PDA

View Full Version : ID cards


The Norks
16-06-2005, 14:01:15
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4099356.stm

I'm not sure what they're debating since the government have already awarded the tender.

"This plastic poll tax will mean that hard-working families with children will end up paying time and again for their ID cards and any changes that are made to their personal details,"

Ahh....the hard-working family will pay, thats ok then, I won't have to

:hmm:

Funko
16-06-2005, 14:04:11
If it doesn't pass parliment the tender will be worthless?

Or only include the Passport biometrics?

The Norks
16-06-2005, 15:03:06
they'll be in breach of contract if they dont follow through

Funko
16-06-2005, 15:04:42
They can't follow through if the law doesn't pass.

The Norks
16-06-2005, 15:06:23
what i'm getting at is that Uncle Tony has already decided it will get through or it wouldnt have been awarded yet. Believe me the Government doesnt want the scandal and/or the damages of a breac. Ergo, we will have ID cards.

Funko
16-06-2005, 15:09:12
Parliament still have to vote to pass it though.

Tony might have decided it will get through but he can still lose the vote. Doesn't take that many rebels with his reduced majority.

Funko
16-06-2005, 15:10:24
What's the tender for exactly? Sure there's no get-out clause if the bill doesn't pass? If not it's pretty irresponsible.

The Norks
16-06-2005, 15:25:17
its for the ID cards, I think its a composite tender ie several companies are affected. They decided months ago to go aheda. They'll push it thru.

Funko
16-06-2005, 15:27:07
It'd be interesting to see what happens if they lost. Presumably they'd have to redraft it and push it again.

Still think it's going to be a huge cockup. :beer:

Cruddy
16-06-2005, 15:57:37
They'll be fucking lucky.

I've got a passport, I don't need an ID card.

If they're going to force me to buy one, then I'll just fuck them over some other way to get my money back.

fp
16-06-2005, 18:09:11
Yeah, stick it to the man.

Cruddy
16-06-2005, 19:50:38
Only way - if you're going to resist some onerous unjust law, start as you mean to go on.

Provost Harrison
16-06-2005, 23:07:17
I think if they try and force this on us, especially at such an exorbitant cost, people should riot...

Rothy
17-06-2005, 23:10:01
I agree, this is what you get with the Current UK Government
ID Cards
Black boxes in cars
EU Superstate without referendum

Vote Conservative :p

Cruddy
17-06-2005, 23:13:39
:shoot: :shoot: :shoot:

The Norks
18-06-2005, 01:30:50
Originally posted by Funko
It'd be interesting to see what happens if they lost. Presumably they'd have to redraft it and push it again.

Still think it's going to be a huge cockup. :beer:

they'll just keep redrafting until people accept it

Cruddy
18-06-2005, 01:31:54
Some people never will. If it's enough people they'll bin it.

The Norks
18-06-2005, 01:37:40
they won't bin it, trust me. Its already signed sealed and delivered behind the scenes

Cruddy
18-06-2005, 01:39:08
Yeah, hardline Tories said that about one rate for poll tax.

Couple million people telling them to shove it changed their minds.

Those that had minds, of course.

The Norks
18-06-2005, 01:43:06
They can bring it in under emergrncy terrorist laws if they have to

Cruddy
18-06-2005, 01:46:51
Norks, a law that can't be enforced is a waste of space.

Terrorist or no.

If you want to sit on your arse and accept it, fine.

Some of us will resist. There's not enough space in the jails for them to do more than fine us - and when they spend more money trying to recover the fines...

Civil disobedience works. It's what democracy is really about.

The Norks
18-06-2005, 02:29:10
cruddy, you dont seem to understand that I am not making a political point. I am telling you that I know the contract has already been awarded. You can argue all you want, but they will bring it in regardless.

Cruddy
18-06-2005, 04:21:57
Which company has the contract been awarded to then?

fp
18-06-2005, 10:26:18
Originally posted by Rothy

EU Superstate without referendum


:confused:

Care to explain this one?

Provost Harrison
18-06-2005, 12:15:20
Originally posted by Cruddy
Yeah, hardline Tories said that about one rate for poll tax.

Couple million people telling them to shove it changed their minds.

Those that had minds, of course.

Exactly. I am already opposed to it on the grounds that it is an infringement of civil liberties. If they try and force it on us regardless of parliament then people should riot, our government will have just proven it is a dictatorship!

