---

by Chambler
(quotes)
(Short list of the basic human rights as defined by The Universal Declaration of Human Rights)
equality before the law; protection against arbitrary arrest; the right to a fair trial; freedom from ex post facto criminal law; the right to own property; freedom of thought, conscience, and religion; freedom of opinion and expression; freedom of assembly and association; the right to work and to choose one's work freely; the right to equal pay for equal work; the right to form and join trade unions; the right to rest and leisure; the right to an adequate standard of living; and, the right to an education

---

I'm curious but out of that list, which one of the human rights do people feel that ID cards would be against? A lot of this argument seems to be filled with 'it's against my human rights'..I just don't see it myself *shrug*

---

by Chambler
What about your freedom as an individual?!? This just shows that there is no such thing as complete freedom as in my view your freedoms should stop where they infringe mine too much.

Rules and laws are there not to limit you in your freedom but maximize the freedom of all (as dispurse the total amount of freedom a bit more equal) That this limits you in your freedoms somewhat is side effect of the main goal of these rules and laws (nobody said it was a perfect system )

---

That's pretty much exactly what I was trying to say

Nobody can have complete freedom, because in expressing that freedom they will infringe upon the freedom of others.

If we lived in a country where everyone was able/willing to decide for themselves which actions they can carry out without infringing on the freedom of others and which ones they can't then I'm sure we could all freely exist without interference from the state. But we don't live in a country like that. There are too many people who look to exploit the freedoms that they have to the detriment of the freedom of others. This is why the state needs to enforce - to protect the rights and freedoms of the victims. Inhibition of the rights and freedoms of the criminals is a necessary by-product of that.

Perhaps Funky Monkey should read some Rousseau.

In any event, I think it's pretty amazing that anyone can say, in all seriousness, that they have no problem with someone having the right to rape someone, especially if they've also gone through the trauma.

I must remember that one the next time I'm at court with an alleged rape victim. Don't worry, the defendant was only expressing his human rights. Don't think that will wash somehow.

been reading about this with growing concern...(ive used some text in what i say from an article by the Register as they're more eloquent than myself, but speak for what im concerned about)
Most people don't actually know what the cards will be used for. The cards are being touted as being used to cobat terrorism yet most british public when asked what the cards will be used for stated 33%-stopping illegal imigration, 21%-catching criminals,20%prooving who you are, then prevention of theft. then consolidation of id on 1 card THEN prevention of terrorism 16%.
And most that want cards are sceptical that the goverment can implement the cards effectively so we dont mind having the cards but were sure they'll screw it up!
The mismatch between what the government's been saying and what the people believe is all too clear. General ignorance about what ID cards can actually do has worked in the government's favour in the isolation of the civil liberties lobby, but that ignorance could now work against it - dare Blunkett switch horses back into a squalid and fraudulent sales pitch that leans heavily on the race card?
Oh and cost of cards....It could be a lot higher than the £35 suggested by the goverment...
Detica the company who are running the IT for the cards are alos a little in the dark as to how much it will actually cost and how little the general public really know about the cards.Detica Head of Security and Risk David Porter agreed that the public was largely wrong in its view that ID cards would stop illegal immigration, and pointed out that the system is only going to be as good as the registration process. If this doesn't work properly, "then all of the biometrics in the world is not going to save you." And overall, although 94 per cent of people are aware of the ID card scheme, "two thirds have little or know knowledge of how it will work." This of course is not something the government has actually explained yet, so Porter is unable to comment on what the real cost is likely to be.
Until the Goverment tells us exactly whats the deal with these cards then i for one am against the idea.

---

by Whistler
Perhaps Funky Monkey should read some Rousseau.

---

How do you know he hasn't?

The Social Contract, which postulates that society should "force dissenting members to be free", was written by a man who thought Atheism should be outlawed because you cannot trust the oath of a man who doesn't fear God. (He didn't look too closely at his own theories: soceity has provided an excellent replacement.) To Rousseau freedom was whatever Rousseau allowed. The Social Contract may be where our society is currently at, but it's a milestone, not an endpoint.

I've read Rousseau - guess which side of the fence I'm sitting on?

