ID cards in the UK.From a Left/Right perspective - Poll

[L00b 441]

Thank you It sounds like a good idea to be honest.

Well, as I said, it's only a good idea if it is made compulsory to have one.

 

Because, in that case, it makes it much easier for a relevant authority (Police, NHS, DWP, HMRC, <etc.>) to check whether someone is indeed the someone they claim to be, and so whether they are entitled to this-that-the other (benefits, residence, relief, etc.) on the spot.

 

The compulsory aspect of formal identification when asked in France is one of the core reasons (not the only one, but an important one) why illegals migrants don't want to stay in France: the second they are stopped by a French policeman and fail to produce an ID card (for a national or naturalised) or an authorisation of sojourn (the 'visa' version of a national D card), they are caught out. I've long said it on here and elsewhere (and been vindicated in many 'substantial' press articles over the years, i.e. wherein reporters (Brits, French and others) actually do the ground-pounding and go talk to illegals).

[TJC1 10]

The State has long had all of the above information, in duplicate if not triplicate or quadruplicate, whether you have a passport or not. Just saying.

Well, that's just the problem, isn't it? There are lots of optional, non-compulsory ID forms, the requirement for which is ad hoc (e.g. if you want to drive, need a driving license).

 

Personally, I've long advocated the integration of driving license entitlement (when qualified to drive e.g. cars, and/or motorbikes, and/or lorries <etc.>) with ID cards in France, to reduce admin, printing and other associated duplicated costs.

It's not compulsory. Unless the ID card was to be made compulsory, there's just no point in having one at all.

 

The state has height, eye colour? How? Fingerprinting is too far.

I don't like the idea of presenting this information, it's too accessible and could be the thin end of wedge so to speak.

 

---------- Post added 03-08-2015 at 11:47 ----------

 

Well, as I said, it's only a good idea if it is made compulsory to have one.

 

Because, in that case, it makes it much easier for a relevant authority (Police, NHS, DWP, HMRC, <etc.>) to check whether someone is indeed the someone they claim to be, and so whether they are entitled to this-that-the other (benefits, residence, relief, etc.) on the spot.

 

The compulsory aspect of formal identification when asked in France is one of the core reasons (not the only one, but an important one) why illegals migrants don't want to stay in France: the second they are stopped by a French policeman and fail to produce an ID card (for a national or naturalised) or an authorisation of sojourn (the 'visa' version of a national D card), they are caught out. I've long said it on here and elsewhere (and been vindicated in many 'substantial' press articles over the years, i.e. wherein reporters (Brits, French and others) actually do the ground-pounding and go talk to illegals).

 

People in general don't like to be watched, monitored and controlled and it's odd that a government who want a small state, would ever go for this idea.

 

We are already photographed 200 times a day through cctv. Which is fairly inobtrusive but enough.

 

We have passports, birth cert, drivers license.

 

Don't you thinking this is step in the wrong direction?

 

---------- Post added 03-08-2015 at 11:48 ----------

 

It's not the data that's the problem. It's who uses the data and how.

[RonJeremy 10]

I visit France quite a lot. I've never actually been asked for ID. I've had to give them money for speeding though, they are quite happy to take that.

[Penistone999 10]

I already have two ID cards .....

 

Driving licence and passport.

 

Thats more than enough.

 

---------- Post added 03-08-2015 at 12:52 ----------

 

I visit France quite a lot. I've never actually been asked for ID. I've had to give them money for speeding though, they are quite happy to take that.

 

I got nailed in Spain a few years ago :hihi:

Edited August 3, 2015 by Penistone999

[TJC1 10]

The police could have greater access to your email soon, cameron already wants to control what we see on the net in accordance with sopa.

 

I have to say I'm vehemently against any further restrictions on liberties and increase in uk surveillance.

 

I know we have to catch bad guys and terrorists and stuff but that's a different issue.

[L00b 441]

The state has height, eye colour? How?

Ask your local GP surgery, which feeds biometric info into NHS servers.

it's odd that a government who want a small state, would ever go for this idea.

