; I assume it has a digitised copy of the orange-skinned blue-haired version of me depicted on the other side, the passport number, my date and place of birth and (possibly) a scanned copy of my signature. - That way, if anybody nicked the passport and replaced the photo they'd have to go to the effort of replacing the whole page (including the chip on the back.)

 

There is no other data. It does not have my UK address (I haven't got one) it does not have my NIS number, my NHS number, my health records, my driving record or anything else, for that matter.

 

What is this 'huge amount of data' which is linked to the card and how is it linked? When I applied for the passport, the information I supplied was minimal and wouldn't have been anywhere near enough to link the passport to anybody in the UK. The old passport which I submitted with the renewal (and which is now in my possession again) wasn't issued by the UK passport agency, so they couldn't have linked to a data file on me through that.

 

As you said, an ID card does not need to be linked to masses of data.

 

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

 

There are indeed various forms of ID, but there is no standardisation. Some of us have (too) many ID cards; some people don't have any.

 

Consider land conveyancing: Prior to the introduction of Property registration, every time you wanted to sell a piece of land, a solicitor was obliged to verify the title. The Title documents could comprise a folder with records of very many changes of ownership going back some hundreds of years, or it could be a thin folder (because the property hadn't changed hands - had stayed in the family - for many years). Sometimes, it might be difficult to prove the title.

 

Then came property registration. If you are buying registered land you can do a title search by means of a quick call to the Land Registry office. Much simpler.

 

Much the same with ID cards. A simple card with enough data to prove that the individual presenting it is who (s)he says (s)he is. No need to produce phone bills, gas bills electricity bills etc. to open a bank account, no need to provide two or 3 forms of picture ID which may (or may not) be accepted. One simple card (and hopefully a card which is difficult to forge.) In most cases (age in a pub, for instance) comparing the face on the card with the face on the person presenting it should be enough. In somewhat more complex cases, (involving sums of money, for example) then the person accepting the card may have access to electronic reading devices which would verify that the face on the card (and biometric data) is the face on file. That's all they would need to be able to do. (Though I wouldn't get too worked up if one of them found out where and when I was born.)

 

A well thought out ID card does not need masses of information. Name, date of birth, 'Biometric data' a serial number and a photo should do. Possession of such a (valid) card would prove that the individual holding it is entitled to be in the United Kingdom and is entitled to all the benefits of being there.

 

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

 

When I use it at the point of entry to an applicable country, it works just like a passport - only more quickly. It only works at countries which have access to the database, so it's not usable in as many places as a passport. I'm not sure why the card has a fingerprint on it. - You'd have to be really clever to compare the fingerprint on the end of my finger with the one on the card. - The important comparison is the one between the end of my finger and the digitised fingerprint in the record associated with the card's serial number. Somebody pretending to be me might be able to forge the card, but would have some diffriculty in getting access to the record database.

 

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.

 

IN which EU countries (Other than the UK) is that likely to happen?

 

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.

 

Again, what data will be on the database?

Who will have access to that database? - Who will be entitled to compare the card with the electronic data in the database?

 

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...

 

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.

 

When I first came to England (1960s) nobody would have even thought about British Police misusing terrorist legislation or pushing journos and tourists around. (They might well have framed the odd villain [i'm not saying that they were angels] but by-and-large, the police treated the public with respect.)

 

Do you not find it somewhat disquieting that the IPCC and the Home Office should have to 'slap down' the police to prevent them from abusing the public? (Do you think the Home Office would bother if the Press didn't publicise the matter?)

 

Some attitudes in the UK do seem to have changed. 'Banning things' and 'controlling people' seem to be very popular pastimes, not only with the government (and this government has passed more new laws than any government ever [probably passed more new laws than all other British governments put together]) but with the people.

 

'Let's ban full-bore pistol shooting'

'Let's ban smoking in pubs'

'Let's put an additional road tax on 4x4s'

'Let's put a minimum price on alcohol' (hasn't happened yet ... wait a while.)

