ID Cards

Well if they are going to have fingerprints and dna on it and therefore on a databse then it would have an impact on crime if nothing else. Also i believe the nhs has my dna well and truly on record so not worried about that one and due to a git when i was younger my fingerprints are in the system as well so again not a problem. How exactly would the government misuse an image of my retina so can't say i am bothered about that one either.

Why is it some people seem to think as soon as we have this id card we are going to turn into some sort of oppressive police state where all the information will be used against you routinely is there something going on i don't know about. There are questions that need answering before an id card is implemented there are safeguards that have to be created and inshrined in our law that can't be easily removed or overridden before and id card comes in and as i understand it that is what will happen and as long as it does i can't see a problem.

Right now the number one cause for concern is the security of the information they plan to hold as they have clearly shown there is right now no security whatsoever once that is sorted then they can proceed with the other measures.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

Well if they are going to have fingerprints and dna on it and therefore on a databse then it would have an impact on crime if nothing else.

Less so than you'd think. Despite the fact that the database it uses contains DNA for more people than ever, the percentage of convictions obtained has actually gone down..

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11...victions_fall/

Also i believe the nhs has my dna well and truly on record so not worried about that one and due to a git when i was younger my fingerprints are in the system as well so again not a problem. How exactly would the government misuse an image of my retina so can't say i am bothered about that one either.

The problem isn't so much that people will get access to read the data, after all a lot of it is stored elsewhere already (although a lot of the population don't currently have DNA data stored).

The problem is that the Card and the database behind it will provide a nice, central point for hackers to attack. The fact that a staggering amount of people (over a million from what I have heard) will have some sort access to at least part of the database. This also creates a horrendous security problem (more accounts means a greater chance that at least one will be hacked).

Why is it some people seem to think as soon as we have this id card we are going to turn into some sort of oppressive police state where all the information will be used against you routinely is there something going on i don't know about. There are questions that need answering before an id card is implemented there are safeguards that have to be created and inshrined in our law that can't be easily removed or overridden before and id card comes in and as i understand it that is what will happen and as long as it does i can't see a problem.

Right now the number one cause for concern is the security of the information they plan to hold as they have clearly shown there is right now no security whatsoever once that is sorted then they can proceed with the other measures.

Trouble is, no computer system is 100% secure. Adding more users just increases that insecurity (you can have the best security available on your computer system, but if someone chooses a weak password, then you have no security).

And our government's record on security seems to be considerably worse than that of any previous government.

I don't know why some people think we will turn into an oppressive police state as soon as ID cards are issued. I don't think that. I do however think it makes the possibility of an oppressive police state one major step easier to achieve, should someone wish to do so later.

[Kymmy]

http://www.privacyinternational.org/...7]=x-347-61881

A very good article on ID cards worldwide

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Chris

I don't know why some people think we will turn into an oppressive police state as soon as ID cards are issued. I don't think that. I do however think it makes the possibility of an oppressive police state one major step easier to achieve, should someone wish to do so later.

That is how I see it.
It just needs us to agree to the first stages, and then there's no turning back.

Yeah Stuart as i have said my main concern is data security and i will not support this till that is satisfied. Of course there is no 100% safe system but i am sure we can significantly improve our procedures and systems to ensure an acceptable level of security. As for the whole police state thing if we are going to have one in future lets be honest id card or no id card it won't stop such a state coming into being so a completely useless line of argument against them. My remark about crime impact was more tongue in cheek as it is one of the governments so called arguments for but i forgot the smiley .

[lauzjp]

Originally Posted by Chris

Who has your fingerprints, retina or DNA on file, Lauz?

the police. Several times. All innocent - twice with the brownies, and once when they came here due to attempted break in.

Originally Posted by Chris

And would you be happy to be compelled to carry ID while lying on the beach in your swimwear?

You'd be surprised what I can smuggle in my bussom!

Originally Posted by Chris

(incidentally tge Govt. is not planning to force you to carry ID, so you're not going to escape abuse from the kiddies you bust at your shop!)

bah! what's the point if you don't have to carry it all the time? meh. don't want it now. *throws id card out of the pram*

Plenty of people think it's outrageous enough that the police are allowed to hold on to your DNA even though you're innocent. If this had happened to you in Scotland, the data would not have been kept. A campaign exists to ensure the same for England.

