ID card Bill dropped

[me283]

Originally Posted by Graham

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



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"?



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!
__________________



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???



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.

Sure, certain laws "could" be introduced that I may not like... but then I shall have to wait and see. And if they are, I have three choices: accept them, try to vote out the Government and hope the laws are changed, or live in another country. That's the reality.

And to clarify your last point, being required to carry an ID card suggests that you need to be able to prove who you are, should the need arise; I fail to see how it implies that you need permission to stand on the street?

Originally Posted by me283

Sure, certain laws "could" be introduced that I may not like... but then I shall have to wait and see. And if they are, I have three choices: accept them, try to vote out the Government and hope the laws are changed, or live in another country. That's the reality.

*HONK* Sorry, but wrong (oh, and once again we see the logical fallacy of the "False Dilemma")

There is a *fourth* choice. You and lots of other people contact your MP and express your disagreement with the proposed laws *BEFORE* they are introduced.

And to clarify your last point, being required to carry an ID card suggests that you need to be able to prove who you are, should the need arise; I fail to see how it implies that you need permission to stand on the street?

Because it would *not only* require you to prove who you are, but also, by implication mean that if you could *not* prove who you are when required, you do *not* have the right to stand on the street, since you could then be arrested for failing to identify yourself!!

PS if you find my "lengthy posts" so tiresome, why don't you edit out the parts that you aren't replying to?

PPS Oh and for all those who think that the government's plans are a great idea and are going to be a roaring success that will be brought in without any problems, here's a cautionary little story for you...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04/08/mi5_it_budget/

[me283]

Originally Posted by Graham

*HONK* Sorry, but wrong (oh, and once again we see the logical fallacy of the "False Dilemma")

There is a *fourth* choice. You and lots of other people contact your MP and express your disagreement with the proposed laws *BEFORE* they are introduced.



Because it would *not only* require you to prove who you are, but also, by implication mean that if you could *not* prove who you are when required, you do *not* have the right to stand on the street, since you could then be arrested for failing to identify yourself!!

PS if you find my "lengthy posts" so tiresome, why don't you edit out the parts that you aren't replying to?

PPS Oh and for all those who think that the government's plans are a great idea and are going to be a roaring success that will be brought in without any problems, here's a cautionary little story for you...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04/08/mi5_it_budget/

Actually, if you re-read my post a little more carefully, you will see that I used the past tense - laws that have been introduced. That, by implication, infers that it is too late to stop them being introduced. Wrong again *HONK*

But you see, what I didn't realise, and what you have taught me, is that it's all just a big conspiracy... Let's get real, shall we? There are very few good things this Government has done, and many bad. More often than not you can look into their actions and see that they are doing it more for their own good than for the country's. But the ID card system would be great, not just for the authorities, but for the population as a whole. Sure, there are some that would oppose it, but then they may have reason to... After all, assuming anonymity can (I imagine) be very useful for some people. But then some people eg maybe who work for the Inland Revenue? may feel the need not just to go about their work, but to use other people's password to look into things that don't concern them. Why would they do that?

Originally Posted by me283

Actually, if you re-read my post a little more carefully, you will see that I used the past tense - laws that have been introduced.

Ahem. Your exact words were "Sure, certain laws "could" be introduced that I may not like... " That is *not* the past tense.

But you see, what I didn't realise, and what you have taught me, is that it's all just a big conspiracy... Let's get real, shall we?

Certainly. Let's start by asserting the real fact that I never said anything of the sort.

the ID card system would be great, not just for the authorities, but for the population as a whole.

You have *still* yet to demonstrate *ANY* proof of this claim!

Yes, *IF* it was properly introduced and *IF* it worked correctly and *IF* it didn't breach people's basic rights and *IF* it wasn't abused and *IF* it wasn't open to abuse and *IF* it wasn't very probably going to be an expensive white elephant like many other government IT projects and *IF* people would actually agree to it when they knew the full facts behind exactly what this scheme will do *THEN* it *MAY* possibly be "great for the population", but that's not exactly what I would call convincing!

Sure, there are some that would oppose it, but then they may have reason to... After all, assuming anonymity can (I imagine) be very useful for some people.

Oh dear, and now we have the tired old rhetoric of "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" trotted out again with the underlying implication that if you *do* object you *must* have something to hide.

This argument hasn't washed the last couple of dozen times people have made it and it *still* won't wash now.