 

If people start enjoying something in the UK, then sure as eggs, some group will try to ban it or tax it... and a few months later you'll hear the next round of complaints about: 'How come things are so much more expensive in the UK than they are elsewhere?'

[esme]

Body scanners at airports are a potential safety net though eh...or do you think preventative measures serve no purpose at all ? Why check hand luggage or anything then ?

I would imagine many of the families of terrorist victims would be all for any measure of security that may have prevented the loss of their loved ones, we know it is nigh on impossible to prevent some things, but if they want a scannned view of my bits at the airport, it is no more affecting my civil liberties as standing or laying naked for a medical examination !

I've already commented on the usefulness of body scanners earlier in this thread

 

I've got no problem with preventive measures against terrorism being taken as long as those measures will have some effect

 

it is my opinion that identity cards, the NIR and body scanners are innefective in preventing terrorism and I object to money being wasted on them instead of looking for more effective means of dealing with the problem

 

I believe these measure do not make us any safer and are at best a way for the authorities to be seen to be doing something rather than trying to think of something that would work and being accused of inaction while thinking

[ploder]

It seems to me it would be rather difficult to enforce a law which required people to carry an ID card at all times. I've never lived in any country where anybody has tried that (perhaps when you get ID cards in the UK you'll be able to tell me how that works.)

 

People need to think laterally to understand the erosion of civil liberties in Britain and the rest of the world. Sure they may not require people to physically carry a card, but this is an irrelevance when you have a biometric store of information locked to a particular identity.

 

Have people here seen the new mobile fingerprint readers being given to the police?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/police-to-be-equipped-with-mobile-fingerprint-scanners-1916123.html

 

In theory you can be identified without having to open your mouth or physically have to show any piece of paper/plastic. A thumb/face scan can achieve the same thing. At the moment these devices supposed to be used in a limited way but for how long I wonder if people are on the ID register?

 

Have people heard of EU funded surveillance projects SAMURAI and INDECT?

 

INDECT

http://cordis.europa.eu/fetch?CALLER=FP7_PROJ_EN&ACTION=D&DOC=4&CAT=PROJ&QUERY=011f30e52539:b685:00e1e967&RCN=89374

 

SAMURAI

http://www.samurai-eu.org/

 

These are all about remote identification, identifying specific people out of a crowd, automatic observation of 'suspicious' patterns. These become much easier and meaningful if you have biometrics linked to identity in a state owned system.

 

What is this 'huge amount of data' which is linked to the card and how is it linked?

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/ukpga_20060015_en_5#sch1

 

One of the difficulties is that we are talking about what they have the power to demand vs what they actually demand now. They might not require everything straight away, but then you have to decide whether you believe them when they say that they won't demand it in the future. I think that some of the info collected is stored on the RFID chip on the card.

 

Also notice - para 2(d) 'other biometric information about him' (potentially unlimited?)

 

Also notice - para 9 'Records of provision of information' (an audit trail generated every time the info is used)

 

As you said, an ID card does not need to be linked to masses of data.

This is true, which begs the question why are they trying to do it? Why do they want to create state owned biometric identity profiles on all citizens when other countries don't have the over-arching database? Smells fishy to me.

 

Possession of such a (valid) card would prove that the individual holding it is entitled to be in the United Kingdom and is entitled to all the benefits of being there.

We already have a document which can be taken as proof of citizenship. It is known as a passport.

 

it is my opinion that identity cards, the NIR and body scanners are innefective in preventing terrorism and I object to money being wasted on them instead of looking for more effective means of dealing with the problem

I am inclined to agree with you. Look at the way body scanners were pushed through as soon as they had the opportunity. It was even admitted that they were unlikely to detect the explosives and yet this particular underpants bomber incident was used as the reason. Now no one can even opt for a sniffer dog or pat down and must undergo a virtual strip search. That suggests to me that they have no respect for privacy and they will cynically use the general 'security' argument to force things through. It's the same with their ID cards scheme. It's about getting a biometric register of the population, not terrorism/illegal immigration/fraud. Same with s.44 stop and search. Hundreds of thousands of people stopped no evidence that it helps 'combat terrorism'. Same with CCTV. Millions of the things despite no evidence that they 'help stop crime' as claimed by the Home Office. It's all just propaganda to extend the surveillance state and the result is less liberty for no discernible benefit. It is disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst.

