Reply to: CUK Winter Holiday

[Peoplesoft bloke]

ID cards will not help this. Each of the terrorists who are known to have taken part in 9/11, London and Madrid? would all have had legal ID cards. They were not pretending to be anyone else.

PB:
ID cards would help the police in their day to day job of identifying criminals. Just about everyone they stop who is a crim gives a false name and address. Just watch the reality progs for evidence.

Only if it becomes mandatory to carry them at all times. Otherwise the line "I've left it at home" would be all that's needed. Obviously this doesn't matter to some people, but I don't want to live in a country where carrying government papers at all times is compulsory. Plenty of the Police are opposed to this too. I've seen Police interviewed about this and although many crims do this, it's mostly not hard for them to find out the truth - as you may also observe from reality telly.

ID cards would allow pubs and off licences to easily prove that people purchasing alcohol are of legal age to do so. This would remove the issue which must be very annoying for young looking people who are actually old enough of carrying ID just to get a drink.

Fine - but leave them voluntary and leave me the flip out of it - and there's no need for a massive database and fingerprints for this.

ID cards SHOULD remove all the different requirements by different authorities for what constitutes proof of ID though I expect it will just be another to add to the list.

Exactly - should but we all know they won't.

There are a number of good reasons to have them

Which are?

and they do work in other countries,

No they don't "work" in other counties - just because they exist doesn't mean they do any good. If you actually spend time on this you will find that countries that have ID cards don't have significantly less crime, terrorism, illegal immigration, under age drinking (insert this week's spurious justification) than those that do. The "other Countries have them" line is just about the weakest argument I've heard - other countries have bullfighting and child prostitution - that doesn't mean we want them too.

but I just know our Government will cock it up.

Not least because the planned scheme is more ambitious and intrusive than almost any other country's (except maybe China)

[The Lone Gunman]

Anything that places an obstacle in the path of terrorism has to be seen as a benefit, no matter how small.[edit]

ID cards will not help this. Each of the terrorists who are known to have taken part in 9/11, London and Madrid? would all have had legal ID cards. They were not pretending to be anyone else.

PB:
ID cards would help the police in their day to day job of identifying criminals. Just about everyone they stop who is a crim gives a false name and address. Just watch the reality progs for evidence.

ID cards would allow pubs and off licences to easily prove that people purchasing alcohol are of legal age to do so. This would remove the issue which must be very annoying for young looking people who are actually old enough of carrying ID just to get a drink.

ID cards SHOULD remove all the different requirements by different authorities for what constitutes proof of ID though I expect it will just be another to add to the list.

There are a number of good reasons to have them and they do work in other countries, but I just know our Government will cock it up.

[Diver]

Roll on the Summer Holiday thread

[SallyAnne]

Well, you've just posted on it......

Oh no - am I part of the problem?!!!!

myself!

[Peoplesoft bloke]

How is this thread STILL alive?!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well, you've just posted on it......

[SallyAnne]

Have you ever watched demolition man (Wesley Snipes + Sly Stallone)? I actually think that technology is a great idea.

Mmmmm with fiery Denis Leary as the underground cult leader


How is this thread STILL alive?!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Peoplesoft bloke]

I've had a passport since I was about 8 (on my mums before that) and it's always required a photo. Don't know how far back you're talking about positively identifying you.

And my first passport was a visitor's one from the post office - interestingly, defunct since 1995 because to quote the Home Office "BVPs were stopped in 1995 because they did not meet modern security standards and did not confirm the holder’s national identity."
So the answer is I'm talking about as far back as 1995.

I would say an ID card allows you to trade money and privacy for security, but there's no point even going down that route, we disagree hugely on that issue.

Well, I don't know, other than some vague assertions, no-one's been able to confirm what this security I'm supposed to be getting is, why I should be compelled to have (and pay for) it, and what it offers that I'm not getting now.

I disagree with your dissection of the money laundering regulations. Anything that places an obstacle in the path of terrorism and crime has to be seen as a benefit, no matter how small.

That's plainly not viable in a free society - for example, a "small" obstacle to crime would be for everyone to be searched every time they left a shop, but I think most people would regard that as too much.

Is it that much of an inconvenience to produce a passport and two utility bills?

