PDA

View Full Version : ID cards


Funko
25-05-2005, 13:37:01
So, I just used the new version of faxyourmp.com to write to our new MP to express my concern about the reintroduction of the ID card scheme. He's a Tory so hopefully they'll be voting against it anyway even if it's just to try and smack down the government rather than because of an ideological difference but you never know.

I'll try and remember to let you know what he says anyway.

http://www.writetothem.com/

Drekkus
25-05-2005, 13:39:21
Ahhh, funko ies part of ze re siestance

Venom
25-05-2005, 13:40:55
The Revolution is now.

Gary
25-05-2005, 15:12:19
Very nice, but I have my MP's email address. In fact he was keen to keep emailing me until recently when I asked to be taken off his list.

I have a 'nice' photo of him taking the ritual meaningless pledge of allegiance to the monarch.

But I was thinking of contacting him again about this issue. Not that it'll make a blind bit of difference, he'll vote how his new leader and the whips tell him, no doubt.

zmama
25-05-2005, 15:13:19
Viva la


and so on :)

Funko
25-05-2005, 15:14:58
Originally posted by Gary
Very nice, but I have my MP's email address. In fact he was keen to keep emailing me until recently when I asked to be taken off his list.

I have a 'nice' photo of him taking the ritual meaningless pledge of allegiance to the monarch.

But I was thinking of contacting him again about this issue. Not that it'll make a blind bit of difference, he'll vote how his new leader and the whips tell him, no doubt.

I've got a new MP so I don't have their e-mail yet.

You might as well e-mail them.

Vincent
25-05-2005, 16:38:03
obviously for people who don't even know their postcodes

Funko
25-05-2005, 16:38:43
Shiny and LadyRachel?

Lurker the Second
25-05-2005, 16:45:15
Hey, Vincent made a post!

zmama
25-05-2005, 16:52:23
Who?

Cruddy
25-05-2005, 17:52:55
Originally posted by Gary


I have a 'nice' photo of him taking the ritual meaningless pledge of allegiance to the monarch.



Do they have their fingers crossed behind their backs?

Provost Harrison
25-05-2005, 18:46:22
They are estimating they will cost 93 a shot. What a fucking disgusting waste of money for a card that will help how exactly? Too right I am going to write to my MP!

The Norks
25-05-2005, 19:23:14
I feel very conflicted. I don't believe in the intrusion into rights, but equally I would like everyone to be dna'ed at birth. Imagine that- a crime is comitted and no investigation takes place because the dna reveals the criminal immediately. We could save a ton of money on the now redundant police force!!!!!!

Gary
25-05-2005, 20:11:17
Even in that horrific Orwelian scenario, you don't really reveal the culprit since often you can't be sure it's the culprit's DNA that you have, and in any case it would only narrow it down to a handful of folk in the country. And then, even if you were sure, you still have to catch them.

Spartak
25-05-2005, 21:10:50
I didn't think I should post from work.

I'm coinflicted too because on the one hand it erodes civil liberties but on the other you will need to give up your biometrics for the new passports so its hardly a stretch to use the same information that the state is already holding on you for ID cards anyway.

The Norks
25-05-2005, 21:33:17
Originally posted by Gary
Even in that horrific Orwelian scenario, you don't really reveal the culprit since often you can't be sure it's the culprit's DNA that you have, and in any case it would only narrow it down to a handful of folk in the country. And then, even if you were sure, you still have to catch them.

people get all freaky about it but essentially if everyone was eye scanned etc at birth there would be almost a zero rate of people getting away with crimes, and the innocent would be far better off. The only people who benefit from the current system are the criminals. Look at rape as an example: only 5% of reported rapes end in a conviction. In my estimation, this means more than 95% of rapists get away with it (once you take into account the unreported rapes). That means that any of you could go out commit a rape and walk away knowing its almost certain that you won't be caught.

The Norks
25-05-2005, 21:33:54
I dont advocate it being used to track people btw, just for anti-criminal purposes

Gary
25-05-2005, 21:52:44
Once it's gathered it'll be used however those in power want to use it. And no one will be able to put the genie back in the bottle.

The passport thing just goes to show how insidious the process is. If you've done that, and have accepted it, then IMO you're already too far down the slippery slope.

Spartak
25-05-2005, 21:55:30
There isn't much choice about the passports. The US will shortly refuse at accept anyone under their visa waiver programme unless they possess a biometric passport.

Gary
25-05-2005, 22:01:53
Unfortunate, but not a big problem.

Spartak
25-05-2005, 22:05:23
Its a major problem for anyone wanting to go to the USA and eventually the ICAO standards will require all passports to be biometric so there is no point trying to hold back the tide.

Funko
26-05-2005, 09:25:23
Originally posted by The Norks
I feel very conflicted. I don't believe in the intrusion into rights, but equally I would like everyone to be dna'ed at birth. Imagine that- a crime is comitted and no investigation takes place because the dna reveals the criminal immediately. We could save a ton of money on the now redundant police force!!!!!!