Rothy
18-06-2005, 14:27:19
Provist is absolutly right, as is Cruddy when making his point on 'those with minds'.

The fundemental problem here is the attitude of people. The people SHOULD riot but they probably won't.

This government seems to take away our civil liberties left, right and centre and they get away with it becuase of the lack of care from our population. They'll get enough support for ID Cards (to avoid riots) by scaring the people - If you don't accept ID cards Osama might blow you up, or you might have your identity stolen. Please. They'll try and force through these silly black boxes in cars by bribing people telling them it'll make thier bill cheaper.

As for the EU comment, do you really think the EU project is dead?? when new buildings are being built for administration of things arising from the constitution??

Cheers
Matt

fp
18-06-2005, 17:18:17
Originally posted by Rothy
As for the EU comment, do you really think the EU project is dead?? when new buildings are being built for administration of things arising from the constitution??

I'm not sure what this exactly has to do with the actions of our government, though. We would have had a referendum on the constitution if the current draft hadn't already been blown out of the water by France and Holland. Plus Blair has just pissed off the French (always a good thing) by refusing to budge on the subject of our budget rebate unless they give ground on the CAP (which of course they haven't). The government are also still committed to a referendum on joining the Euro (although it looks increasingly unlikely they'll want to do that anyway). No huge decisions on further Euro integration are going to be taken without a referendum.

God knows there are plenty of things to criticise Labour and Tony Blair about, I just don't think that the EU is one of them.

Oerdin
18-06-2005, 17:36:28
$450-$500 for an ID! What the fuck?! You know kids are going to lose these in 10 minutes just like they lose everything else. If the government can sell you a passport for $25 and it has biometrics built into it then why does an ID card have to costs $500?

Rothy
18-06-2005, 17:49:40
New Fucking Labour waste, Oerdin

fp - Get real. You don't think there'll be more parts of this constition sneaked in without a referdum? of course there will be. We've had these 'tidying up' exercises in the past and we'll have them in the future.

They'll do what they want, and they wont ask us about it

fp
18-06-2005, 18:01:15
Originally posted by Rothy

They'll do what they want, and they wont ask us about it

That's weird, didn't we just have a General Election?

Claims that Labour are steamrollering over the wishes of the public against their will sound pretty laughable just after an election win which, in historical terms, was very comfortable.

fp
18-06-2005, 18:02:28
(btw, I didn't vote Labour either, but at least I'm not claiming that nobody asked my opinion)

Gary
18-06-2005, 18:17:56
But considerably down on the previous election. Besides general elections don't really reflect public opinion on issues as a party comes with a package of opinions/aims and a take it or leave it option.

The Norks
18-06-2005, 21:15:39
plus that nice Mr Blair knows whats best for us. We can hardly trust ourselves can we? :cute:

Cruddy
18-06-2005, 22:10:33
Norks, ICL-Fujitiu got most of the contract for supplying poll tax equipment.

Most of it later turned up in skips. I actually fished one out for my brother - he wanted something to run Microsoft Office, which it could just about manage.

My point is - awarding a contract don't mean much.

fp
19-06-2005, 09:33:28
Originally posted by Gary
Besides general elections don't really reflect public opinion on issues

:hmm:

Provost Harrison
19-06-2005, 12:00:47
Originally posted by fp
That's weird, didn't we just have a General Election?

Claims that Labour are steamrollering over the wishes of the public against their will sound pretty laughable just after an election win which, in historical terms, was very comfortable.

Elections are utterly meaningless...you think electing a party that is no different to the others is democracy? People need to make their real voice known by action!

Funko
19-06-2005, 23:08:01
Originally posted by Oerdin
$450-$500 for an ID! What the fuck?! You know kids are going to lose these in 10 minutes just like they lose everything else. If the government can sell you a passport for $25 and it has biometrics built into it then why does an ID card have to costs $500?

Our passports (without biometrics) are 50ish I think.

They want to put crazy amounts of biometrics on this. Eye, fingerprints and DNA I think. Of course the fact that this technology is totally unreliable and has very low identification rate doesn't seem to matter. 85% or so at best.

It's totally retarded.

Oh and how do you prove who you are in the first place to get an ID card?

I think if it was a cheap voluntary photo ID I wouldn't be so bothered but it's a waste of billions on a load of crap that's unproven on this scale, will cost a fortune, has absolutely no benefit to us.