Yes, because it's totally pointless, and it leads to an acceptance of the pointless and the riduculous, instead of any attempt to address the real criminals.

[Incognito]

I think everybody should have ID cards and be implanted with ID chips.

Nuff said.

Have you ever watched demolition man (Wesley Snipes + Sly Stallone)? I actually think that technology is a great idea.

[Incognito]

Secondly, as I understand it, until recently there's been no particular requirement for a passport to positively identify you, rather it offers evidence that you have an entitlement to cross borders, so I do think there's a fundamental difference.

I've had a passport since I was about 8 (on my mums before that) and it's always required a photo. Don't know how far back you're talking about positively identifying you.

Thirdly, a passport allows me to trade money and privacy for travel - i.e. there is some benefit to me in having one.

I would say an ID card allows you to trade money and privacy for security, but there's no point even going down that route, we disagree hugely on that issue.

I disagree with your dissection of the money laundering regulations. Anything that places an obstacle in the path of terrorism and crime has to be seen as a benefit, no matter how small. Is it that much of an inconvenience to produce a passport and two utility bills?

[Diver]

I think everybody should have ID cards and be implanted with ID chips.

Nuff said.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

If you went to open a bank account, would you take it personally that the bank doesn't believe who you said you were unless you produced ID and a utility bill?

Actually, yes. This has really only started to happen since our government decided to impose a requirement on banks and various other businesses in the name of money laundering.

As usual, ordinary people like me with nothing to hide (let's remember we are the vast majority) are treated with suspicion and required to produce proofs of everything. Because we are good boys and girls, we go along with it. Does it do anything to stop money laundering, criminality and ID theft? - not much, but it gives the illusion something's being done and is cheaper and easier than getting the Police and other authorities to actually go after the real offenders.

Having created this unnecessary (for the vast majority) requirement, the government and civil service come along with a "solution". Let us (the government) manage your identity, and sell you a card which we will all pretend proves who you are, (even though we know it doesn't). As usual, the law abiding, and people who don't think they have anything to hide, dutifully cough up, pay their ID tax and are inconvenienced each time some jobsworth demands their papers, each time the system is down, they lose their card, or forget to tell the government they have moved. They worry each time the incompetent civil service loses parts of the data held. Meanwhile, business as usual for criminals and illegal immigrants - why would they need to open a bank account, pay money to Hector, or any of the other things we'll need a card for?



Passport

The sole purpose is to provide the identity and nationality of its holder. Is it any different from an ID card? (Forgetting the fact they're compulsory)

Firstly that's a big thing to forget - a passport has some value as a means of travel, but compulsory ID cards will be required as proof of existence, not just to cross borders - I think that's a pretty big difference.

Secondly, as I understand it, until recently there's been no particular requirement for a passport to positively identify you, rather it offers evidence that you have an entitlement to cross borders, so I do think there's a fundamental difference.

Thirdly, a passport allows me to trade money and privacy for travel - i.e. there is some benefit to me in having one.

[Advocate]

If we're all going to be complete pedants and lets face it in IT we are...

From security point of view (101)

Identification: Who are you?
Authentication: Verification of the identity.

So an ID card simply needs to contain your name...

I'm happy to carry around something with my name on it in-case I forget...

An authentication card? Now that's an entirely different ball game!

/Can you tell I'm bored today?

[Incognito]

Passports are an entirely different matter with an entirely different function and in particular they are voluntary. The presumption of innocence demands that if you think I'm lying about who I am, it's up to you to prove it, and that's how it should be.

If you went to open a bank account, would you take it personally that the bank doesn't believe who you said you were unless you produced ID and a utility bill?

Passport

The sole purpose is to provide the identity and nationality of its holder. Is it any different from an ID card? (Forgetting the fact they're compulsory)

[Peoplesoft bloke]

I wish that were true - have you tried talking to any Labour MPs?

Precisely my point - my MP wouldn't debate it all, just forwarded stuff from The Home Office which is a mixture of lies and spin.

[Ruprect]

Btw I remain keen to debate these issues - it is genuinely rare for me to find somone to put the case in favour.

I wish that were true - have you tried talking to any Labour MPs?