Even so, you are in a minority of people who do have their DNA on record. For most people joining the ID Database, their biometrics would be getting collected for the first time ever.

But if your a law abiding member of society what worry should you have about the police having access to your dna i really don't get it and if it is because of this possibility of a future police state then i am completely unworried. If your willing to pay or if you occupy any of a dozen or so professions the wealth of personal information out there is already sufficient to make life unpleasant for you if someone choose to do that and so far despite all the data that is held on me it has not once impacted my life. I do want security to be improved as i have said but beyond that and the other safeguards that have been promised i have no objection to the principle of id cards.

Rizz, if principles aren't important to you, that's your business. However I do not intend to give up my right to privacy simply because it wouldn't make a difference to my criminal record (or rather, the fact that I don't have one). My privacy is mine. It belongs to me. The State cannot have it. If it wants it, then it has to give me a damn good reason why. And 'just in case' is not a good reason.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

But if your a law abiding member of society what worry should you have about the police having access to your dna

Of course, the other way to look at that question is to ask why, if you are a law abiding citizen, your DNA would be anywhere near a crime scene and therefore why would the police need to store it?

Remember, our legal system is founded upon the concept of innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent (despite our current government's apparent efforts to reverse this).

I'm for sitting back and letting it all happen. As long as they don't take my meds away... There'd be hell to play if that happened!!

"Rizz, if principles aren't important to you, that's your business."

Nice sweeping statement there and as you don't know me at all an ignorant one to make being honest. Just because i have a different opinion to you i am unprincipled thats great logic.

"your DNA would be anywhere near a crime scene"

Everyone is law abiding till they commit a crime which some in society do and when they do being able to quickly link them to a crimescene could speed processes up a little and also may reduce the number of people wrongly arrested. I am not saying this is a perfect scheme i never have said that but i also do not have a problem with it as in one form or another most information this will hold will already be out there in some form.

But then again maybe the opposers are right and those of us that support it are just unprincipled non thinking idiots sleep walking into information slavery . Although the use of such terms in a debate hardly gives me cause to believe anything else that the people using those terms say is worthy of much attention anyway.

I am all for a debate but if you have to insult or call someones principles into question in order to deabte it maybe your not ready for a debate and you should take a step back and ask yourself if that approach is the right one to use in any debate on any subject.

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

"Rizz, if principles aren't important to you, that's your business."

Nice sweeping statement there and as you don't know me at all an ignorant one to make being honest. Just because i have a different opinion to you i am unprincipled thats great logic.

It's not sweeping at all. It's a perfectly reasonable response to what you said - assuming, of course, that what you've said is based on you actually bothering to read the thread so far.

If you have read the thread, then you know that one of the objections to ID cards is the principle that the State does not have the right to demand vast amounts of your personal data purely to legitimise your existence.

If you have read the thread, and therefore understand that some people find this principle important, then when you say "But if your a law abiding member of society what worry should you have about the police having access to your dna i really don't get it", (emphasis added by me) well what am I supposed to think? Am I supposed to think you genuinely don't get it, i.e. you're a bit thick, given that you've read it over and over in this thread already, or am I meant to think (and I think this is far more likely): Here's a man who thinks objections on principle are not important.

Which is it? You tell me, because right now I don't think you're making a lot of sense.

Well being as you like detail you said i have no principles you didn't phrase it as i don't have the one principle you have on this issue. I have read the thread and i do understand your arguments against and have said how i feel about it trying to understand more your opposition to it. But i have not in anyway resorted to insulting you or insinuating things about you in the process of this debate and find it funny that in your response your doing it again with the bit thick part.

If you really oppose it for whatever reason then that is of course your right as much as it is mine to have no problem with it in principle. I may not word my thoughts very well at times something i am guiilty of and am not going to bore anyone with the reason but i accept at times i could use better wording to get my point of view across . End of the day i think anyone reading the thread can see what side of this particular fence you and i are on and maybe others will comment with their view some more on the topic.