It doesn't really surprise me they've already awarded the contract but it's still an absolute disgrace.

MOBIUS
19-06-2005, 23:26:04
Originally posted by fp
That's weird, didn't we just have a General Election?

Claims that Labour are steamrollering over the wishes of the public against their will sound pretty laughable just after an election win which, in historical terms, was very comfortable.

Since when was 36% percent of the vote a comfortable win!?!?!?

Ours is a 'democracy' in name only - 64% told that cunt Blair to shove it but he's pressing ahead because 'he has the mandate of the people':mad: :mad: :mad:

Cumber
20-06-2005, 03:44:29
Originally posted by fp

Originally posted by Gary
Besides general elections don't really reflect public opinion on issues

:hmm:


Well, just suppose I hate the idea of ID cards, but guys who don't want to introduce ID cards also want to, I dunno, reintroduce slavery, which I vote against. Should my vote then be construed as supporting ID cards?

In reality more mundane sounding situations like that are extremely likely to occur, because there are hundreds if not thousands of issues on which different positions could be taken. I would suggest that the overwhelming majority of people vote 'for' some things they don't like because they still like the package as a whole better than the alternatives presented.

Funko
20-06-2005, 09:02:50
Well put. :beer:

The Norks
20-06-2005, 12:05:38
Originally posted by Funko
Our passports (without biometrics) are 50ish I think.

They want to put crazy amounts of biometrics on this. Eye, fingerprints and DNA I think. Of course the fact that this technology is totally unreliable and has very low identification rate doesn't seem to matter. 85% or so at best.

It's totally retarded.

Oh and how do you prove who you are in the first place to get an ID card?

I think if it was a cheap voluntary photo ID I wouldn't be so bothered but it's a waste of billions on a load of crap that's unproven on this scale, will cost a fortune, has absolutely no benefit to us.

It doesn't really surprise me they've already awarded the contract but it's still an absolute disgrace.

Not all of what you say is true Mikey- the technology is already being used successfully in other circumstances, but the most wasteful part is that the first cards won't have anything more than a chip with your name and address on. There will at some point be a second wave that has the biometrics on (not dna as far as I know, but eye and fingerprint certainly). My belief is that these cards are a cover for something- I think we'll see them start to be used for other purposes within 10 years. One thing thats been talked about is the potential for tracking people around the world. When you check in at a flight desk, you'll be logged and checked out at your destination before you even arrive. Obviously thats very convenient on the one hand but open to abuse on the other. Its all a bit Orwellian.

I think they should use the money on building a national dna/fingerprint database. That would actually be of use. You could decimate crime with that.

Funko
20-06-2005, 12:12:12
Not all of what you say is true Mikey- the technology is already being used successfully in other circumstances

Yes - but no-one anywhere has done it on this scale. And the fingerprint/eye scanning they are after using aren't anywhere near 100% accurate. - unless you have better information? At the moment it's pretty hit and miss and they are relatively easy to fool.

The data storage problems are immense. These things don't just scale up without any problems. And there are security and access issues that haven't been addressed - someone might know who has access and how they get it but no-one's telling the public. I don't want any joe schmoe having access.

I don't see how DNA and fingerprint databases could decimate crime. It's easy not to leave them, it's easy to leave someone elses DNA, lots of public locations have huge amounts of fingerprints and DNA all over the place and finding someones DNA and fingerprints somewhere a crime happened doesn't prove anything about when or how they left them or whether they comitted the crime.

If there is already lots of evidence that someone was involved then finding their DNA/fingerprints at the scene is supporting evidence but it's not a case in itself. And in that situation you can, as now, take DNA and fingerprints from your suspect.

fp
20-06-2005, 13:53:12
Originally posted by MOBIUS

Ours is a 'democracy' in name only - 64% told that cunt Blair to shove it

What utter bollocks. 64% of people did not tell Blair to "shove it" - they just voted for someone else. Believe it or not there is a difference.

Show me a democracy where the elected government call referendums on anything remotely controversial and I'll show you a government of pussies who are too afraid to make a decision.

I said it before the last election and I'll say it again: if people really hate Labour as much as people like you seem to think then they'll get voted out. It didn't happen last time, which tells me that perhaps your views don't have the widespread support you seem to think.

