ID card Bill dropped

[me283]

Originally Posted by andyl

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.

Businesses work with estimates, but report facts. Big difference.

[Xaccers]

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.

And just as the goverment under estimates/reports waiting lists, crime, unemployment, it's also likely to under estimate fraud to hide it's incompetence at preventing it.
__________________

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.

Driving licence illustrates your identity, checking on the current databases confirms your right to drive, ownership of vehicle, confirmation of details given to requesting officer etc.

Just holding a driving licence does not mean you have the right to drive.

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?

No, I have no objections (unless I'm being harassed - stopped countless times as some have) because the licence that I am in possession of demonstrates I am legally entitled to drive (subject to MOT, insurance which I might then be asked to produce). It is not a document that proves my right to exist.

Unfortunately, anything that an elected government brings in must be deemed democratic.

A democratically elected government can then introduce anti-democratic measures. If the Govt tried to bring in detention without trial that would be anti-democratic. Oh, hang on... Our form of democracy is significantly failing us too because of unequal access to power and the means of mass communication. In a democracy, all rights are supposed to be equal, but I digress (as usual)

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.

So Mugabe's laughing then?

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

Never mind

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by andyl

No, I have no objections (unless I'm being harassed - stopped countless times as some have) because the licence that I am in possession of demonstrates I am legally entitled to drive (subject to MOT, insurance which I might then be asked to produce). It is not a document that proves my right to exist.

And why is an ID card a document that proves your right to exist???

South Africans and Israeli's don't get killed simply for not having their ID card!

And again, your driving licence does not give you the right to drive, it enables goverment workers to reference a database which tells them that you are the person that the database states has the right to drive.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

All sounds pretty similar to current laws for other goverment documents

Eh?!
__________________

Originally Posted by Xaccers

And why is an ID card a document that proves your right to exist???

See post #97. Oh you have.

South Africans and Israeli's don't get killed simply for not having their ID card!

That wasn't the point I was making. Having to produce an ID card is to have to prove your right to exist

And again, your driving licence does not give you the right to drive, it enables goverment workers to reference a database which tells them that you are the person that the database states has the right to drive.

And? It doesn't, I repeat, relate to me having to prove my right to exist, just to prove my entitlement by law to drive.

[me283]

Originally Posted by andyl

So Mugabe's laughing then?

For the moment, yes, sadly.

Look, this is drifting off-topic. If the ID card system comes in, and you fight it, you may end up in prison... all for refusing to accept the law that a democratically elected government may bring in. Is it worth it? That's up to you, but whilst I don't agree with every law in this country, I stick to them because either I can see some benefits to others, or the population as a whole, or because it's the law and I don't snap my crayons because I can't have everything my own way.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by andyl

Eh?!

Relating to the laws governing several goverment documents you may have, although normally they aren't enforced. Hmm, not currently often enforced, so why think the police will do in the future?
Not applied for a replacement driving licence after losing it?
Well, make sure you do it with 7 days and there's no bother ok?
Not applied for a replacement ID card after losing it? Well, make sure you do it with 7 days and there's no bother ok?
See the similarities?

Originally Posted by andyl

That wasn't the point I was making. Having to produce an ID card is to have to prove your right to exist

Really? Most people think it's a card which helps prove your identity, not your existance.
Just standing there talking to them should prove your existance

Andyl you've succeeded in totally puzzling me with that bit! Can you please explain it better?

Originally Posted by me283

For the moment, yes, sadly.

Look, this is drifting off-topic. If the ID card system comes in, and you fight it, you may end up in prison... all for refusing to accept the law that a democratically elected government may bring in. Is it worth it? That's up to you, but whilst I don't agree with every law in this country, I stick to them because either I can see some benefits to others, or the population as a whole, or because it's the law and I don't snap my crayons because I can't have everything my own way.

But I'm sure I heard the Crayola's going on the speed cameras thread and this is a far, far more important matter. Sometimes you have to fight for principles (look it up on dictionary.com )

[BBKing]

Really? Most people think it's a card which helps prove your identity, not your existance.

I carry round a small, foldable Cartesian Dualist in my pocket, in case I'm ever asked to prove my existence.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by andyl

But I'm sure I heard the Crayola's going on the speed cameras thread and this is a far, far more important matter. Sometimes you have to fight for principles (look it up on dictionary.com )

Using the speed camera issue as an analogy, it would be like us saying they should all be removed or never introduced in the first place because they may be misused (apparently your agument against ID cards, roughly)
Where as in fact we support speed cameras but used properly.
Just as with ID cards, if implimented properly and cost effectivly we have no problems for we can see the benifits

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Relating to the laws governing several goverment documents you may have.....(snip)

And what of iris scans, fingerprinting (no doubt DNA next)

Really? Most people think it's a card which helps prove your identity, not your existance.

It's about keeping track of people. Go one step forward - we have iris scanijng. Scanners could be put in all kinds of places. Add to that existing technolgu (the new speed cameras that track licence plates over distance, CCTV etc) and we will have no privacy and a system open to wholesale abuse.

Andyl you've succeeded in totally puzzling me with that bit! Can you please explain it better?

Probably not not least cos I can't see from your quote in my reply box what you were referring to. I may add an edit!
__________________

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Using the speed camera issue as an analogy, it would be like us saying they should all be removed or never introduced in the first place because they may be misused (apparently your agument against ID cards, roughly)
Where as in fact we support speed cameras but used properly.
Just as with ID cards, if implimented properly and cost effectivly we have no problems for we can see the benifits

Well leaving for one side the whole speed camera debate (don't want to go there again!), there is a huge difference in that ID cards impact on civil rights (speed cameras don't - possible exception being the newies which track you over distance) and the potential to misuse the system for political or other ends is enormous (wheras the nearest you can get to that with speed cameras is to suggest, as I'm sure you do, that they're just a revenue raising exercise. Even if you accept that argument, the parallel with ID cards in terms of civil rights is flimsy).
__________________

Originally Posted by BBKing

I carry round a small, foldable Cartesian Dualist in my pocket, in case I'm ever asked to prove my existence.