Terrifying.

The crime solving potential is only there for certain crimes. Many it wouldn't help with. Say I'm in a crowded shopping center. Venom sneaks up behind me (probably wearing a hooded top) and shoots me in the back then slips away in the confusion taking the gun with him.

What DNA evidence will there be to find and catch him?

It'll help in some crimes, not all and criminals will just get much better in not leaving DNA evidence behind, or even better, leaving someone elses DNA evidence behind. Steal a few hairs off a corpse maybe?

The way it works now where you find a suspect then test their DNA is fine I think, after all apparently they say DNA matches are accurate to 1 in 4 million or something which is normally plenty in a case where you have one or two suspects but if you are searching databases of tens of millions of people that error suddenly becomes significant.

And even if you search the DNA database and come up with a suspect (or someone whos DNA could have been planted at the scene that you need to eliminate from the enquiry) how do you find them?

Maybe we should start having checkpoints on every corner where people have to swipe their ID card so they can be identified as not a criminal that the police are looking for?

Funko
26-05-2005, 09:27:22
Originally posted by Spartak
Its a major problem for anyone wanting to go to the USA and eventually the ICAO standards will require all passports to be biometric so there is no point trying to hold back the tide.

People who want to go to the US can purchase a special biometric passport.

Anyway, that's a different matter. I know that's coming sooner or later but I'm not so much against biometric passports because no-one's required to have a passport.

Spartak@work
26-05-2005, 09:57:23
No way is the Passport agency going to have two types of passport in circulation. At the very least it will be too confusing for airlines to workout which one is which...

Funko
26-05-2005, 09:58:16
That still doesn't mean we need biometric id cards.

MOBIUS
26-05-2005, 10:04:25
Originally posted by Spartak
There isn't much choice about the passports. The US will shortly refuse at accept anyone under their visa waiver programme unless they possess a biometric passport.

And?

Been there, done that - they can go take a running jump for all I care! Twats!

We should do what the Brazilians have done, which is to treat Americans arriving in Brazil the same way they're treating people arriving into the US - the yanks didn't seem to like that for some reason...:clueless:

Funko
26-05-2005, 10:06:17
:lol:

Yeah, that was great of Brazil. :D

I think the tourist dollars is more important than childish tit for tat reprisals though. :)

MOBIUS
26-05-2005, 10:10:40
Yeah well they reckon it will be at least 100 (http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=641460) now, and we all know how govt schemes have this unfortunate way of running wasy over budget and time...

The Government has put the running cost of the scheme at 5.8bn over its first 10 years - nearly twice earlier projections.

However the 93 "unit cost" figure was calculated at 2005-06 prices, suggesting it will reach 100 when cards are rolled out in 2008.

Read the acticle - it is frankly terrifying we have a bunch of incompetents in power who are so blinkered into making this colossal folly happen come hell or high water! :bash: :bash: :bash:

Gary
26-05-2005, 10:12:23
To continue the derailing of the thread - passport agencies can cope with different passports from different countries, and yet aren't going to be able to cope with 2 different security versions of each ? I can understand moaning at the additional requirement, but I don't see any justification for rejecting it on those grounds. The bio ones ar the ones with a chip on the front cover :)

Beta1
26-05-2005, 10:13:15
Originally posted by The Norks
people get all freaky about it but essentially if everyone was eye scanned etc at birth there would be almost a zero rate of people getting away with crimes, and the innocent would be far better off. The only people who benefit from the current system are the criminals. Look at rape as an example: only 5% of reported rapes end in a conviction. In my estimation, this means more than 95% of rapists get away with it (once you take into account the unreported rapes). That means that any of you could go out commit a rape and walk away knowing its almost certain that you won't be caught.

other than the fact that if your attacker claims it was consenual its your word against his and the DNA aint worth a fig.

Also any system is only as good as the people running it. Theres some big questions about the US fingerprint database at the moment (a recent new scientist article revealed that the internal controls are skewed so that it will always appear accurate) and you only have to see what the west midlands serious crime squad got upto in the eighties with planted evidence.

The more secure something appears to be the more people tkae it for granted that its always accurate. Which just makes it easier to spoof.

mr.G
26-05-2005, 10:13:31
woooohooooo :rolleyes:
are you sick?
no times new roman, maybe i'm gonna read your post.

Funko
26-05-2005, 10:17:56
Computing magazine has a continuing campaign to keep attention on government IT projects and how badly they normally go and the cost overrun it really is staggering. This ID scheme is so ambitious it dwarfs anything that has been monumentally fucked up before.

http://www.computing.co.uk/comment/1163150

A newspaper I read last week suggested that Tony Blair wants to concentrate on the top 20 IT government projects and monitor their progress. However, I don't think he will need to worry about the ID card scheme. My guess is it will be someone still at school and with an unhealthy interest in sixth form politics who will have to deal with the consequences of this scheme if it progresses...