Funko
20-06-2005, 13:56:45
Well there is a fundamental boundary problem where lots of labour seats are in small constituencies so Labour need a much smaller percentage of the vote to win than the Conservatives.

But yes, if people thought anyone else would do a better job they'd win.

I think people would like the Lib Dems more if they were more realistic on tax.

Cruddy
20-06-2005, 14:09:42
And they were led by a non-ginge.

The Norks
20-06-2005, 14:44:36
Originally posted by Funko
Yes - but no-one anywhere has done it on this scale. And the fingerprint/eye scanning they are after using aren't anywhere near 100% accurate. - unless you have better information? At the moment it's pretty hit and miss and they are relatively easy to fool.

I think thats why several companies are being involved, and the technology we have is pretty damn accurate. Its getting rolled out in some pretty high profile places. I think you probably just dont see where its being used currently. Its making its way onto our passports too which is why I particularly dont see the need for an ID card. What you'll have in future is a system that scans your passport and then scans your eye or fingerprint for a match. Sinister implications aside its bloody excellent technology and virtually impossible to fake.

The data storage problems are immense. These things don't just scale up without any problems. And there are security and access issues that haven't been addressed - someone might know who has access and how they get it but no-one's telling the public. I don't want any joe schmoe having access.

Yes, the whole thing is a botch. The Government dont know what they want or why they want it,

I don't see how DNA and fingerprint databases could decimate crime. It's easy not to leave them, it's easy to leave someone elses DNA, lots of public locations have huge amounts of fingerprints and DNA all over the place and finding someones DNA and fingerprints somewhere a crime happened doesn't prove anything about when or how they left them or whether they comitted the crime.

If there is already lots of evidence that someone was involved then finding their DNA/fingerprints at the scene is supporting evidence but it's not a case in itself. And in that situation you can, as now, take DNA and fingerprints from your suspect.

Of course you need other evidence (because people can leave other people's genetic material as you point out), but instead of having fingerprints and no suspect, you'd have a database which would throw up a match (or several most likely) that would whittle down the population pretty quickly. Also think how many rape cases would be solved instantly.

Cruddy
20-06-2005, 14:47:21
Also think how many rape cases would be solved instantly.

Alas, not many. While a DNA sample can prove somebody screwed somebody else, it's not proof of consent. :(

EDIT: I really, really, REALLY fucking despise rapists. My idea of heaven is hell where I'm wielding the whip. With a bucket of salt handy.

Funko
20-06-2005, 14:51:21
I can see it possibly being useful where there is a mystery attacker in rape cases (if they leave any DNA behind, apparently that kind of rapist are starting to use condoms more and more often).

Bad as that is, it's a lot of time and effort to go to for something that's not a hugely common crime.

The Norks
20-06-2005, 14:51:35
again there is usually supporting evidence in a rape case.

Funko
20-06-2005, 14:52:47
Yeah, but except for the situation where there is an unknown rapist. I still don't see how the DNA database helps, once you have a suspect you can take DNA from them.

The Norks
20-06-2005, 14:55:01
Originally posted by Funko
I can see it possibly being useful where there is a mystery attacker in rape cases (if they leave any DNA behind, apparently that kind of rapist are starting to use condoms more and more often).

Bad as that is, it's a lot of time and effort to go to for something that's not a hugely common crime.

it would be useful in any case where they usually use fingerprints or dna evidence presumably.

Cruddy
20-06-2005, 14:56:56
OK - one point is that it would help solve a lot of non-rape cases.

King_Ghidra
20-06-2005, 14:58:56
we already had this discussion abut rape. most rape cases don't succeed or fail based on whether the man was supposed to be present or not, but rather on whether the sex act itself was really an attack or consensual

in that case dna is absolutely no use at all

Funko
20-06-2005, 14:59:27
Maybe it'd just lead to many miscarriages of justice where people where tied to crimes they hadn't committed because their DNA happened to be at the scene and they didn't have an alibi?

Still fits into the waste of money camp for me. - but is probably inevitable. :(

The Norks
20-06-2005, 15:04:35
i think it is ineveitable, but ultimately these things can be used reponsibly- we live in a pretty rational country and there will be laws surrounding any future uses of id or genetic material etc.

Cruddy
20-06-2005, 15:06:18
My arse - I got swabbed without giving consent years ago. The charges were dropped rather huridly.

