[NGTM-1R]

There's nothing this ID card doesn't do that, say, a credit card wouldn't. Or a drivers' license. Or a student ID. Or a passport. Let's face it, this ID card is not giving the government any information they don't already have, folks. They already know your name, age, residence, etc. So you have to carry another card. Big frickin' deal.

Besides, you practically MUST have photo ID to use your credit card or write a check (and have people accept it) these days in the US, and from what I understand that's true over on that side of the pond too.

[Rictor]

since when does a driver's license have fingerprints and other such biometrics?

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by ngtm1r
There's nothing this ID card doesn't do that, say, a credit card wouldn't. Or a drivers' license. Or a student ID. Or a passport. Let's face it, this ID card is not giving the government any information they don't already have, folks. They already know your name, age, residence, etc. So you have to carry another card. Big frickin' deal.

Besides, you practically MUST have photo ID to use your credit card or write a check (and have people accept it) these days in the US, and from what I understand that's true over on that side of the pond too.

But not all in the one place; the ID card is a central repository (or rather being sold to fund one) for all your personal detail, which only the government and secret services can access, and without telling you when they do, why, or what they can get.  (excluding when they let businesses have a peek, of course; for 'fraud' reasons you understand...)

It'll enable the government to have a direct record of your travel abroad, what books you borrow from the library, everything you buy, what videos you rent, where you work, when you claim benefit and how much, and also your medical records (by simply comparing your UUID on that database to the NHS one).  Of course, the bill for ID cards only defines what is held on the central database; what's on the card itself is left entirely up to the Home Office to decide.

The arguements are dodgy; the government claims 30% of terrorists use false IDs, but declines to release any evidence of that on the grounds of 'national security'.  They claim £1.3bn a year is lost due to identity fraud, but this won't tackle the main problem; fraud when the cardholder is not present, such as by stealing PIN numbers or internet transactions.

Only £50m of the much vaunted £2bn in benefit fraud comes from use of a false identity, anyways.  And the scheme has been cost at being at least £5.5bn over the next 10 years, anyways.

Also, the card will effectively be mandatory anyways; you'll need to produce it to work, to claim benefit, or possibly to claim use of any public service, such as the NHS.  Well, mandatory unless you refuse and are willing to pay a regular £2,500 fine; so if you're a sufficiently wealthy criminal or a Russian oil billionaire you should be fine.  

(and it'll eventually become compulsary, with the government being allowed to store your details against your will; and including cards for children, as the bill allows the lowering of the 16 year old minimum age)

Oh, and there is no real legal protection for the citizen against the misuse of their details.

See also; http://www.privacyinternational.org/issues/idcard/uk/id-card-review-1204.pdf
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/01/id_card/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/05/complete_idcard_guide/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/16/idcard_cost_fiddles/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/17/id_register_entries/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/03/business_immigrant_checks/

NB:  UK doesn't require photo-id for credit / debit card.  It's either signature based or PIN code based transactions (the latter being adopted now).

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Originally posted by Sandwich
It's mandatory to carry around photographic ID here, and every citizen has an ID card. WHat's the big deal?

indeed, what is the big deal?

It's not as if no faceless organisation knows who we are already.

just carry the thing and quit whining. Democracy isn't going to end because of it.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by beatspete
Imagine if everyday things like the driving license or passport were to be introduced next year for the first time;
"What!? you mean I have to carry a bit of plastic with my name, date of birth and a photo of me just to use my car?! This is an outrage!"

Wrong. Carrying a driving license isn't compulsory. In fact the only way you can be forced to show it is if you're ordered to produce it at a police station (which gives you 7 days to find where you put it.)

This one little step actually prevents ID theft because it means that you don't have to carry your drivers licence around the entire time. Forcing people to carry one only makes it easier to steal it.

[Clave]

Originally posted by ngtm1r
There's nothing this ID card doesn't do that, say, a credit card wouldn't. Or a drivers' license. Or a student ID. Or a passport. Let's face it, this ID card is not giving the government any information they don't already have, folks. They already know your name, age, residence, etc. So you have to carry another card. Big frickin' deal.

Besides, you practically MUST have photo ID to use your credit card or write a check (and have people accept it) these days in the US, and from what I understand that's true over on that side of the pond too.

Some people don't drive, are not students, and don't have credit cards or passports....

I have nothing with a photo on, apart from my passport which I never carry, and I never have trouble paying for stuff because the chip and PIN system is almost foolproof.  BTW: Every card in the UK will have to be chip and PIN next year, they will stop accepting old cards in March I think.

[mitac]

Originally posted by Rictor
since when does a driver's license have fingerprints and other such biometrics?

And what power does the government derive from having your biometric data? So they know size, weight and other stuff of citizens. If it helps preventing acts of crime, that's fine for me - I don't plan a career in drugs or weapon deals. Neither do I plan a terrorist attack. I'm quite willing to give up some privacy to prevent other people from suffering.

Seriously, thinking the government will know or wants to know every move of the citizen, like where they buy food, take a walk or fuel their cars, is just paranoid. You overrate the state's interest in the average Mr Smith.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by mitac


And what power does the government derive from having your biometric data? So they know size, weight and other stuff of citizens. If it helps preventing acts of crime, that's fine for me - I don't plan a career in drugs or weapon deals. Neither do I plan a terrorist attack. I'm quite willing to give up some privacy to prevent other people from suffering.

Seriously, thinking the government will know or wants to know every move of the citizen, like where they buy food, take a walk or fuel their cars, is just paranoid. You overrate the state's interest in the average Mr Smith.

That's ok, ID cards won't prevent terrorism or crime anyways (maybe increase the market in forgery, though).  They will allow the government to track your employment record, cross check your medical records, and probably also track id-validated purchases though.  Very useful if, for example, you wanted to identify demographic information on possible voters for the opposition.

