Pilger's not happy

[Emperor Dalek]

I am assuming the technology will work.

We should be safe there then:

- Trials of ID cards have revealed problems with the scanning systems central to the project, it has emerged. It was harder to scan the irises of black people and over-59s. And some fingerprint scanners did not work with large fingers.

- Some experts argue the technology may never be good enough. Professor Angela Sasse, a biometrics expert who has advised MPs on the home affairs select committee, said biometric technologies were "a lot less mature" than manufacturers made out. "To be honest, I think it is a possibility that eventually we will conclude it isn't good enough or that the current systems we're using aren't good enough for a large scale public domain application such as an ID card," she said.

- Serious doubts are being raised about a new secure identity system being incorporated into new UK passports from the end of 2005. Biometric facial recognition will be brought in as part of an international agreement to target terror and fraud. But trials suggest the technology has a 10% failure rate, the BBC has learned. Some experts say the technology could be unsuitable for the high volume of travellers it will deal with, and may fail to improve airport security.

- Concerns have been raised about the ability of biometric technology to cope with exceptional cases - such as someone with very long eyelashes or an eye which is out of focus.

- Long eyelashes and watery eyes could thwart iris scanning technology used for the government's ID card trial. "The pundits tell us that we should expect 7% across the board to fail with iris recognition, mainly due to positioning in front of the camera," project director Roland Sables told MPs. Others are due to eye malformations, watery eyes and long eyelashes in a small percentage. Hard contact lenses could also prove problematic.

- Home Affairs Select Committee member Bob Russell said, "I think this [iris scanning] is going to cause serious problems for people who suffer with bright lights and people with epilepsy. I think it will be necessary at every machine to have at least one member of staff who is a qualified first aider to a high level. I can see people keeling over with epileptic fits."

- People with faint fingerprints will be unable to register on the system, as will manual labourers, particularly those who work with cement or shuffle paper regularly, a committee of MPs was told by Roland Sables, project director of the Home Office pilot scheme.

[DaveB]

Or just use Jelly Babies

[threaded]

The ID card as proposed will stop you changing your identity, unlike the present system.

What about battered wives/husbands who wish to avoid their ex's? What about bods who're in the witness protection? They're a bit buggered, or will there be loop holes for these - Woo hoo, I've got a way in that they've built specifically for me to use.

I am assuming the technology will work.

Assuming puts the ass before U and ming. On current form you'd get better odds on Shergar winning the next Grand National.

If you have to have iris scans and fingerprints then you will only be able to appear once on the database, a simple duplicates check will render anything else impossible.

Well, theoretically, if they took enough points they would be unique. Unfortunately, if they took that many points then they wouldn't be any use to identify you after a few weeks. So they will take less data points, and the numbers of duplicates increase quite quickly.

The problem comes when some technical crook finds a way to modify the database and steals someones ID. Its not like you can get a new set of finger prints is it.

A technical crook is the least of our worries. Never attribute to malice what can be equally explained by plain old incompetence, and lets face it: it'll be one of the usual suspects running it so the level of incompetence will be staggering.

[wendigo100]

A technical crook is the least of our worries. Never attribute to malice what can be equally explained by plain old incompetence, and lets face it: it'll be one of the usual suspects running it so the level of incompetence will be staggering.

Amen to that. A simple error somewhere could end up with you on a bad credit list, a paedo list, or in prison, and you will be told the system works so you must be guilty.

You will be forgotten and your case added to the statistics that show that ID cards are a wonderful thing, and the chances of you getting a case review rise to Elvis-on-the-moon levels.

And if by some miracle you are lucky enough to get a case review, a string of bureaucrats will shuffle paper backwards and forwards for years, at a snails-pace of one a month, while you continue to rot.

[threaded]

What is particularly sad is the knowledge that those in the Inner Party won't have to put up with this, they'll be exempt. It'd be so much nicer if they and theirs had to suffer the errors, omissions, and enduring hopelessness that'll be foisted on the unwary.

[The Lone Gunman]

A technical crook is the least of our worries. Never attribute to malice what can be equally explained by plain old incompetence, and lets face it: it'll be one of the usual suspects running it so the level of incompetence will be staggering.

Can't argue with that. Some idiot deletes you or overwrites your details and you are gone. You can just hear the girl at the ID office "computer says no!".

What about the "Enemy of the state" scenario where you are deliberately removed to limit your ability to evade the law, even though completely innocent.

[threaded]

Can't argue with that. Some idiot deletes you or overwrites your details and you are gone. You can just hear the girl at the ID office "computer says no!".

What about the "Enemy of the state" scenario where you are deliberately removed to limit your ability to evade the law, even though completely innocent.

Wonder if you could use it as a method to reduce ones tax burden? A little like that H2G2 idea of being dead for a year for tax reasons.

[wendigo100]

What is particularly sad is the knowledge that those in the Inner Party won't have to put up with this, they'll be exempt. It'd be so much nicer if they and theirs had to suffer the errors, omissions, and enduring hopelessness that'll be foisted on the unwary.

Exempt? Ah, so that is why Mr Blair is not in the dock under that new anti-terrorism legislation, which bans anyone supporting violence to remove a regime anywhere in the world, now or in the past.