:lol:

Funko
26-05-2005, 10:19:05
Originally posted by Beta1
other than the fact that if your attacker claims it was consenual its your word against his and the DNA aint worth a fig.

Also any system is only as good as the people running it. Theres some big questions about the US fingerprint database at the moment (a recent new scientist article revealed that the internal controls are skewed so that it will always appear accurate) and you only have to see what the west midlands serious crime squad got upto in the eighties with planted evidence.

The more secure something appears to be the more people tkae it for granted that its always accurate. Which just makes it easier to spoof.

Excellent post! I didn't even consider the police planting DNA.

Gary
26-05-2005, 10:20:06
I'll try and remember to let you know what he says anyway.Well my MP has replied, and as hoped for, it is totally different to the last MP for the constituency ...

Gary,

Don't worry, you're in good company. I had already said that I would vote against in any case. In fact I've learnt tonight that the Conservative Party will oppose the move as well which means that there's a bit of a chance of it being defeated if some Labour rebels can be encouraged to speak up!

Spartak@work
26-05-2005, 10:24:36
Originally posted by Gary
To continue the derailing of the thread - passport agencies can cope with different passports from different countries, and yet aren't going to be able to cope with 2 different security versions of each ? I can understand moaning at the additional requirement, but I don't see any justification for rejecting it on those grounds. The bio ones ar the ones with a chip on the front cover :) Professional immigration officers can work out that different countries have different passports. :rolleyes: Ifg you have two versions of a document in circulation its confusing for everyone, especially the airlines....

Gary
26-05-2005, 10:44:09
I'll have to tell my mate, who works in immigration, that folk seems to think he must be intellectually challanged then :D

Spartak@work
26-05-2005, 10:47:20
:hmm: Since I'm in immigration plus I'm an expert document examiner plus most of the troops these days have been in 5 minutes, I don't think you need to draw adverse conclusions...

young Funko
26-05-2005, 11:41:06
\0/

mr.G
26-05-2005, 12:10:52
he sure is a jolly one

Spartak@work
26-05-2005, 12:51:15
Originally posted by mr.G
he sure is a jolly one NO. Just tired and very wired.

Funko
26-05-2005, 13:11:11
Just read in New Scientist that the US are getting one foisted upon them as well, they sneaked it in though:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg18625004.500

Real ID, which was slipped into an emergency appropriations bill, stipulates that by 2008 all driver's licences or equivalent ID must include a machine-readable name, a digitised photograph, address, social security number, a digitised birth certificate and signature. If you don't have an ID card you won't be allowed on planes, trains or buses, or in government buildings. The Department of Homeland Security is to decide what reading technology will be used. One possibility is RFID tags that can be read from a few metres away without you ever realising.

That's exactly the kind of shit that scares me.

Gary
26-05-2005, 13:32:57
It just seems so at odds at the image they used to want to project to the world.

MOBIUS
27-05-2005, 09:15:55
Fucking hell!

Is there no limits to the depths this whole ID issue is going to plumb!!?:eek:

US wants to be able to access Britons' ID cards (http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=641731)

FUCK OFF ID CARDS!!!!!!!!!!:mad: :mad: :mad:

Funko
27-05-2005, 09:41:47
According to that they just want to check them if we go to the US which they would do with our passports anyway so that's not that much of a bigger change.

MOBIUS
27-05-2005, 10:03:32
The start of the slippery slope IMO...

Funko
27-05-2005, 10:04:07
Well yes but the whole thing is the start of a slippery slope isn't it.

MOBIUS
27-05-2005, 10:06:16
Yeah but it seems once you get to the bottom of one slippery slope, you end up at the top of another...

Funko
27-05-2005, 10:06:44
WATER SLIDES!

MOBIUS
27-05-2005, 10:07:46
Really!!?:bounce:

Yaaay ID Cards!!!

Funko
27-05-2005, 10:08:23
I should get a spin job off Tony.

Funko
27-05-2005, 10:09:02
Ooo er.

King_Ghidra
27-05-2005, 10:15:24
Originally posted by The Norks
Look at rape as an example: only 5% of reported rapes end in a conviction. In my estimation, this means more than 95% of rapists get away with it (once you take into account the unreported rapes). That means that any of you could go out commit a rape and walk away knowing its almost certain that you won't be caught.

my god that's retarded

ultimately how do you prove a rape and not a consensual sex act has occurred? that has nothing to do with dna or fucking eye scans

the reason why rapes don't end in convictions isn't because they can't prove that the alleged rapist was there, it's more likely to be because they can't prove beyond doubt that the sex act which occurred was a rape rather than a consensual act

there's a lot more to policing than just proving that someone was in a particular place at a particular time

Nills Lagerbaak
27-05-2005, 10:22:42
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=641731


It's all terrifying :(

MOBIUS
27-05-2005, 10:23:42
Get to the end of the queue...:p