ID card Bill dropped

[me283]

Originally Posted by andyl

The right to live in a free democratic society without my right to privacy being invaded.

But I don't understand how your privacy woul dbe invaded, if the ID card system would just centralise the information? Please explain.

And democracy involves adhering to laws as brought in by an elected Government, or am I wrong there? Perhaps you should be calling yourself "smug anarchist"...?

[Xaccers]

And christians should be all for it, as it could be "the number" meaning the rapture is just around the corner (quick, look busy)

Originally Posted by Xaccers

And christians should be all for it, as it could be "the number" meaning the rapture is just around the corner (quick, look busy)

Yup, all we have to do is support the Bill, then refuse to carry one.

Personally I'm more curious to see if the Pope miraculously rises from the dead over the next few days, thus proving whether Ian Paisley was right to bellow at him that he was the Antichrist.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Chris T

Yup, all we have to do is support the Bill, then refuse to carry one.

Ooo now that could be a get-out clause on religious grounds
Might work with national insurance number too!
Of course you'd probably have to prove that this is the number described in revelations, which could lead to a large contributions bill should the real number come into play later!

Originally Posted by Towny

Personally I'm more curious to see if the Pope miraculously rises from the dead over the next few days, thus proving whether Ian Paisley was right to bellow at him that he was the Antichrist.

Well, if they've got zombies in Iraq...

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.

Really? Let's see...

Firstly, fraud savings can only be estimated, because a lot of fraud goes undetected.

Yes, that's true, but as I already pointed out the BA are unlikely to *under* estimate the value of fraud and I think that goes for the government as well!

Secondly, however, ID cards are *not* going to stop the vast majority of benefit fraud a lot of which is people working and claiming unless you are going to require *every* employer to perform ID checks on *every* employee to ensure that they're not claiming benefits.

Of course the crooked employers aren't going to abide by this anyway, so it will only impact on honest businesses!

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.

But it has already been acknowleged that ID Cards would *NOT* stop the other types of fraud!!

"The majority of fraud on the benefits system is through under-reporting of income, or non-reporting of financial and family circumstances. Benefits agencies worldwide agree that false identity is not a key issue"

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

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.

I am not trying to make anyone look foolish, I leave that up to them.

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.

Yes, I'm sure that if Labour get in, they will try to force this through and squander huge amounts of public money on a system that will not work, that will be open to abuse and fraud(!), that will certainly (it's a government IT project!) go over budget and not operate properly...

Any "savings" that *may* be created will be utterly swamped.
__________________

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Other countries have ID card systems and they don't have that problem.

Other countries *DO NOT* have the system that this government is proposing!!!

"Clause 1 and Schedule 1 of the Bill sets out more than fifty categories of information required for the register"

Read this list: http://www.no2id.net/IDSchemes/faq.php#7

If they made it compulsary and replaced driving licences with it, I bet you'd get one rather than give up driving.

Sure, after all, it's not as if there's any problem with people at present driving without licences or insurance, is it???

[me283]

Originally Posted by Graham

Of course the crooked employers aren't going to abide by this anyway, so it will only impact on honest businesses!

Of course there are no honest employers, being conned by benefit claimants, are there? And even if there were, the ID card scheme wouldn't help in eradicating that fraud, would it? And if it did, it wouldn't save money, would it? Oh, actually it would.

And there are many types of fraud that are presently undetected. If the ID card scheme helps to prevent them, all the better. If, in turn it frees up fraud prevention officers' time to pursue other types of fraud, better again.

And if the ID card scheme is introduced... YIPPEE!!

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Could someone please list the civil rights which will be lost if well thought out and properly implimented id cards are introduced (not the crappy id cards labour wants)?

What is the point of talking about something that isn't going to happen??