Actually it's not, it's exactly the sort of tool required to achieve a smaller state. More can be done administratively by fewer people once proof of ID becomes as easy to verify as looking at a card (or passport...but current ID verification systems are not geared towards passports - because passports are optional).

People in general don't like to be watched, monitored and controlled

 

We are already photographed 200 times a day through cctv. Which is fairly inobtrusive but enough.

 

We have passports, birth cert, drivers license.

 

Don't you thinking this is step in the wrong direction?

No. Having an ID card does not mean being watched, monitored and controlled. It's just a piece of plasticized cardboard with stuff printed on it. You're much easier to watch and monitor though your mobile phone and CCTV interfaced with facial recognition software. Which does exist indeed, and is in use.

It's not the data that's the problem. It's who uses the data and how.

I'm all ears. Who could use ID card data and how?

I visit France quite a lot. I've never actually been asked for ID.

You must be the right colour, then

I've had to give them money for speeding though, they are quite happy to take that.

Serves you right for getting caught

 

Driving-in-France tip: never be the fastest car around, always let at least one more moronic than you (yes, I include myself in that) 'open' the way

Edited August 3, 2015 by L00b

[unbeliever 10]

Thank you It sounds like a good idea to be honest.

 

The last time this was proposed, under the Labour government. There was actually an act of parliament passed in 2006 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_Cards_Act_2006. We were all to be charged, if memory serves, £100 for the compulsory ID cards. They were also planning gathering and storing all manner of information on ordinary citizens which they didn't normally have:

 

"The Act specified fifty categories of information that the National Identity Register could hold on each citizen, including up to 10 fingerprints, digitised facial scan and iris scan, current and past UK and overseas places of residence of all residents of the UK throughout their lives and indexes to other Government databases (including National Insurance Number) – which would allow them to be connected. The legislation on this resident register also said that any further information could be added."

[L00b 441]

The last time this was proposed, under the Labour government. There was actually an act of parliament passed in 2006 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_Cards_Act_2006. We were all to be charged, if memory serves, £100 for the compulsory ID cards. They were also planning gathering and storing all manner of information on ordinary citizens which they didn't normally have:

 

"The Act specified fifty categories of information that the National Identity Register could hold on each citizen, including up to 10 fingerprints, digitised facial scan and iris scan, current and past UK and overseas places of residence of all residents of the UK throughout their lives and indexes to other Government databases (including National Insurance Number) – which would allow them to be connected. The legislation on this resident register also said that any further information could be added."

See Ron, what did I say about lefties' wet dreams?

 

Couldn't help themselves. Twonks.

 

Much as I would be 'for' an ID card, never in a million years would I condone data gathering to the above extent. It's wholly unnecessary.

[sh3rb3t 10]

The last time this was proposed, under the Labour government. There was actually an act of parliament passed in 2006 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_Cards_Act_2006. We were all to be charged, if memory serves, £100 for the compulsory ID cards. They were also planning gathering and storing all manner of information on ordinary citizens which they didn't normally have:

 

"The Act specified fifty categories of information that the National Identity Register could hold on each citizen, including up to 10 fingerprints, digitised facial scan and iris scan, current and past UK and overseas places of residence of all residents of the UK throughout their lives and indexes to other Government databases (including National Insurance Number) – which would allow them to be connected. The legislation on this resident register also said that any further information could be added."

 

Seems a bit too much, but if they just do what they currently do for a passport or driving licence (with address) and people are made to keep the address part updated (like in Germany I believe when you have to register your home with some authority or other that I can’t pronounce?) then it’s a good idea. Saves people requiring loads of other stuff - would just be one card to carry round

[truman 10]

Seems a bit too much, but if they just do what they currently do for a passport or driving licence (with address) and people are made to keep the address part updated (like in Germany I believe when you have to register your home with some authority or other that I can’t pronounce?) then it’s a good idea. Saves people requiring loads of other stuff - would just be one card to carry round

 

I suppose one problem is that if all it takes to prove your ID is one card then it makes it easier for anyone to steal your ID..if they could clone/copy that card then for all intents and purposes they are you..if you see what I mean..

