ID card Bill dropped

[BBKing]

Well, if the USAF are going to bomb Homebase, then at least Homebase will be safe

Reports are coming in that Homechoice headquarters has been flattened by a cruise missile.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by scastle

Well, if the USAF are going to bomb Homebase, then at least Homebase will be safe. Wouldn't like to be in any of the buildings around Homebase though.

Or in Belgum

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by ntluser

Sadly for Tony Blair the dropping of the ID cards is just one of the "out of touch with the electorate policies" to be dropped.

They thought we wanted regional government. We didn't.They thought we wanted super-casinos. We didn't.They thought we wanted government at any price. We didn't.

The one thing they failed to see was that we wanted honest, effective government.

The problem is that no party can be in touch with what the electorate want. In many cases the electorate itself doesn't know what it wants.

Turnout in elections is low and the ones that do bother aren't by and large voting for all the policies of the party they select. Many people like some of the policies of one party and some of the policies of the others but you have to select only one candidate which means that you are voting for someone who has policies that you may really not want enacted. Many of the ones that do bother to vote don't even know what the policies of their chosen candidate or party are. They vote one way because they always have done so as their parents and grandparents did.

Some people say things as quoted above such as "They thought we wanted super-casinos. We didn't" but is that really true? Most people probably don't give a hoot whether we have super-casinos or don't. I have seen many market research questionaires which would ask questions along the lines of "do you think we should have ID cards? yes, no or not bothered" The true answer may be none of those options but could be a mixture of them. It could be yes if certain conditions were met but no if they weren't. The results of that survey can then be sensationalised by the press and made to look a completely different picture to what it really is.

In a way the votes on this forum regarding "the cap" and the comments made in the various threads highlight the fact that we can't see the wood for the trees. Voting in them has been far wide of what customers in general think, in my opinion. Comments made have been dominated by people who are against caps. This is mainly because people who are against something that is proposed to be happening will be much more voiciferous and will continue to push their point of view far longer than those who don't mind the caps.

[me283]

Originally Posted by ian@huth

The problem is that no party can be in touch with what the electorate want. In many cases the electorate itself doesn't know what it wants.

Turnout in elections is low and the ones that do bother aren't by and large voting for all the policies of the party they select. Many people like some of the policies of one party and some of the policies of the others but you have to select only one candidate which means that you are voting for someone who has policies that you may really not want enacted. Many of the ones that do bother to vote don't even know what the policies of their chosen candidate or party are. They vote one way because they always have done so as their parents and grandparents did.

Some people say things as quoted above such as "They thought we wanted super-casinos. We didn't" but is that really true? Most people probably don't give a hoot whether we have super-casinos or don't. I have seen many market research questionaires which would ask questions along the lines of "do you think we should have ID cards? yes, no or not bothered" The true answer may be none of those options but could be a mixture of them. It could be yes if certain conditions were met but no if they weren't. The results of that survey can then be sensationalised by the press and made to look a completely different picture to what it really is.

In a way the votes on this forum regarding "the cap" and the comments made in the various threads highlight the fact that we can't see the wood for the trees. Voting in them has been far wide of what customers in general think, in my opinion. Comments made have been dominated by people who are against caps. This is mainly because people who are against something that is proposed to be happening will be much more voiciferous and will continue to push their point of view far longer than those who don't mind the caps.

Very true, and also many people vote on personality too. It has been said that many votes were won by that "nice Mr. Blair". I went to a Polling Station once and only one candidate was there, meeting and greeting people, taking time to chat and answer questions. Whilst most people may have decided by that point who to vote for, he could have picked up a few "don't knows". It gave the impression of the other candidates that they were not that bothered by that stage.

Originally Posted by me283

So what is the "truth" about them (not including the costs)?

See BBKing's post and all the other threads on here about them because I really can't be bothered to do all the arguments *again*.

Originally Posted by me283

I went to a Polling Station once and only one candidate was there, meeting and greeting people, taking time to chat and answer questions. Whilst most people may have decided by that point who to vote for, he could have picked up a few "don't knows". It gave the impression of the other candidates that they were not that bothered by that stage.

Candidates and party members must tread a fine line at Polling Stations as it is an offence to exert 'undue influence' on voters. I think also, that they are not able to display party emblems and logos within X yards of a Polling Station.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Graham

See BBKing's post and all the other threads on here about them because I really can't be bothered to do all the arguments *again*.

I can't think of any arguments against them that aren't down to paranoia and misunderstanding (excluding financial arguments against them)

Sure you get the "but it won't help against such and such" type arguments, but so what if it doesn't? There are plenty of other benifits to joe public in having one, so should we not have them because the card can't do something?
A photo driving licence doesn't help prevent terrorism, but gives several benifits to the user, should we get rid of them and go back to paper? Nope because of the other benifits that the photo licience gives.

[me283]

Originally Posted by andyl

Candidates and party members must tread a fine line at Polling Stations as it is an offence to exert 'undue influence' on voters. I think also, that they are not able to display party emblems and logos within X yards of a Polling Station.