But this is what's going to happen with *this* scheme:

"It is important to keep in mind that the card will be buttressed by a vast array of new state powers and criminal penalties. The Bill creates a score of new offences including refusal to obey an order from the Secretary of State (6(4)), failure to notify authorities about a lost, stolen, damaged or defective card (13(1)), failure to renew a card (9(2)), failure to submit to fingerprinting (9(4)(b)), failure to provide information demanded by the government (9(4)(d)), failure to attend an interview at a specified place and time (9(4)(a)) and failure to notify the Secretary of State of any change in personal circumstances (including change of address) (12(1)). Failure to obey an order to register or providing false information will also constitute an offence. Penalties range from £1,000 fine to two years imprisonment. A penalty of up to £2,500 can be levied for failure to attend an appointment for a scan of your fingerprints and iris. This fine can be repeated for every subsequent failure to attend."

http://www.no2id.net/IDSchemes/faq.php#15
__________________

Originally Posted by me283

Of course there are no honest employers, being conned by benefit claimants, are there?

Sorry? If I'm employing someone and they're illegally claiming benefits, how am *I*, as an employer "being conned"?

And even if there were, the ID card scheme wouldn't help in eradicating that fraud, would it? And if it did, it wouldn't save money, would it? Oh, actually it would.

It might save money. At the cost of dumping yet another load or Red Tape and regulation on many small businesses who are *already* suffering under the huge amount of extraneous rubbish they're having to deal with which would probably cost much more to introduce and administer than any possible savings.

And it would, once again, force the *businessman* to become an unpaid government employee (after already collecting VAT, NI and Income Tax etc) and if they make a mistake it's the *businessman* who is liable for the error!

And there are many types of fraud that are presently undetected. If the ID card scheme helps to prevent them, all the better. If, in turn it frees up fraud prevention officers' time to pursue other types of fraud, better again.

And if the ID card scheme is introduced... YIPPEE!!

There are an awful lot of "If"s in that last section. Can you actually back them up with any *proof* or is your argument just "I think it would work, let's spend billions on this system to find out"??

[me283]

Originally Posted by Graham

What is the point of talking about something that isn't going to happen??

But this is what's going to happen with *this* scheme:

"It is important to keep in mind that the card will be buttressed by a vast array of new state powers and criminal penalties. The Bill creates a score of new offences including refusal to obey an order from the Secretary of State (6(4)), failure to notify authorities about a lost, stolen, damaged or defective card (13(1)), failure to renew a card (9(2)), failure to submit to fingerprinting (9(4)(b)), failure to provide information demanded by the government (9(4)(d)), failure to attend an interview at a specified place and time (9(4)(a)) and failure to notify the Secretary of State of any change in personal circumstances (including change of address) (12(1)). Failure to obey an order to register or providing false information will also constitute an offence. Penalties range from £1,000 fine to two years imprisonment. A penalty of up to £2,500 can be levied for failure to attend an appointment for a scan of your fingerprints and iris. This fine can be repeated for every subsequent failure to attend."

http://www.no2id.net/IDSchemes/faq.php#15
__________________



Sorry? If I'm employing someone and they're illegally claiming benefits, how am *I*, as an employer "being conned"?



It might save money. At the cost of dumping yet another load or Red Tape and regulation on many small businesses who are *already* suffering under the huge amount of extraneous rubbish they're having to deal with which would probably cost much more to introduce and administer than any possible savings.

And it would, once again, force the *businessman* to become an unpaid government employee (after already collecting VAT, NI and Income Tax etc) and if they make a mistake it's the *businessman* who is liable for the error!



There are an awful lot of "If"s in that last section. Can you actually back them up with any *proof* or is your argument just "I think it would work, let's spend billions on this system to find out"??

No Graham, I can't, because fraud is an unknown quantity, which is the point I've been trying to make all along. Yes there are a lot of ifs, but there are pretty much no certainties. If it is implemented...etc etc. Yes there are other "if"s, and I am not going to list them, before you try saying there is only one.

Originally Posted by me283

No Graham, I can't, because fraud is an unknown quantity, which is the point I've been trying to make all along. Yes there are a lot of ifs, but there are pretty much no certainties. If it is implemented...etc etc. Yes there are other "if"s, and I am not going to list them, before you try saying there is only one.

