ID card Bill dropped

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by andyl

My paper one fits snugly in my wallet. Obviously I don't keep cash there but rely on the generosity of southerners to keep me in whippets and black pudding!

Mine doesn't, and I remember one guy being charged because he sliced off a few mm from his to get it to fit!

Originally Posted by andy

Picked up all my habits dahn sarf. Born in Luton, brought up in Hertfordshire

Well, you have my sympathy

Originally Posted by andy

And you don't think we'll get fake driving licences and ID cards?

Yes we do, but it's much easier for somoene to steal and misuse a paper one than find a good enough forger and pay for a fake one.
Of course if when the driving licence was checked a photo came up on the screen, then any forgery would be immediately detected.

Originally Posted by andyl

Yet to come across any that don't.

Off the top of my head, most pubs won't, nor cinemas.
I've seen other places, like certain blockbusters and even some highstreet stores when applying for credit

Originally Posted by andyl

ID cards will be one huge waste of time and money IMO.

Yup, I agree, because I don't think this goverment has the ability to do it any other way.
If I thought they could however, I'd be all for it.

[punky]

Don't forget, the new ones are a lot wider than the older pre-photocards one... it won't fit in my wallet anyway. Even if it was an older driving license, I still couldn't keep it in my wallet, even with the plastic, as it gets really knackered really easy (like my dad's). I keep the photocard in my wallet (which looks knackered enough too), because it will probably stop me getting a "producer" if I am pulled over (having to produce your documents at a police station).

ID cards are all nice in theory - that is the system does what people would like them to do. The trouble is, we all know, like the NHS computer system, it won't be implemented properly and cost us a fortune. But it is still nice to dream... One card with my medical history to help paramedics treat me at a scene of an accident. An unforgable card to prevent ID theft, a card to reduce having to carry a driving license, donor card, NI, passport, etc. A card to prevent having to keep produce 2 forms of ID. All in one nice bit of plastic.

Punky, I agree - oh no! - that you can't trust the government (not just this one) to implement an IT project. I wouldn't trust them to plug a PS2 in without racking up enormous consultancy fees, paying through the nose for a SCART lead and failing to hit the deadline of being up and running before the kids hit the age of consent.

But, the idea of all that info on one card scares me to death.

[punky]

Originally Posted by andyl

Punky, I agree - oh no! - that you can't trust the government (not just this one) to implement an IT project. I wouldn't trust them to plug a PS2 in without racking up enormous consultancy fees, paying through the nose for a SCART lead and failing to hit the deadline of being up and running before the kids hit the age of consent.

But, the idea of all that info on one card scares me to death.

Well, the government know all that anyway. Its merely a case of trying to centralise the data and make it secure. Remember, 9/11 happened, because the INS couldn't talk with the DMV or the DOS (despite INS being a department of the DOS!), and making sure it is secure (and that everyone sees the appropriate info. i.e. the paramedics only see my health record, and the immigration only see my passport info.

The government can do that now... just takes a bit longer.

And don't worry, i'll try wearing my evil conservative hat a bit, try and stop you agreeing with me

[me283]

Originally Posted by andyl

. What benefits to me. I get by with my plain old paper one, ta v much!

Sounds a bit "I'm all right Jack!"... not too "liberal" though, is it?

[punky]

Originally Posted by Andyl

What benefits to me. I get by with my plain old paper one, ta v much!

And they are rather handy, if your brother happens to be banned from driving, or doesn't have a license to begin with, and gets a producer. You can lend him yours

[me283]

Originally Posted by Graham

Will an identity card help eliminate benefit fraud?

The government has not provided evidence to support such a claim. David Blunkett went so far as to dismiss the significance of identity fraud in welfare, advising Parliament †œbenefit fraud is only a tiny part of the problem in the benefit systemââ‚Ã⠀šÃ‚¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÂ�.

http://www.no2id.net/IDSchemes/faq.php#8

* * * * *

There are figures quoted (by the Benefits Agency) of around £2 billion in fraud each year, but ID fraud is only a "tiny part" of that figure.

