Sinster censorship caused by Part P

One would think so, but it appears Labour does not. In fact Tony seems to think we can not, even when grown up, be trusted to walk down the street. This will be a criminal offence if ID cards become mandatory. Basic concepts seems to be alien to some.

authorities

Yet more evidence maybe... do you have a reference for this?

NT

I'd like to think others wouldn't have introduced 'nanny state' legislation, but history says otherwise.

I *really* don't see the problem. We already have to carry works ID cards, etc, so one other shouldn't be a problem. For honest folk at least.

In message , Rob Horton wrote

IMO it is wrong to suppress information on the correct fitting of electrical and gas items.

Despite legislation, untrained and incompetent people are still going to attempt to fit gas and electrical appliances themselves. If no instructions are given then there is greater chance that the item is going to be fitted incorrectly and/or dangerously.

It's not the ID that is the issue so much as the monster all encompassing database that goes with it...

All that information will be on a database somewhere anyway. Can't see the problem with centralising it.

The restrictions will encourage people to return to the old practices of adaptors, extension leads and multiple wired plugs, causing even more accidents and injuries. They were unnecessary and counter-productive IMO.

Andy

It's not ID cards as such that I object to but the reasons given for the need, why can't they just have the guts to say "We want everyone to have ID cards that we can then, if we think a need, can be use in various ways to monitor people" rather than try and con us that if every UK adult citizen living here legally has an ID card it will cut down on illegal citizens and terrorism - the people who carried out

That is exactly the problem. It puts all sorts of information together that before would have taken a reasonable amount of effort for someone to gather, and will by default, make it available to anyone who wants to see it.

(Yes I do mean "anyone". You make a system all pervasive and available to a wide range of "people in authority", and even without any malicious intent it will be compromised and publicly visible - long before it is even finished. It only takes one badly configured router or wireless lan).

Rather than preventing identity theft, it will simply make it easier to do and much harder to detect.

If you integrate the system into all facets of daily life, then far from preventing terrorism, it will simply become a new target for it.

It would be one of the largest and most complex IT projects the government has ever taken on. They do not have an impressive record it this arena.

Remember there is a technology gap between organised crime and government. However, there are no indications that the government is going to catch up any time soon ;-)

So in exchange for costing an obscene amount of our money, can you see any tangible benefits it would bring?

I have been trying to think of ways to disrupt the distribution of ID cards once Tony forces them through (lets face it the battle was lost before it even started). The best idea I can come up with is to pretend you have a medical condition that stops you from being able to sit still long enough for them to get good bioinformatic data. For instance if they have retina scans just keep looking the other way when they tell you to look into the camera. If it's finger prints just move your finger as it scans. We might not be able to stop it but if enough people look the other way (sorry for the pun :o)) we might be able to make it cost so much that they give up. After all they can hardly arrest you for looking in the wrong direction can they.

I'm fairly confident that the government will screw up the implementation to the point where it won't work anyway. After, of course, wasting billions. Time to vote Liberal I think.

What I would like to know is this - why do they have to know someone's name to know if they are doing something wrong. Surely whether what you are doing is wrong, be it speeding or blowing things up, it is irrelevant what your name is? Therefore why do we need an ID card to stop criminals?

A specious argument. If I have not got my works ID on me I will not be prosecuted. If I turn up at work without it there is just a little hassle to get in, no more no less.

Many years ago I read a Science Fiction story set in the far future where; #1 everybody carried a computer-readable ID card and ... ; #2 At the age of nn? years folks were compulsorily euthanised. The story centred on a person who wakes up one morning to find that his ID card has been rescinded - no cash, no capability to obtain food, re-enter his housing unit, purchase a transport ticket, etc. etc. ... As I see it, the 'problem with centralising it (ID cards cum database)' is more the c*ck-up than conspiracy power that the government (of any political colour) would have. How do you feel about the Dept of Pensions, NHS, bus-company, Bank, Tesco/Sainsburys; local Take-Away; suddenly being told you'd become a non-person because (fr'instance) David Blunkett had decided that he fancied your wife? At this point, readers are invited to shout out the name and provenance of _every_ government IT project that has run to budget, and met the full spec within the original time-frame ... [Opens window, listens ... deafening silence ] ... and that's before we introduce the concept of the 'Law of Unintended Consequences' let alone Murphy's Law.

Actually, they have a very impressive record -- of completely screwing up every IT project they've attempted, together with going massively over budget.

ID cards has already failed, because they haven't started by trying to identify the problem they want to solve -- they've started with a solution and are trying to make up a problem which it fits. Now where have we seen that before?

A day's plastering with no barrier cream, and you'll have no finger prints for a couple of weeks. Bricklaying is probably equally effective.

You don't have to carry a works ID card. Not enforceable in law except in military works. But of course as most also open the doors, etc, one is a little buggered without.

As for ID cards, even if they are introduced, as far as I see the 1954 ruling still applies and any judge can demand their withdrawal.

In fact there is a multitude of areas in which the current biometrics fail. Many fingerprint scanners will not cope with many Asian races (ridges are two fine) as well as the aforementioned bricklayers etc. Many afro caribian eyes are not sufficiently distinct for iris scanners to work. There are a wide range of others with similar problems before you get onto medical conditions. Blunket himself could not be iris scanned for example.

There has been loads of coverage on the whole fiasco here:

least.

Do you drive (legally) ?.....

- you choose where to work, you don't have anything like the same choice about being a citizen/resident of the UK.

- your workID card typically doesn't carry a log of everywhere it's been used; even if it does, that log's only about when you've carded in and out of work (modulo tailgating ;-) and isn't on a country-wide database.

- the 'works ID' registration process is in the context of (typically) one establishment - a few thousand people tops; and gives authorisation to enter one premissseses with lower likelihood of challenge than without. The 'national identity register' enrollment is s'posed to cover the 40 million over-16s of the country, to *flawlessly* link enrolments to authentic 'foundation documents' (replacement birth certs cost between 7 and 12 quid, delivered to any address you care to ask for). The huge range of uses which the National Register's meant to cover makes the motivation for criminal abuse huge - both of the registration process, and of suborning the pissed-off, privatised, temporary-contract staff who end up with access priviliges. Current costs for getting DVLC information are about 50 notes, AIUI. That's without considering more serious, targetted attacks, to delete, change, or simply louse up entries in the National Identity Register, and the multitude of other flawlessly-implemented, flawlessly-administered, flawlessly-designed (don Kevlar anti-trotter helmets at this point) Government IT systems connected to it.

- your works-ID card isn't tied to a national database which makes the card irrelevant: at least for iris scans, the efficiency of recognition means it's pretty reliable (prob-of-misidentifying down in the one-in-a-million-million range) to go straight from 'look into this tube, please, Sir' to 'ah, Mr D Blunkett, Upper Floor Sh*gpad, Admiralty House' - whether or not the geezer asking for your biometrix is acting lawfully or otherwise.

Maybe we'll see an honest, well-informed debate, seriously examining the risks and benefits on all sides. Me, I'd keep those anti-trotter helmets firmly on the bonce...

Stefek

Are you sure about that? His blindness might be caused by a problem involving the optic nerve which passes from the eyeball thru to the brain.

I don't know about these things but I wouldn't have made an assumption that just because people are blind it would limit their ability to be tested.

Also, iris testing? I thought the ID cards relied upon a fingerprint of the back wall of the eye? The Iris is at the front.

Andrew

Part P has not a lot to do with extension leads etc. Biff

Rumour has it next year's passports will require fingerprints anyway so nobody is going to bother with iris scans or suchlike for ID cards.