[RootsBooster 24]

For me it would be a case of reason. If there's good enough reason for the cards that outweighed any reasons NOT to have the cards, I'd be inclined to agree.

 

Personally I'd prefer not to have them for the simple reason that I wouldn't want the extra responsibility of taking it out with me wherever I go. I don't tend to carry anything on me when I go out except sometimes a bank card or a few quid (I don't even own a wallet).

[TJC1 10]

Ask your local GP surgery, which feeds biometric info into NHS servers.

Actually it's not, it's exactly the sort of tool required to achieve a smaller state. More can be done administratively by fewer people once proof of ID becomes as easy to verify as looking at a card (or passport...but current ID verification systems are not geared towards passports - because passports are optional).

No. Having an ID card does not mean being watched, monitored and controlled. It's just a piece of plasticized cardboard with stuff printed on it. You're much easier to watched and monitor though your mobile phone and CCTV interfaced with facial recognition software.

I'm all ears. Who could use ID card and how?

You must be the right colour, then

Serves you right for getting caught

 

Your argument centres around convenience. The idea that 1 document is better than 3 and the government probably have our details anyway.

 

Mine refers to basic civil liberties. Today eye and hair colour then fingerprinting, what's next? Eye scanning? What's that movie where criminals pluck people's eyes out to use the retina?

Then what? Are we going to be falsely accused? Heavy handed policing or bullying? Access to Internet revoked? If you are accused of something are our details kept on file and are we monitored? Cameras on stalks peering through your windows?

what about if a government decides to profile us? The nazis would have had a much easier job wiping out jews if access to all the data we have now.

 

Maybe I watch too many Sci Fi movies, but 1984, Brazil, twelve monkeys are all visions of a dystopia future that could be not too far from the truth if we let it happen.

 

---------- Post added 03-08-2015 at 12:19 ----------

 

I'm all ears. Who could use ID card data and how?

 

I don't have time to research and write so this is quite good from another site...

 

Some people welcome Identity Cards because they will make wallets and purses lighter. Most people today carry several different pieces of ID for different purposes. Wouldn't it be convenient to combine them all together?

Convenient, perhaps. Dangerous, certainly.

Almost all the current pieces of plastic are optional. Passport? Lots of people never leave the country. Driving licence? Not everyone drives. Credit cards? Many people don't - or can't - use them.

 

Today's ID is optional, you can choose for yourself whether the benefits justify the loss of privacy. You carry the cards you need as and when you need them. You consent to giving the relevant information. With 's ID Cards there will be no choice and no consent.

Today's ID cards are also dedicated to specific purposes. The government, the credit card company, your doctor, etc all hold different pieces of information about you. In general they know what they need to know in order to provide a service. This is a fundamental concept of data protection.

 

The introduction of a universal card - or even simply the National Identity Register - threatens this "need to know" principle. It opens up the prospect of all this information - your "data shadow" - being combined and made available at the push of a button. We will all have one universal identifier which will be entered on every public and private database imaginable.

 

Every time you use your card, details will be recorded in the National Identity Register in the form of an "audit trail". That's a lot of information about your private life, even before combining it with information on other databases that now conveniently use the same key.

 

Convenient, yes - but for whom?

What happens when you lose this convenient super-card? According to the Government's own figures, over a quarter of a million passports are lost or stolen each year - and not everyone has a passport. The figure for ID Cards is bound to be higher.

 

When your Identity Card is lost or stolen, it won't seem so convenient. As Mark Oaten of the Liberal Democrats said:

"We are all familiar with the hassle of losing a wallet full of cards. The cost and inconvenience of losing your ID card will be much worse. You will effectively be a non-person until the card is replaced."

And what happens when the entire system goes down - something that seems to happen to every Government computer project. The National Identity Register is a single point of failure. If - when - the when - the ID Card system goes down, what will be the impact? What will be the cost to British business? Who will bear this cost? The taxpayer?

 

In many ways "the card" itself is less dangerous than the centralised database behind it. It is the central database that the Government plans to build first.

Update:

The Home Office has admitted that every single use of the ID Card will be recorded and tracked centrally. See:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,3605,1175638,00.html