* * * * *

How much will the scheme cost the taxpayer?

The government estimated in 2002 that the scheme would cost somewhere in the order of £3.1 billion. When in 2004 the Home Affairs Committee asked the Home Secretary to clarify the exact amount he refused, citing commercial secrecy. By the time the final Bill was published in November 2004 the government acknowledged that the cost of the scheme over ten years would be £5.5 billion. Industry specialists have warned that the complexity and uncertainty of the schemeââ‚Ã⠀šÃ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s architecture and technology could drive this cost even higher.

http://www.no2id.net/IDSchemes/faq.php#12

* * * * *

The only "financial benefits" will be to the companies who get the lucrative contracts to develop and implement the scheme. The rest of us will just pay through the nose.

What you are talking about is the "estimated" cost of "known" fraud. They are two guesstimates. And I mentioned identity fraud as a single example, not the only one.

Anyway, saying "The only "financial benefits" will be to the companies who get the lucrative contracts to develop and implement the scheme" is untrue, as by your own figures there could be a benefit of around £50 million.

And you quote David Blunkett as a reliable source? Yes, well...

I don't know how much financial benefit the scheme could bring. Anyone who claims to know is, quite frankly, lying. It could be billions, it could be a fraction of that. Without implementation we will never know. But financial savings (SOME EXAMPLES - benefit fraud, cheque book fraud, saving on police time, NHS fraud, identity fraud), may well be made.

Originally Posted by me283

What you are talking about is the "estimated" cost of "known" fraud. They are two guesstimates.

These are from the Benefits Agency and their "Targetting Benefit Fraud" website. Somehow I *really* don't think they're going to *under* estimate the monies involved!!

Anyway, saying "The only "financial benefits" will be to the companies who get the lucrative contracts to develop and implement the scheme" is untrue, as by your own figures there could be a benefit of around £50 million.

So you would spend one *hundred* times that amount to save £50 million???

And you quote David Blunkett as a reliable source? Yes, well...

Why on earth would he have any interest in mis-representing the figures in that case? What political benefits would there be??

I don't know how much financial benefit the scheme could bring. Anyone who claims to know is, quite frankly, lying.

So you have *NO* idea, yet you're willing to throw enough money into it to build, fit out and staff a whole bunch of police stations, hospitals and so on, on the off-chance that there may actually be some benefit down the line?

[me283]

Originally Posted by Graham

These are from the Benefits Agency and their "Targetting Benefit Fraud" website. Somehow I *really* don't think they're going to *under* estimate the monies involved!!



So you would spend one *hundred* times that amount to save £50 million???



Why on earth would he have any interest in mis-representing the figures in that case? What political benefits would there be??



So you have *NO* idea, yet you're willing to throw enough money into it to build, fit out and staff a whole bunch of police stations, hospitals and so on, on the off-chance that there may actually be some benefit down the line?

OK, you are clearly missing one point, and ignoring another... or your maths isn't too good, I'm not sure which.

Firstly, fraud savings can only be estimated, because a lot of fraud goes undetected. That is why when fraud is detected other fraud often comes to light. There are different types of fraud; ongoing fraud, and one-off frauds. The latter type can be more costly, as it may never ever be detected. The figures you are quoting relate to BELIEVED flevels of fraud. I repeat, they CANNOT be accurate. Try speking to someone who works in fraud, you may find it very interesting.

Second point, the figure you quote relates to one type of fraud only, therefore it is the minimum estimate; my previous post stated that there would be many types of fraud. Now, a simple man might acknowledge that there would be savings from each type of fraud, therefore those savings would need to be added together.

I am not sure if you didn't understand what I was saying, or were merely being difficult in an attempt to make me look foolish or ridicule me... I suspect the latter. It matters not, for regardless of whether you like it, this scheme could well be introduced by the next Government. If so, it will be interesting to see the amount saved.

Feel free to write another voluminous reply, I have plenty of time to respond to relevant points.