 

I'm generally in favour of things that will actually work and are proportionate but what we get at the moment is cynical manipulation, bans, bureaucracy and attempts to force things through whether we like them or not. It increasingly feels like we are living in less of a free country.

[garrence]

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

 

All the london, madrid and 9/11 bombers were carrying goverment-issued ID. Suicide bombers usually do carry ID so they get the glory.

 

ID cards won't stop terrorism - the last head of MI5 is critical of them.

 

So why do you think there is some connection between ID cards and terrorism? You almost seem to believe that one will prevent the other! It won't.

 

I know why you think that. The ID card bill was rushed in following 9/11 and the Home Office tried to tell us it was necessary to stop terrorism. They soon gave up with that argument when everyone pointed out that it's nonsense.

 

Their agenda is to monitor and control the population but obviously they won't admit that so they have to use lies and spin instead. Don't believe them.

 

Remember - when cattle are branded, it is for the benefit of the farmer, not the cattle.

[Tony]

... and yet with all these intrusive measures, invasive databases, all you actually have to do is sail your little boat to Brid' (or anywhere else) tie up in the harbour and wander off into the town with your sack of bombs / drugs / terrorists / crime lords / whatever.

 

We're being conned and I'd like to know why.

[truman]

... and yet with all these intrusive measures, invasive databases, all you actually have to do is sail your little boat to Brid' (or anywhere else) tie up in the harbour and wander off into the town with your sack of bombs / drugs / terrorists / crime lords / whatever.

 

We're being conned and I'd like to know why.

 

Easy answer to that...if a government wants to bring in laws to control it's population there's no easier way than to introduce an imaginary bogey man...

[ploder]

Easy answer to that...if a government wants to bring in laws to control it's population there's no easier way than to introduce an imaginary bogey man...

 

True. Pointing a finger at bogey men gives them a way of creating anger and directing it towards illiberal measures. The biggest myth is that the more laws/restrictions you have the lower the crime rate. The trick is to continually associate 'getting tough' against terrorism/whatever crime with a corresponding need to disproportionately reduce the liberty of the innocent majority in order to 'get at' the suspects. Some of the media amplifies this by expressing rage and denouncing liberties when bad decisions are made. It all serves to create less accountable, disproportionate and unpredictable power being wielded against everyone.

 

This thinking is simply flawed, as you could have total surveillance by CCTV cameras and not deter people from crime (since they will find blind spots, wear disguises or commit not so obvious crimes) You could have body scanners everywhere and someone could detonate at the point they were asked to step into them. In a similar way you could have everyone walking around with ID cards/state ID profiles and still not stop a single attack since it does not show someone's intention. ID is not related to your intention. There isn't going to be a mechanical pair of hands that extend from the damned things and tut tut and tell you to change your ways. The gov tried all these arguments but lost. Now for state ID they are trying the general argument of 'making your life easier'.

 

So what does this tell us? It tells us they were excuses rather than reasons. They were just choosing the most plausible way to sell it to the people like the Iraq war. I believe there is a true reason/s, which they are unlikely to tell us because I don't think it isn't something we'll like, and which I have speculated about already, but they choose to deceive people instead. It doesn't happen by accident.

[AceRimmer]

This is an exert from a very interesting article I read a few days ago.

 

The Righteous never vary their methods of control because those methods always work. No matter how many times they are used, people just don't see it. The same methods have always worked and always will unless people can be made to see how the method works. Well, this time around, it's possible to tell them. This time we have global communication and the Righteous know it and are doing their best to silence it. They are using one of their favourites - for the cheeldren - because anyone objecting to that must be a child-hating monster who wants all children brutally maimed and killed and the images posted for the whole world to see. It's even more effective at silencing dissent than the 'if you believe that, then you must be racist' ploy.

