I don't see the point of arguing
How else are they supposed to know who the hell you are and if you pose any kind of security risk? I don't see what grounds you have to object other than what that Chakrabati woman from Liberty keeps going on about.
It's the old argument about for or against compulsory IDs. One doesn't have to carry an ID, however if you are challenged, you have to prove who you are. Same with the company that provides you with a desk, expensive desktops and access to their (maybe) multi-million IT systems. You are saying that anyone can walk in and have access to those?
Also, companies when trading with each other, have systems in place. The chapters on Risk specify exactly those, I suggest people have a look before arguing against.
How else are they supposed to know who the hell you are and if you pose any kind of security risk? I don't see what grounds you have to object other than what that Chakrabati woman from Liberty keeps going on about.
It's the old argument about for or against compulsory IDs. One doesn't have to carry an ID, however if you are challenged, you have to prove who you are. Same with the company that provides you with a desk, expensive desktops and access to their (maybe) multi-million IT systems. You are saying that anyone can walk in and have access to those?
Also, companies when trading with each other, have systems in place. The chapters on Risk specify exactly those, I suggest people have a look before arguing against.
Comment