Jump to content
By fans, for fans. By fans, for fans. By fans, for fans.

Identity cards


Andy @ Allerton

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

With the Goverment STILL trying to push this through - have we any new thoughts on them?

 

Would anyone really shell out £300 on something (That despite assurances) will be copied in time and that wouldn't do anyone any good?

 

Although I suspect that soon after introduction - they would be mandatory fairly shortly..

 

You get one when you renew your passport - cost for both is £93. Cost for renewing a passport is in the region of £45 already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd take a day off work to protest against this if it were made mandatory

 

I personally hope they lose it by a landslide

 

Jeeziz, when Andy thinks a policy's too authoritarian then you know you've got problems.

 

 

 

You get one when you renew your passport - cost for both is £93. Cost for renewing a passport is in the region of £45 already.

 

So we don't need the extra expense of ID cards then do we?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You get one when you renew your passport - cost for both is £93. Cost for renewing a passport is in the region of £45 already.

 

I think it should be one or the other, not both...and if they go for the ID card idea it has to be mandatory otherwise its pointless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with ID cards, but no way should they cost £300 each (!)

 

In fact I don't see why users should have to pay for them at all (except perhaps a nominal fee). It's not like passports which are, in a sense, optional.

 

I don't think they'll do much to help combat terrorism either. IMO, this is a totally bogus justification from the government.

 

Above all, though, I suspect they are just trying to cram too many 'features' into version 1 - biometric data, iris scanning, etc. This must be why the cost is so ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with ID cards, but no way should they cost £300 each (!)

 

In fact I don't see why users should have to pay for them at all

 

I don't think they'll do much to help combat terrorism either.

 

Above all, though, I suspect they are just trying to cram too many 'features' into version 1 - biometric data, iris scanning, etc. This must be why the cost is so ridiculous.

 

So why do you agree with introducing them? Totally unnecessary bureaucracy, a waste of taxpayers' money and an infringement of your right to walk down the road breathing the air without having to carry a worthless piece of plastic to prove who you are.

Edited by Des
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with ID cards, but no way should they cost £300 each (!)

 

In fact I don't see why users should have to pay for them at all (except perhaps a nominal fee). It's not like passports which are, in a sense, optional.

 

I don't think they'll do much to help combat terrorism either. IMO, this is a totally bogus justification from the government.

 

Above all, though, I suspect they are just trying to cram too many 'features' into version 1 - biometric data, iris scanning, etc. This must be why the cost is so ridiculous.

 

why do they need to contain biometric data and iris imprints? it's not like many people regularly leave home without their fingers and eyeballs is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rushian where was that figure from?

 

Radio 4 the other day mentioned £300 a few times?

 

So why do you agree with introducing them? Totally unnecessary bureaucracy, a waste of taxpayers' money and an infringement of your right to walk down the road breathing the air without having to carry a worthless piece of plastic to prove who you are.

 

Absolutely agree.

 

I've found costings here.

 

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/06/27/id_card_costings/

 

 

Though I suspect the final cost will be way above that. Especially if loads of people don't buy them (Which I think it very likely)

 

Aha. This is where the £300 (ish) comes from;

 

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/05/31/idcards_cost_dra/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I struggle to see how useful they'd be in any case. If they're not compulsory than they're absolutely pointless.

 

 

 

They're not in the least useful to you as a person. They are very useful to criminal gangs such as the government and sophisticated fraudsters. The technology already exists for you as an individual to be tracked through town centres via a chip in your store "loyalty" card (should you be foolish enough into being duped into having one) which alerts all the large town centre stores as you enter and leave them, not just the one you have the loyalty card for, either. This is for numerous reasons, most of them spurious and sinister. The info on these cards will be used to defraud you as a person and they will contain all your information including your social security number and eventually, a sample of your DNA. This shady government is bad enough but we are mortgaging our future on there never being a more totalitarian and extremist government than this one and handing over the info on these cards to them. Do not believe any reassurances you are given over this appalling idea and do everything in your power to protest against them. There are many issues I feel strongly enough about to go to jail on principle and this is certainly one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why do they need to contain biometric data and iris imprints? it's not like many people regularly leave home without their fingers and eyeballs is it?

 

I expect they want it to enable people's identity to be verified by comparing a physical reading (iris scan, etc.) with what's held on the card and/or on the ID database.

 

Trouble is a) is costs a lot and b) it probably won't work reliably, at least for several years

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're not in the least useful to you as a person. They are very useful to criminal gangs such as the government and sophisticated fraudsters. The technology already exists for you as an individual to be tracked through town centres via a chip in your store "loyalty" card (should you be foolish enough into being duped into having one) which alerts all the large town centre stores as you enter and leave them, not just the one you have the loyalty card for, either. This is for numerous reasons, most of them spurious and sinister. The info on these cards will be used to defraud you as a person and they will contain all your information including your social security number and eventually, a sample of your DNA. This shady government is bad enough but we are mortgaging our future on there never being a more totalitarian and extremist government than this one and handing over the info on these cards to them. Do not believe any reassurances you are given over this appalling idea and do everything in your power to protest against them. There are many issues I feel strongly enough about to go to jail on principle and this is certainly one of them.