But then some people eg maybe who work for the Inland Revenue? may feel the need not just to go about their work, but to use other people's password to look into things that don't concern them. Why would they do that?

Me283, are you suffering from a stunning lack of imagination here???

Consider if you were a member of the "criminal fraternity" and had access to not only people's IR records, but access to the system that let you examine everyone's ID details. Just *LOOK* at the list of information that the government wants to keep on everyone and think what could be done by someone who is unscrupulous!

[me283]

Originally Posted by Graham

You have *still* yet to demonstrate *ANY* proof of this claim!

How can it be proven, when it has not happened? Anything written would be supposition. Just like back in the late 1400s when a chap called Columbus decided to sail around the world, even though people thought it was square... how did he "prove" it wasn't? By getting out there and doing it. And you want proof that something "will" be beneficial before it's been introduced? Tough one that. No, what you want is not proof, but you want to be convinced, and it seems to me that your stance is such that you are unconvincable.

Oh well, if and when the scheme is introduced, we shall have to find out then.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Graham

Consider if you were a member of the "criminal fraternity" and had access to not only people's IR records, but access to the system that let you examine everyone's ID details. Just *LOOK* at the list of information that the government wants to keep on everyone and think what could be done by someone who is unscrupulous!

Again I ask, how come other countries with ID card systems with more personal information than the government's plan calls for, don't have this issue?

Also exactly what new information will the database hold that will enable all these abuses which isn't already held by the government?

Another thing, you do not need to carry the ID card to be able to walk down the street, just as you don't need to carry a driving license to drive down the road.
To think otherwise I'm afraid is simply an attempt at scaremongering or paranoia!

With this thread nearly everyone has agreed that the government's proposal and ability to impliment the scheme are a pile of poo.
So there's no point carrying on arguing about it.

Then you are left with those of us who can see the benifits of a well planned and implimented scheme and those who are anti any ID scheme.
So far from the latter I have only heard reasonable arguments against the Labour plan but no strong arguments against properly run schemes.

Originally Posted by me283

How can it be proven, when it has not happened?

You can't, but the point is you want to spend at least five *BILLION* pounds on trying to prove it!

And what happens if, after all that (as seems much more likely) it turns out that it doesn't work and would never be able to do half the things that were promised for it, what would you say?

"Oh, sorry, we've wasted enough money to build a load of new hospitals and police stations and employ a whole lot of more doctors, nurses and police, but, hey, it seemed like a good idea at the time!)

Just like back in the late 1400s when a chap called Columbus decided to sail around the world, even though people thought it was square... how did he "prove" it wasn't? By getting out there and doing it.

If you're trying to use this as an argument in favour of your position, it would have worked better if you'd actually got your facts right! But there again, it seems that facts don't feature much in your arguments anyway.

And you want proof that something "will" be beneficial before it's been introduced? Tough one that. No, what you want is not proof, but you want to be convinced, and it seems to me that your stance is such that you are unconvincable.

Just because I won't take what you (or the government) says without something more to back it up, does *not* mean I am "unconvincable", but if you're going to spend all that money, it's better to do it with reasonable grounds to back it up instead of just "well I think it's a good idea, let's try it and see what happens".
__________________

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Again I ask, how come other countries with ID card systems with more personal information than the government's plan calls for, don't have this issue?

Which countries? The former Soviet Union? The old Eastern Europe? Communist China?

Also exactly what new information will the database hold that will enable all these abuses which isn't already held by the government?

Have you never heard the expression "don't put all of your eggs in one basket"?

Another thing, you do not need to carry the ID card to be able to walk down the street, just as you don't need to carry a driving license to drive down the road.

Oh gods, Xaccers, this argument is *OLD* is has been done time and again in these threads and I'm not going to point out the flaws in it *yet* again.

Go and search the old threads where you will find the difference between having a licence to drive (something you *choose* to have) and having a "licence to walk down the street" (something which the government wants to *compel* you to have).

With this thread nearly everyone has agreed that the government's proposal and ability to impliment the scheme are a pile of poo.
So there's no point carrying on arguing about it.

I suggest you try to convince Me283 of that!

Then you are left with those of us who can see the benifits of a well planned and implimented scheme and those who are anti any ID scheme.
So far from the latter I have only heard reasonable arguments against the Labour plan but no strong arguments against properly run schemes.

Xaccers, the point is that *ANY* scheme introduced *will* be a government scheme and it will *NOT* be a "well planned and implemented scheme". Ye gods, they can't even get the MI5 system right and that's supposed to protect us from terrorism!!!