Sounds fair enough; but the impression it gave was positive on the guy that turned up and negative on those that hadn't. Just an observation.
__________________

Originally Posted by Xaccers

I can't think of any arguments against them that aren't down to paranoia and misunderstanding (excluding financial arguments against them)

Sure you get the "but it won't help against such and such" type arguments, but so what if it doesn't? There are plenty of other benifits to joe public in having one, so should we not have them because the card can't do something?
A photo driving licence doesn't help prevent terrorism, but gives several benifits to the user, should we get rid of them and go back to paper? Nope because of the other benifits that the photo licience gives.

And there will always be naysayers with every new concept that is proposed. Truth is, we won't know the full benefits until the system (if ever) is tried. Would cost not be somewhat reduced by the reduction in benefit fraud and the like? There are often estimates published about the amount that this type of fraud loses, but that may be the tip of the iceberg. WHo knows, the ID card scheme may even end up paying for itself, at least in part?

[BBKing]

WHo knows, the ID card scheme may even end up paying for itself, at least in part?

If it's paying for it in part, it's still costing the government more than if you let the benefit fraud continue. Also, 'benefit fraud' is a big catch-all for a lot of different offences, very few of which would be hindered by having ID cards. For instance, if you claim benefit and do some removals work cash in hand on the side, how on earth will having an ID card help catch you? Surely putting the money into some nosey cynical benefit inspectors (or policemen for that matter) would be a better way of catching this rather common type of fraudster?

[me283]

Originally Posted by BBKing

If it's paying for it in part, it's still costing the government more than if you let the benefit fraud continue. Also, 'benefit fraud' is a big catch-all for a lot of different offences, very few of which would be hindered by having ID cards. For instance, if you claim benefit and do some removals work cash in hand on the side, how on earth will having an ID card help catch you? Surely putting the money into some nosey cynical benefit inspectors (or policemen for that matter) would be a better way of catching this rather common type of fraudster?

But we don't know exactly how much this type of fraud costs... people claiming under multiple identities etc. It's only when they are found out that we know how much people have scammed. Also, the cost of fraud is constant or increasing; the cost of the ID scheme would be partly a startup cost, partly maintenance. All I am saying is that whilst there will be an initial outlay, there could also be some financial benefits too.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

I can't think of any arguments against them that aren't down to paranoia and misunderstanding (excluding financial arguments against them)

Then I suggest you go and read the no2id site because it gives plenty of reasons that can't be glibly dismissed as "paranoia".
__________________

Originally Posted by me283

All I am saying is that whilst there will be an initial outlay, there could also be some financial benefits too.

* * * * *

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.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by me283

But we don't know exactly how much this type of fraud costs... people claiming under multiple identities etc. It's only when they are found out that we know how much people have scammed. Also, the cost of fraud is constant or increasing; the cost of the ID scheme would be partly a startup cost, partly maintenance. All I am saying is that whilst there will be an initial outlay, there could also be some financial benefits too.

Well according to the faq site that was linked to

In evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Department of Work and Pensions, Chris Pond MP, confirmed that false identity represented a tiny fraction of the benefit fraud problem. He said his Department advised that of the estimated £2 billion total annual benefit fraud, £50 million came from people not being who they said they were when making a claim.

£50mill ion is a lot of money, and as the site says a bit later, the ID card scheme would cost several times that to impliment, however if it could wipe out that type of fraud, then that's £50 million a year saved each year.
And with your financial information on record and referencable through the ID system, they're more likely to be able to tackle more of the £2billi on other fraud (course the site didn't say that bit).

Benifits to me of a well thought out and properly implimented ID card system (ie not the one Labour are wanting to impliment) :

Replaces my driving licence so replaces all the benifits of that, such as evidence of address, DoB, ability to drive legally.

Tied in with a biometric passport, I'll be able to just use my hand print or iris recognition at passport control making it much quicker and easier (works well in Israel)

Intergrated with my credit and debit cards I get the security of the card and biomentrics being referenced together against the database.
If someone steals my card, well tough, without my eye or hand it's useless.
And that ladies and gentlemen is how security should work, with multiple points of reference.
Somoene makes a forged card, gee, that's nice, the details on the database won't match, the biometrics won't match.
Sure it might get them into a bar where the only security check is a visual comparison of the photo with your face, but with something goverment backed, which references the database, then they'll have issues.
The photo on the card might match the face, but the photo in the database won't, or the biometrics.
For credit checks, queries can be sent to the database for comparison, where it doesn't give out the data but checks what you've told the crediter and give a match or no-match result. That way they aren't able to access your info directly.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

IA photo driving licence doesn't help prevent terrorism, but gives several benifits to the user

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

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by andyl

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

Well I found the paper one quite bulky to carry around in my wallet, so the photo card part is perfect.
Now you may be a northerner with short arms and deep pockets so plenty of room to fit it in.
Also, if someone stole your driving licence, they can pretend to be you, one with a lovely photo of yourself kinda puts a stop to that.
Many businesses won't accept non-photo driving licences as a form of ID

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Well I found the paper one quite bulky to carry around in my wallet, so the photo card part is perfect.

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!

Now you may be a northerner with short arms and deep pockets so plenty of room to fit it in.

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

Also, if someone stole your driving licence, they can pretend to be you, one with a lovely photo of yourself kinda puts a stop to that.

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

Many businesses won't accept non-photo driving licences as a form of ID

Yet to come across any that don't.

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