 

I don't agree with them either.

 

I haven't covered everything in foil yet though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I expect they want it to enable people's identity to be verified by comparing a physical reading (iris scan, etc.) with what's held on the card and/or on the ID database.

 

 

1. Who is "they"?

 

2. Who will check up on "they"?

 

3. Where, how and by whom are the rights of the citizen protected in the event we are stupid enough to allow our elected representatives to foist this idea (that most don't want) on us?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So why do you agree with introducing them? Totally unnecessary bureaucracy, a waste of taxpayers' money and an infringement of your right to walk down the road breathing the air without having to carry a worthless piece of plastic to prove who you are.

 

It's the national ID database - and it's potential for integrating with all other public sector databases - which is, IMO, valuable.

 

The card itself is incidental, although I think it's likely to make it possible to streamline things such as applying for benefits dealing with tax offices, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me it's a horrible idea - and certainly doesn't make me feel 'secure'

 

In fact I think once they're introduced - it's hardly like being in free country at all.

 

Why bother stopping once you've started?

 

In the end you'll probably use them for starting your car, opening your house door, going into shops and so on - be a great way for 'them' to snoop on you even more than they do now - and 'they' do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I expect they want it to enable people's identity to be verified by comparing a physical reading (iris scan, etc.) with what's held on the card and/or on the ID database.

 

Trouble is a) is costs a lot and b) it probably won't work reliably, at least for several years

 

then have all police officers and customs officials equipped with portable iris readers / fingerprint scanners - surely they're going to need these anyway - and scan people's actual fingerprints and eyeballs in person. why do they need to be embedded on a card? surely this is just an opening to fraud?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

then have all police officers and customs officials equipped with portable iris readers / fingerprint scanners - surely they're going to need these anyway - and scan people's actual fingerprints and eyeballs in person. why do they need to be embedded on a card? surely this is just an opening to fraud?

 

Are they actually proposing to encode it on the card in some way? I've never really been clear on that.

 

Seems to me that this would be a bad plan - as you say, once the card's stolen it would potentially place a lot of useful info/data in the thief's hands.

 

Better, IMO, if they hold the bare minimum on the card - thus, presumably, reducing its cost - and hold any extra stuff on the central database. That would make future enhancements more feasible as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are they actually proposing to encode it on the card in some way? I've never really been clear on that.

 

Seems to me that this would be a bad plan - as you say, once the card's stolen it would potentially place a lot of useful info/data in the thief's hands.

 

Better, IMO, if they hold the bare minimum on the card - thus, presumably, reducing its cost - and hold any extra stuff on the central database. That would make future enhancements more feasible as well.

 

 

ID cards are just so yesterday's technology. What we need are implanted chips. If you've done nothing wrong you've nothing to fear. Trust in Tony.

 

US group implants electronic tags in workers

By Richard Waters in San Francisco

Published: February 12 2006 22:02 | Last updated: February 12 2006 22:02

 

micro chips downAn Ohio company has embedded silicon chips in two of its employees - the first known case in which US workers have been ?tagged? electronically as a way of identifying them.

 

CityWatcher.com, a private video surveillance company, said it was testing the technology as a way of controlling access to a room where it holds security video footage for government agencies and the police.

 

Embedding slivers of silicon in workers is likely to add to the controversy over RFID technology, widely seen as one of the next big growth industries.

 

RFID chips ? inexpensive radio transmitters that give off a unique identifying signal ? have been implanted in pets or attached to goods so they can be tracked in transit.

 

?There are very serious privacy and civil liberty issues of having people permanently numbered,? said Liz McIntyre, who campaigns against the use of identification technology.

 

But Sean Darks, chief executive of CityWatcher, said the glass-encased chips were like identity cards. They are planted in the upper right arm of the recipient, and ?read? by a device similar to a cardreader.

 

?There?s nothing pulsing or sending out a signal,? said Mr Darks, who has had a chip in his own arm. ?It?s not a GPS chip. My wife can?t tell where I am.?

 

The technology?s defenders say it is acceptable as long as it is not compulsory. But critics say any implanted device could be used to track the ?wearer? without their knowledge.

 

VeriChip ? the US company that made the devices and claims to have the only chips that have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration ? said the implants were designed primarily for medical purposes.

 

So far around 70 people in the US have had the implants, the company said.

 

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/ec414700-9bf4-11d...00779e2340.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...