The case for identity cards

Road_Hog

dryhat wrote: »

It's the thin end of the wedge.

And then one day you go to a bar, swipe your card to order a beer and the barman says "sorry sir, you've had your 24 units this week"

Or you order something at a restaurant but are refused because it's over your "fat quota" or whatever.

Oh, it's much worse than that, but you're on the right track. It is about the loss of our civil liberties. ID cards are a precursor to RFID micro chipping.This is all about control of the population, being able to monitor them.

The RIPA act came in to protect us from terrorism, but it is used solely to spy on the general public, especially by councils.

They've softened us up by making us carry around photo driving licences. Now, in an official capacity, when have you ever needed a photo driving licence? I don't mean you used it as ID to join the video shop, when officially have you needed it for something connected to your driving where the old paper licence wouldn't have sufficed? The answer is never.

So the next step is ID cards and they tell us everyone on the Continent has them and there is a reason for that. They've been invading each other since the age of dawn and the occupying force needs to control the population and does this by issuing them with ID papers - think German accent - where are your papers. We haven't been invaded in a thousand years, which is why we don't have them.

They tell us it'll stop terrorism and crime. Well, all the 9/11 and 7/7 guys had ID, they had passports, but that didn't stop them. Terrorists and criminals have the wherewithal to get false ID, the only people that don't are the general public.

Once they've got ID cards, the next step is RFID chipping. Then they really will have you under control, break any law or annoy the TPTB and they'll just turn it off. Without it, you won't be able to buy anything, work, claim benefits or do anything, because without your micro chip you will be invalid.

As for people using the NHS, it is simple, we already have a system. It's called NI numbers, but we give them out willy nilly, we enact human rights laws that mean doctors are too afraid of being sued to say no to people not entitled. The system is there, we just need to fix it and start saying no to health tourists.

People, stop agreeing with the propaganda and wishing your civil liberties away, why should you be ID carded and chipped just because the government won't fix the current system.

Watch this video for 3 minutes from 1:45:20 and see what is instore for you if you let them. The guy talking was a well known Hollywood director (he's dead now), not some unknown fruitcake and you can look at his Wiki entry to confirm it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3Ya5qiiW6k

jamesd

TruckerT wrote: »

So how can doctors, landlords etc be expected to do the work of the border agency?

They shouldn't. Let the BA do its job and leave the rest of us to get on with our lives.

TruckerT wrote: »

The population is now so huge that identity cards are an urgent necessity

No, they aren't. They are an unnecessary intrusion into the lives of the vast majority of us, who are not illegal immigrants.

Do try to remember that the US has a far larger population and does not have a requirement for a national identity card, nor any identity card at all, so size doesn't make it required. Though many states offer the option of requesting one if desired and that is sometimes linked to immigration status. In cases where the state links the federal immigration status to its requirements for a drivers' license, that makes it more difficult for illegal immigrants or non-permanent legal residents to obtain car insurance, putting the rest of the population at increased risk from uninsured drivers. Those who can't get an immigration-linked ID document just won't comply with the requirement but will use forged documents instead, or none at all and illegal sources of vehicles or other supplies.

For day to day use there's a huge market in the US for forged documents, including such trivially common cases as many 18 year olds forging or buying forged documents that claim they are 21 or older so they can enter a bar and buy drinks.

Identity cards are more over-reach by people who don't realise that immigration is a good thing and a necessary one to help to keep the bills for pensions and other age-related spending to a manageable percentage of GDP.

globalds wrote: »

Not sure if I agree with all of this ..but some of it seems to be reasoned well.

While most of it is rubbish. Gross misunderstanding like 'This architecture avoids any "Big Brother" charge' but 'collecting DNA, Iris and fingerprint' data on everyone in or entering the country, along with access by the police to data about one individual if another individual merely claims that they are them, regardless of whether the named individual has any knowledge of the request to disclose.

Or the lovely "If a card was produced and the Policeman suspected that he was dealing with a forgery, then the simple input of the personnel number would deliver a picture and other data for comparison. This would make the forging of cards fairly pointless" which appears to require similar disclosure to anyone who might want to check a card, not just the police, else how can any other checker determine whether it's a forgery?

And "No compulsion to acquire a card ... No compulsion to carry a card" but mandatory use of a card to get benefits, which presumably includes such things as child benefits and the state pensions. So either get a card or starve and become homeless if you lose your job or retire, but that's not considered by the author to be compulsion? Ridiculous.

It's not great technologically either, with gems like "If one assumes 1 megabyte of data per person", a substantial under-estimate of the requirement. But perhaps I differ from the author in one useful respect: I do have some knowledge of the technical architecture of an in operation national identification system, and made technical recommendations about its architecture.

Just in case you didn't know it, we already have systems that can track cars based on automatic number plate recognition and the technology to identify individuals based on their faces and identify everyone walking through an area is rapidly maturing technologically.

nicko33

stinktankcynic wrote: »

We all have a unique ID in our NI numbers, why not use those?

We don't all have one, but I suppose that could be changed

N1AK

TruckerT wrote: »

The rollout cost would be a one-off - NHS costs would continue to increase.

Are you really as naive as your posts imply or is it just a persona or trolling attempt? If you think bringing out a mandatory ID which can be integrated with government services is even going to come close to covering the cost of non-eu NHS use then you're living proof that an opinion doesn't need to be built on any evidence.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

Moby wrote: »

I could never understand the opposition to ID cards. Having one would solve so many problems.

You've clearly never lived in tinpot countries where corrupt police and spotty teenagers clutching rifles as part of "national service" can demand to see your papers at any time.

lostinrates

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

You've clearly never lived in tinpot countries where corrupt police and spotty teenagers clutching rifles as part of "national service" can demand to see your papers at any time.

One could use the same argument against many national records. In 'normal' stable countries where carrying I'd cards is mandatory there are no problems. That's why I always enjoy getting a bit tin foil hat on this. It brings out such extreme reactions in people I find it fascinating.

Frankly, I'm not too bothered either way. I don't want to pay for it, but would go for it if it saved money. I'd certainly rather have just one offical data record rather than loads.

dryhat

Freedom is more important than security.
And if you give up your freedom for security, you will end up with neither.

There are many situations where someone might not have anything to hide but may still want to maintain their privacy.

jamesd

I'd rather have loads because that makes it harder to get a complete picture of an individual and decreases the rewards for compromising each of them, instead of having one big and highly rewarding target.

It isn't true that in normal stable countries there are no problems, just the fact of being required to have such a card is a problem, even if abuse is limited. But abuse through such things as private businesses using the identification is likely in such systems, as has happened widely in the US with their social security number, that was originally intended not to be used in that way.

dryhat wrote: »

There are many situations where someone might not have anything to hide but may still want to maintain their privacy.

Only many, not most? I don't have any need to hide when buying a cup of coffee or groceries but that doesn't mean I want the shop knowing much about my identity. Knowing the identity of a credit card is sufficient, if that's how I choose to pay, without linking it to me in any way they can use.

lostinrates

dryhat wrote: »

Freedom is more important than security.
And if you give up your freedom for security, you will end up with neither.

There are many situations where someone might not have anything to hide but may still want to maintain their privacy.

Do you feel free now?

bugslet

Aside from any personal cost, I'm happy with proving my identity via passport or driving license. If I drive, then a license covers that activity; if I go abroad, a passport covers that activity. I don't want an ID card for the activity of just being me.

And ultimately, whatever any authority comes up with in terms of super duper unable to replicate this card gizmos, there will be fake IDs available should you be of the mind to get one and those who wish to operate as terrorists from a well funded organisation, will.

I'm just not sure they solve that much versus the cost involved.