 

They will probably succeed. Don't think so? I didn't think they'd succeed in making every single pub a non-smoking pub, but they did. I didn't think they could ever convince the public that minimum pricing on alcohol will have any effect on alcoholics at all, but they have. Using a few simple lines, every time.

 

"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear."

"An Expert Says that this measure will solve the imaginary problem we just invented."

"For the Cheeeldren."

"Why would anyone object to this? It's for your safety."

"If you don't agree then you must be a (insert appropriate heretic term here)."

 

Blog silencing is happening all over the world. Some come back, most don't. Countries have lists of banned websites that they don't want people to see - and I don't mean North Korea, I mean Australia. If we're going to get any kind of message out there it'll have to be quick.

 

It all comes down to control through fear. Fausty has an excellent post on the most recent examples.

 

The real fear, the ultimately brilliant part of it, is that nobody is actually scared of the 'witch' of the time. They are scared that they will be identified as that 'witch'. Once identified, you are marked forever as an outcast. The Righteous can silence any objection to their actions by a sidelong look and a quiet 'You know, you're starting to sound like a heretic'.

 

Nowadays, people are not afraid of racists. They are afraid of being labelled a racist. They are not afraid of paedophiles. They are afraid to go anywhere near children in case they are labelled paedophile. It's not smoking they fear, it's the idea that if they let the smoker get tobacco scent on their clothes, others might think they smoke too. It's not alcoholism they fear but the perception of others that maybe they are drinking too much.

 

So they will join the mob that drags the witch to the local millpond because if they don't, suspicion will turn on them next. They must be loud and clear that they oppose the current witchery or else they will be deemed in support of it. How many times have you seen a troll demand that you denounce something you've never mentioned? If you don't then you must support it and therefore... a witch!

 

The real fear is fear itself. Not fear of the Thing, but fear of being accused of being the Thing. People will submit to full body scanners because if they refuse, they know the mob will take it as a sign of guilt. They will cheer on minimum alcohol pricing because if they don't then they must support alcoholism. They will worship the Green God because if they don't they will be seen as polar bear killers. Standard witchhunting methodology - the mob will always support the witchfinder because the witchfinder might accuse any who don't. The mob will be keen to report the witch to prove that they are not also witches. The mob is easily controlled by the fear of being accused, not the fear of the witch.

 

People will submit to all those lunatic controls on flights, some of which make absolutely no sense at all, not because they are scared of terrorists but because they are scared of being suspected themselves. All these controls on smoking, drinking, diet, travelling, what you can say and so on are not there for your benefit. They are to keep you in the mob, to keep you compliant and to keep you too scared to object.

 

If you don't question it, then you are controlled by fear and will accept the next absurdity without question also. Try it. Ask an airport security member why you have to take your belt off in some UK airports but not others. Why you have to take your laptop out of its bag in some airports but not others. Ask at a railway station why you have to pass through police-guarded barriers even though nobody's checking anything. They don't know - because there isn't a reason, other than proving you will do as you are told.

 

Life was simple when Big'n'Nasty ran the tribe. He had rules, everyone knew the rules and everyone knew what would happen if Big'n'Nasty caught them breaking the rules. It was rule by fear but it was easy to understand. Everyone was afraid of Big'n'Nasty, but anyone could challenge Big'n'Nasty for his position if they thought they were hard enough.

 

Now, we have a much more complex set of fears. There are Bad Things we must fear but there is also the deeper fear that someone might mistake us for the Bad Thing, and the mob will turn on us. The Righteous are careful not to be the object of that fear but to appear as salvation from it. The objects of fear change as fast as the rules so it's easy to be caught out. There is no way to wrest control from the controllers because they are not easy to identify, and if anyone tries, they simply cry 'heretic' and invoke the mob. They cannot be brought down from outside.

 

The Righteous fail when they go too far. When people in authority start speaking out against them. The Pope stopped the Inquistion. The Church stopped the Witchfinder-General. The common people did nothing because they were under the thrall of 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear' until someone they saw as an authority figure spoke out.

 

The full article can be read here:

http://http://underdogsbiteupwards.blogspot.com/2010/01/fear-witch-for-it-is-you.html