[me283]

Originally Posted by Graham

You can't, but the point is you want to spend at least five *BILLION* pounds on trying to prove it!

And what happens if, after all that (as seems much more likely) it turns out that it doesn't work and would never be able to do half the things that were promised for it, what would you say?

"Oh, sorry, we've wasted enough money to build a load of new hospitals and police stations and employ a whole lot of more doctors, nurses and police, but, hey, it seemed like a good idea at the time!)



If you're trying to use this as an argument in favour of your position, it would have worked better if you'd actually got your facts right! But there again, it seems that facts don't feature much in your arguments anyway.

Don't get tetchy Graham, or I shall tell the Administrators! Oh no, that's your trick, isn't it. When someone gets something wrong, try pointing it out? As in fact they would to you, if you were ever to get anything wrong. But you don't, silly me, I forgot.

Back on topic, how do you propose it is tested, and at what cost? And can I please have FACTS and FIGURES, not estimates and possibilities?

Originally Posted by me283

Back on topic, how do you propose it is tested, and at what cost? And can I please have FACTS and FIGURES, not estimates and possibilities?

Hoe can FACTS and FIGURES be provided? Having a pop at estimates is pointless. Move on.


EDIT: This is an issue primarily of principle... although the cost of this scheme is frightening.

[punky]

Originally Posted by andyl

EDIT: This is an issue primarily of principle... although the cost of this scheme is frightening.

And that's one thing that bugs me. Even if this system did exactly what it said on the tin: reduced terrorism, identity theft, made life more convienent, and it was implemented properly and under budget... People would still be against it.

Originally Posted by punky

And that's one thing that bugs me. Even if this system did exactly what it said on the tin: reduced terrorism, identity theft, made life more convienent, and it was implemented properly and under budget... People would still be against it.

At the end of the day it's about balancing rights with protection. I'm not convinced that this measure will achieve any of what the Government claims... in which case rights (and the prevention of potentially devastating abuse) wins out. and yes I am paranoid!

[me283]

Originally Posted by andyl

Hoe can FACTS and FIGURES be provided? Having a pop at estimates is pointless. Move on.


EDIT: This is an issue primarily of principle... although the cost of this scheme is frightening.

Thank you Andy, you have proven my point. Graham wants proof of what I have said, but it can't be given. Facts and figures will be proof. Let's wait and see.
__________________

Originally Posted by andyl

At the end of the day it's about balancing rights with protection. I'm not convinced that this measure will achieve any of what the Government claims... in which case rights (and the prevention of potentially devastating abuse) wins out. and yes I am paranoid!

And I personally don't believe rights will be infringed or compromised.

Originally Posted by me283

Thank you Andy, you have proven my point. Graham wants proof of what I have said, but it can't be given. Facts and figures will be proof. Let's wait and see.

I think not. Facts and figures of something that hasn't yet happened. Many, many commentators do not believe this will produce the results claimed and yet we proceed to undermine the basic rights of a free society. I refer you back to the concept of principles and rights. And create a system open to massive abuse and from which greater freedoms can be eroded.
__________________

And I personally don't believe rights will be infringed or compromised.

I do. That's an intractable one.


EDIT: Can you explain the facts and figures Graham has allegedly demand pleased. I'm

[me283]

Originally Posted by andyl

I think not. Facts and figures of something that hasn't yet happened. Many, many commentators do not believe this will produce the results claimed and yet we proceed to undermine the basic rights of a free society. I refer you back to the concept of principles and rights. And create a system open to massive abuse and from which greater freedoms can be eroded.

EDIT: Can you explain the facts and figures Graham has allefedly demand pleased. I'm

On the topic of savings, Graham asked for proof of my beliefs that savings will be made. And Facts and figures will be proof of the outcome, whichever way it goes: white elephant or not.

Originally Posted by me283

On the topic of savings, Graham asked for proof of my beliefs that savings will be made. And Facts and figures will be proof of the outcome, whichever way it goes: white elephant or not.

Ok, might be speaking out of turn but I'm guessing Graham would like to understand the base from which you can make such an assertion (there doesn't seem to be much historical evidence for example). I can easily make groundless assertions but it won't add weight to my argument.

And if ID cards are introduced, the facts and figures will soon become meaningless; it'll be a done deal. Once those rights are lost, no government will return them.