Originally Posted by punky

Well, the government know all that anyway. Its merely a case of trying to centralise the data and make it secure. Remember, 9/11 happened, because the INS couldn't talk with the DMV or the DOS (despite INS being a department of the DOS!), and making sure it is secure (and that everyone sees the appropriate info. i.e. the paramedics only see my health record, and the immigration only see my passport info.

The government can do that now... just takes a bit longer.

And don't worry, i'll try wearing my evil conservative hat a bit, try and stop you agreeing with me

It's more the idea of what someone could do with a card holding that much personal data...... although I don't trust the authorities either!
__________________

Originally Posted by me283

OK, you are clearly missing one point, and ignoring another... or your maths isn't too good, I'm not sure which.

Firstly, fraud savings can only be estimated, because a lot of fraud goes undetected. That is why when fraud is detected other fraud often comes to light. There are different types of fraud; ongoing fraud, and one-off frauds. The latter type can be more costly, as it may never ever be detected. The figures you are quoting relate to BELIEVED flevels of fraud. I repeat, they CANNOT be accurate. Try speking to someone who works in fraud, you may find it very interesting.

Second point, the figure you quote relates to one type of fraud only, therefore it is the minimum estimate; my previous post stated that there would be many types of fraud. Now, a simple man might acknowledge that there would be savings from each type of fraud, therefore those savings would need to be added together.

I am not sure if you didn't understand what I was saying, or were merely being difficult in an attempt to make me look foolish or ridicule me... I suspect the latter. It matters not, for regardless of whether you like it, this scheme could well be introduced by the next Government. If so, it will be interesting to see the amount saved.

Feel free to write another voluminous reply, I have plenty of time to respond to relevant points.

When Blunkett was in the top job he regarded Benefit Fraud as being fairly insignificant in the scheme of things.... he's on public record saying so. So I'm not sure the cost of implementing the ID scheme makes much sense in relation to it.

[me283]

Originally Posted by andyl

When Blunkett was in the top job he regarded Benefit Fraud as being fairly insignificant in the scheme of things.... he's on public record saying so. So I'm not sure the cost of implementing the ID scheme makes much sense in relation to it.

That was a judgement made by him... and let's agree that he made a few errors of judgement. Also, there have been suggestions that his focus may not have been as much on the job as it should be. His "eye was on a different prize" - excuse the pun!

Originally Posted by me283

That was a judgement made by him... and let's agree that he made a few errors of judgement. Also, there have been suggestions that his focus may not have been as much on the job as it should be. His "eye was on a different prize" - excuse the pun!

He was well placed to know surely.... better so even than your mates involved in fraud investigation as he will have seen the whole picture from the vantage point of a big desk in Whitehall. And he supports ID cards remember (it being his big idea when the whole Kimberley saga was going on.... so if his eye wasn't on the job then perhaps the error of judgement occurred.....)

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by andyl

It's more the idea of what someone could do with a card holding that much personal data...... although I don't trust the authorities either!

But that info won't need to be on the card itself will it?
All that is needed is an electronic reference number that points any queries against the card (like biometrics or previous addresses, or benifit entitlement) to your details in the database.
That way, if someone steals your card, it's pretty much as useless to them as stealing your photo driving licence.
Unless they can break into a goverment office and hack into a computer with sufficient access rights to view your details, in which case they'll be able to go "ooo look, you're not entitled to child benifit because you don't have kids, but then you haven't applied to it, oh wow, what fantastic information"

With a properly secured, thoughtout and implimented system, most information will actually go one way, ie from you to the operator who will then have it checked against the database without actually being able to see what the database holds, they'll be no need if a verification just needs to take place.
Of course many goverment organisations will need to see the information in your profile, but they already can.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

<snip>With a properly secured, thoughtout and implimented system, most information will actually go one way,<snip>

Err, you *do* realise you are talking about a government system?

The scale for abuse that such a system provides is frightening. And if it's hacked?

The other problem the Government is going to have will be the large numbers of people who will simply refuse to go along with it, me included. I envisage Poll Tax style rebellion.