Put it this way; will you write your full name, address, postcode, and phone number (for a start) in this thread?

Y'see, it's not what will be done that people worry about; it's what can be done.  And the 2 aren't exactly all that different when you think of how little governments tell the truth anyways........

[mitac]

I guess the major difference is that I don't live in the UK. Since the Nazi disaster in the 30's/40's, civil rights have been a "national treasure" around here. Allowing the police to trace telephon calls took like ten years, due to the "lively" discussion among lawyers, politicians and civil organisations. And even what's put into the legal authorisation is checked, double-checked and triple-checked. So, if any attempt on gathering all data on any person was made and became public, the respective government would be politically dead.  That's why I have a hard time comprehending what this "uproar" is about. Same goes for the demographic information on voters, as our political system is vastly different from others, and basically wouldn't make it possible to influence elections that way.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by mitac
I guess the major difference is that I don't live in the UK. Since the Nazi disaster in the 30's/40's, civil rights have been a "national treasure" around here. Allowing the police to trace telephon calls took like ten years, due to the "lively" discussion among lawyers, politicians and civil organisations. And even what's put into the legal authorisation is checked, double-checked and triple-checked. So, if any attempt on gathering all data on any person was made and became public, the respective government would be politically dead.  That's why I have a hard time comprehending what this "uproar" is about. Same goes for the demographic information on voters, as our political system is vastly different from others, and basically wouldn't make it possible to influence elections that way.

The key point there is 'became public'.

Of course, I'm guessing you don't have the same constant terrorist fearmongering as in the Uk.....

[Rictor]

There are 700 million people living in Europe, of which 300 have been killed in terrorist attacks within the past 3-4 years. And you're telling me that you see that as a genuine threat to your safety? Now who's paranoid.

You have far, far better chances of winning the lottery than getting so much as a scratch on you due to terrorist related activity. And you're willing to give up essential liberties to maybe, possibly protect you from a threat that's practically non-existant?

eh, you deserve whatever you get.

[aldo_14]

Who are you talking to?

[Rictor]

Originally posted by mitac


And what power does the government derive from having your biometric data? So they know size, weight and other stuff of citizens. If it helps preventing acts of crime, that's fine for me - I don't plan a career in drugs or weapon deals. Neither do I plan a terrorist attack. I'm quite willing to give up some privacy to prevent other people from suffering.

OK, so you wouldn't mind having your phone bugged, cameras installed in you home, your purchases traced, you library records looked into and having to submit to random searches of your person or property, right?

After all, only criminals want privacy, and those with nothing to hide having nothing to fear, eh?

What a load of bull****. Once you give up certain rights, guess what, you're never getting them back. The "state of emergency" will never pass, the "War on Terror" will never end. Tyranny doesn't just arrive one day in all its terrible grandeur, it sneaks in bit by bit, and people always think "oh, its not so bad, I'll get used to it". Its a slippery slope, once you give up one freedom, the rest follows inevitably.

Originally posted by aldo_14


Who are you talking to?

mitac

[vyper]

Freedom is not free - that is a concept that has been perverted recently by various governments in the western world. The price of freedom is not the bloodshed of others (Iraq, et al) who must suffer for your own sake, it is the lessened security we must all face in a free and open society. That is a price worth paying.

That is all for now.

[Rictor]

Hehe, good point.

People talk about how soldiers killing Vietnamese peasants were "fighting for our freedom" or how ****ing up tiny island nations ensures "our freedom" or even how those fighting in Iraq are doing it to "protect our freedoms", and yet when people have to take a 1/200,000,000 chance that they will be killed, they so readily give up their freedoms.

I guess its OK, as long as its others that are suffering.

[Taristin]

I'm more likely to be killed choking on a pretzel, than from a terrorist strike...

[karajorma]

Security and Freedom are not inversely proportional. If you have no security you have compete Freedom. If you have no freedom however you still don't have complete security because there is nothing to stop the government turning up at your door and shooting you just cause they feel like it.

So it's a spectum with a completely lawless state at either end. Yes some small measure of freedom must be given up to have some security at all. You must give up the freedom to murder people etc. But other freedoms shouldn't be curtailed because the price you pay is too high.

Let me put it this way. How many Brits realise that the presumption of innocence until proven guilty has been wiped away thanks to the RIP bill (Which allows the government to say that under certain circumstances if you refuse to incriminate yourself you go to jail).

How about the fact that Echelon has been used several times to spy on European businesses in order to provide American companies with a edge.

If you give up your freedom you only end up with a more and more despotic society as the government comes up with the next freedom you should surrender in order to be safe.

[SadisticSid]

The Government puts ID card implementation costs somewhere around the £8bn mark, without any reference to annual maintenance costs. Independent bodies have put the initial cost at almost double that. The fact is that if our lords and masters cared about terrorism they'd be pushing to invest that money in police forces and the intelligence services rather than this already-defunct idea. The system isn't foolproof, the technology is new and untested, and the cards themselves can be easily forged. And as with every other new major, government-driven system developed in the UK over the past decade the civil service'll go for the cheapest contractors to come in and **** up the implementation, which will be full of bugs and 4 years late.

It just won't work, mark my words. And that's not saying anything about the privacy issues this system will dig up

[karajorma]

Agree with you 100% there Sid.

Even if the cards were a good idea who here really believes that the government can bring it in on time and on cost?

[NGTM-1R]

No one. But I find the objections based on privacy issues to be somewhat overblown.

Since your healthcare is nationalized, wouldn't the government already know everything there is to know about your measurements and medical history? You pay your taxes to them, which gives them access to information about your monetary doings already, in addition to an address.