Can I get a record of it? Can I fuck.

Good job I had a lawyer present when it happened.

The Norks
20-06-2005, 15:26:01
As it moves higher up the agenda, the laws will start coming out. Thats how these things always happen.

Funko
20-06-2005, 15:28:35
So we have to continute to fight against it until we have ensured that we have all the assurances guaranteed, in law, that it can't ever be abused.

The Norks
20-06-2005, 15:56:35
thats totally unrealistic and you know it.

*End Is Forever*
20-06-2005, 15:59:05
Alternatively, you could vote Conservative to get rid of the entire monstrous scheme.

The Norks
20-06-2005, 16:00:48
bring back maggie- huzzah!

Provost Harrison
20-06-2005, 16:01:14
Do the Tories plan to axe it? Usually the Tories and Labour do exactly the same thing. It's certainly a clincher if Labour keep on carrying out this kind of crap and if they seriously push this stuff through they'll hand the next election to the Tories on a platter...

*End Is Forever*
20-06-2005, 16:02:50
Yes (http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.story.page&obj_id=123019)

Provost Harrison
20-06-2005, 16:08:29
Well I am glad to see that with enough Labour backbenchers revolting that the bill could fall flat on it's arse :lol:

Funko
20-06-2005, 16:22:41
Originally posted by The Norks
thats totally unrealistic and you know it.

Exactly, and as we can't guarantee it won't be abused we should keep fighting it. :beer:

Funko
20-06-2005, 16:28:16
Originally posted by *End Is Forever*
Alternatively, you could vote Conservative to get rid of the entire monstrous scheme.

I didn't vote Tory but ended up with a Tory MP anyway. I did contact him about it but no response.

So far he appears to be totally shit compared to our previous Labour MP.

Not that she was a rebel or anything but at least we got a response.

Provost Harrison
20-06-2005, 16:35:55
I'm sure Iain will pull strings for you ;)

Funko
20-06-2005, 16:40:24
To be honest our MP sounds like one of the worst kinds of Tories. :(

Provost Harrison
20-06-2005, 16:41:24
You've never been to Romford ;)

The Norks
20-06-2005, 16:54:32
Originally posted by Funko
Exactly, and as we can't guarantee it won't be abused we should keep fighting it. :beer:

thats silly- name anything ever and its probably been abused. Law isnt about justice, its about boundaries.

Anyway, I reckon we should everyone electronically chipped and that way we'd know exctly which MP's were frequenting brothels and visiting mistresses. Might make them more accountable

Funko
20-06-2005, 16:55:42
They need to be acountable for their professional life, they can do what they want in their personal life, doesn't bother me.

The Norks
20-06-2005, 16:57:14
no but it would probably bother them

Funko
20-06-2005, 17:01:09
Quite right too, I want my privacy respected and they should be allowed the same freedom.

Provost Harrison
20-06-2005, 17:02:03
You're no fun :p

The Norks
20-06-2005, 17:07:59
what- the freedom to break the law in a brothel.....yeah....thats....logical :confused:

Funko
20-06-2005, 17:15:28
So your argument is that we should monitor everyone all the time on the off chance they might commit a crime?

We'd all be in prison.

Funko
20-06-2005, 17:15:50
And who'd want to live like that?

Funko
20-06-2005, 17:16:20
Anyway you also said having a mistress which is what I was focussing on, that's not illegal.

The Norks
20-06-2005, 17:17:33
Originally posted by Funko
So your argument is that we should monitor everyone all the time on the off chance they might commit a crime?

We'd all be in prison.

Don't you see Mike? If we all lived in prison then all the criminals would be on the outside and they wouldnt be able to spoil our utopia!!

The Norks
20-06-2005, 17:18:52
Originally posted by Funko
Anyway you also said having a mistress which is what I was focussing on, that's not illegal.

it does say something about a person's character though. And the point I was making was that if politicians want to scrutinise us, we should be allowed to scrutinise them.

Funko
20-06-2005, 17:27:28
Yeah, but I think none of us should be scrutinised, and we should have a nice free society. :beer:

Gary
20-06-2005, 17:38:47
Free ? You mean I get my tax rebated ? :beer:

The Norks
20-06-2005, 17:39:36
let the criminals run free!

Cruddy
20-06-2005, 20:20:15
They already do. That's why the govt thinks ID cards will instantly make them all jailable.