I had to look that up.... but I like it!


EDIT: My own civil rights are being invaded now by this evil thing called work. Gonna have to sign off for a while. Catch ya later all.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by andyl

And what of iris scans, fingerprinting (no doubt DNA next)

It's about keeping track of people. Go one step forward - we have iris scanijng. Scanners could be put in all kinds of places. Add to that existing technolgu (the new speed cameras that track licence plates over distance, CCTV etc) and we will have no privacy and a system open to wholesale abuse.

Ok DNA requires blood or tissue sampling, there is an inheirant health risk in security devices which use these, also there's the time it takes to actually get a result from the dna sample and to check it against one on record, plus all the cost of the technology to package it into something that can be used in an airport for instance, therefore it's a non-starter.

However, having it on record has it's advantages when trying to solve crime. Remember a guy on the m3 who died from a rock being thrown through his lorry window? the offender was found because a relative gave dna in a police campain.

Iris scans from a distance? Someone's been watching minority report
Current iris scans can't even cope with certain ethnic irisus point blank, let alone at distance! Such a device would have to be able to track your face, locate your eyes, hope you aren't wearing glasses or sunglasses, or contact lenses, or a large hat (so useless against most chavs!), and zoom in close enough to see the minute details of your iris. And as with fingerprints, its markers that are used not an exact match, so they can see if you MAY have been in an area, not that you are!
Reading a number plate is far easier, not hard to write code that can select black text from a white background, especially when legally number plates are supposed to be a set font etc, totally different to iris recognition.
Oh and it fails quite a lot of the time, so the images have to be checked manually to read the plates.

Finger printing, well for identity they match markers, for it to be considered presentable to court as the only evidence there has to be something like 11 although I think it varies in scotland.
Your fingerprint is unique, true. Resultant analysis of your fingerprint is not unique.
I can give a forensic scientist two fingerprints from different people, and he could conclude they are from the same person simply because of the markers.

Therefore, you can walk around a shopping centre touching everything you liked, have all the fingerprints lifted and analysed, and the number of resulting finds in the database would be astronomical!
Now if you broke into someone's house, nicked their VCR and were caught down the road, then having your fingerprints on record wouldn't really help because they've got you to fingerprint!

Now where biometrics do help is in confirming that the person using the card is the person that the card belongs to.
It works like a password but a password that no one else can have unless they chop off your hand or suck out your eye.

It's ok andy, I'm sending the men round with the paranoia pills

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.

In which case I see little point in continuing to try to hold a reasonable discussion with you on this.

Xaccers - missed Minority Report actually (only get to see films of the Spongebob variety generally due to the ankle biters). I'm sure you can see where I'm going though - iris recognition technology, for example, will move apace.

Paranoid? Moi? Well I have been illegally arrested and detained by the Police so I guess they are (or at least were) out to get me!

Right, enough of this, I am now officially only 20 minutes away from my first Friday night Guinness! Cheers!

Originally Posted by Xaccers

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

It is about the *security* of the system and the vulnerability of the data held on it and the potential for abuse.

Think about how many governmental organisations are going to have access to this data. Do you think all the people who work for them are going to be scrupulously honest?

Many years ago I had a six wee temp job working for the Inland Revenue doing "revenue returns" (ie recording who had sent their tax return back).

Within a couple of *hours* of working there I had "shoulder surfed" the section supervisor's password and managed to log into his account where I could look at *anyone's* tax records, make changes or even *delete* someone's records entirely.

Of course I didn't do any of that, but had I been minded to and had connections in the criminal fraternities, it would not have been difficult.

Now consider if I'd been working for a department that had access to ID card record details...!
__________________

Originally Posted by Xaccers

All sounds pretty similar to current laws for other goverment documents

I really don't think that's at all the case and even if it were, most of those you are not *required* to have!
__________________

Originally Posted by me283

If the ID card system comes in, and you fight it, you may end up in prison... all for refusing to accept the law that a democratically elected government may bring in. Is it worth it?

I think a lot of people considered it worth it when the Poll Tax was introduced.

whilst I don't agree with every law in this country, I stick to them because either I can see some benefits to others, or the population as a whole, or because it's the law

So you're saying that there are *no* laws that could be introduced about which you would say "hang on, that's going too far!" because there are "some benefits to others"?

and I don't snap my crayons because I can't have everything my own way.

Me283, *why* do you persist in this sort of behaviour? It doesn't give your points any more credibility or validity and is as childish as what you appear to be saying you *don't* do!
__________________

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Not applied for a replacement driving licence after losing it?
Well, make sure you do it with 7 days and there's no bother ok?
Not applied for a replacement ID card after losing it? Well, make sure you do it with 7 days and there's no bother ok?
See the similarities?

What are the penalties for failing to replace a driving licence after losing it?

What are the proposed penalties for failing to replace an ID card after losing it?

See the differences???

Really? Most people think it's a card which helps prove your identity, not your existance.
Just standing there talking to them should prove your existance

Most people are incredibly naiive about the nature of ID cards.

As I have mentioned many a time before in ID card threads, in this country you have the RIGHT to "go about your lawful business without let or hinderence" (a "let" means permission in this context) and to simply *be* on a street in the UK.

Being required to have an ID card means you need *permission* to do something that was, previously, a legal right, you now have to demonstrate that your existence on that street has been permitted by the government.