You can't quantify very many things - but you can produce statistical models to gauge scale.

[me283]

Originally Posted by andyl

You can't quantify very many things - but you can produce statistical models to gauge scale.

The logic behind fraud is to get someone to believe something that isn't true. ie you lie to them, but they accept your lie as a fact. To quantify how much benefit fraud is costing per annum, you would need to decide how much of what is believed to be truth is avtually lies. In a nutshell, that's it; it would be a brave or a foolish man who states a exactly how much we are talking about... and anything else is an estimate, which has been given. But an estimate could be a long way from the truth.

Originally Posted by me283

But I don't understand how your privacy woul dbe invaded, if the ID card system would just centralise the information? Please explain.

If I have to produce my ID card? Note this is different to showing my driving licence, which illustrates my right to drive, not to exist.

[/QUOTE]And democracy involves adhering to laws as brought in by an elected Government, or am I wrong there? Perhaps you should be calling yourself "smug anarchist"...? [/QUOTE]

And this is an anti-democratic measure (have a proper read of Graham's informed posts).

Opposing the erosion of civil rights is hardly being an anarchist.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Graham

Other countries *DO NOT* have the system that this government is proposing!!!

"Clause 1 and Schedule 1 of the Bill sets out more than fifty categories of information required for the register"

Read this list: http://www.no2id.net/IDSchemes/faq.php#7

Sorry, what's that got to do with the hackability of the system?

[me283]

Originally Posted by andyl

If I have to produce my ID card? Note this is different to showing my driving licence, which illustrates my right to drive, not to exist.

And democracy involves adhering to laws as brought in by an elected Government, or am I wrong there? Perhaps you should be calling yourself "smug anarchist"...? [/QUOTE]

And this is an anti-democratic measure (have a proper read of Graham's informed posts).

Opposing the erosion of civil rights is hardly being an anarchist.[/QUOTE]

So presumably, if the police ask you to produce a driving licence you object, on the grounds that a) they could check the records without seeing the licence, and b) the licence per se doesn't entitle you to drive, it merely shows you have passed a test which allows you to drive?

Unfortunately, anything that an elected government brings in must be deemed democratic. They are voted in, they act on behalf of the electorate. Someone mentioned, on another thread, that the way to challenge a law is to vote out the government.

I still don't understand your stance on opposing certain laws though.

Originally Posted by me283

The logic behind fraud is to get someone to believe something that isn't true. ie you lie to them, but they accept your lie as a fact. To quantify how much benefit fraud is costing per annum, you would need to decide how much of what is believed to be truth is avtually lies. In a nutshell, that's it; it would be a brave or a foolish man who states a exactly how much we are talking about... and anything else is an estimate, which has been given. But an estimate could be a long way from the truth.

We live in a world of estimates. Businesses live daily by estimates. What you do is you take a sample and extrapolate. Now detecting fraud is more difficult but by using such statistical models (which take intoi account a level of undetected fraud) you can gauge not exact numbers, but an idea of scale with which to work with.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Graham

What is the point of talking about something that isn't going to happen??

But this is what's going to happen with *this* scheme:

"It is important to keep in mind that the card will be buttressed by a vast array of new state powers and criminal penalties. The Bill creates a score of new offences including refusal to obey an order from the Secretary of State (6(4)), failure to notify authorities about a lost, stolen, damaged or defective card (13(1)), failure to renew a card (9(2)), failure to submit to fingerprinting (9(4)(b)), failure to provide information demanded by the government (9(4)(d)), failure to attend an interview at a specified place and time (9(4)(a)) and failure to notify the Secretary of State of any change in personal circumstances (including change of address) (12(1)). Failure to obey an order to register or providing false information will also constitute an offence. Penalties range from £1,000 fine to two years imprisonment. A penalty of up to £2,500 can be levied for failure to attend an appointment for a scan of your fingerprints and iris. This fine can be repeated for every subsequent failure to attend."

All sounds pretty similar to current laws for other goverment documents