Can anyone give me one piece of evidence that ID cards play any significant part in decreasing crime or stopping large scale violent acts (oh, alright, acts of terrorism, then)? Just one? Anyone?

Cost. Last estimate I heard was this would cost £58 million. Considering previous estimates of costs by this government you can probably double that. Personally I'd rather that money was spent on education or health than a dubious infringement of my civil liberties.

Too many times we stick to language that only means something to thos who agree with us. So I'll try and break down my opposition, and avoid further mentions of civil or human rights, invasion of privacy, or other phrases that mean nothing to people who support ID cards.

Too many years ago I was born. No choice of where, or who to, but born I was. For the most part I looked out - pleanty worse parts of the globe to have been born into than 1970s Leeds, and plenty worse families. I grew up (admittedly, this is not universally acknowledged...), did some dumb things, did some fun things, saw some sad things. Learnt. In class rooms and on streets. And basically kept my nose clean. Those crimes I have committed harmed no one (except possibly myself). I tried to treat people as I would have them treat me. In return all I asked was to be left alone to spend time with the people I cared about, to earn what I could, for security as well as certain pleasures, and to make the best job I could of enjoying my brief stay on this planet.

But then a government I fought hard to get elected decided I had to proof who I am at a moments notice. Why? Have I committed a crime? Am I a threat to anyone? Why all of a sudden must I carry proof of who I say I am. What liberty is this? All I ask is that as long as I bother no one that no one bothers me - now I am told I must continue to not bother anyone else, while the state bothers me.

And what if things go wrong? What if I hand over my card and the system misreads the data and says I'm not who I say I am - will I be held as a potential terrorist? With no recourse to normal judicial process, held indefinitely with no evidence of a crime? Maybe I'm unemployed and my benefit is refused - how do I eat, pay the bills, take care of dependants? The data is not centrally stored now? Who to stop a future governement making this change, once the basic concept is accepted? With my DNA on file what's to stop someone using it to make me appear to be a criminal, either to hide another's guilt or to stop me saying something some people don't want to hear? And we all know DNA doesn't lie, right? Think I'm just another conspiracy nut? Plenty of evidence of high level police officers using their position to hide either their, or their relative's, guilt. And have you followed the success rate of this and the previous governments attempts to install IT systems? And you want to trust them with something on this scale?

This isn't just a simple combination of passport, driver's licence and some credit cards. This is a completely new beast with the potential to have innocents placed in very unsavoury positions. Sorry Maff, but 'only the guilty has anything to fear' is a piece of niavity I thought you were above. The guilty have nothing to fear because there is no evidence it will change conviction rates one iota. It's people like you and me who have everything to fear, because all it take is one faulty piece of data to make you look like something you most definitely are not.

PS - did anyone see the BBC survey that said 52% of Brits think HIV status should be on the national ID card? Might as well give up the ghost, vote BNP, and start goose-stepping now...

also there's always gonna someone out there who have found a way to make a good fake sooner or later. what about people with exact same names [by freak chance] do we get assigned a number or code to tell the difference?
i dont want a number im feeling all 60's tv show if i run will i be chased by a big white bubble ball?

the thought of having HIV status on the card is horrendus and a terrible invasion of privacy, that is something [or anything similar] is up to the individual to disclose not the government.

---

by Jayjay
PS - did anyone see the BBC survey that said 52% of Brits think HIV status should be on the national ID card? Might as well give up the ghost, vote BNP, and start goose-stepping now...

---

In the 1980s there were serious suggestions among the Tory government that people infected with HIV/AIDS should be locked up in concentration camps for the national good. The more things change ...

---

by Jayjay
PS - did anyone see the BBC survey that said 52% of Brits think HIV status should be on the national ID card? Might as well give up the ghost, vote BNP, and start goose-stepping now...

---

Thats terrible putting peoples health status (not just HIV) on the card would hinder their Job prospects and a invasion of privacy.

Aslong as you keep your nose clean and don´t bother anyone the police isn´t gonna ask you for your id anyways.

The idea of such a system is to rule out false positives but also false negatives are a very important part of the procedure.

If you would be flying (yes that wouldn´t be the id card but it your passport would have the same biometrical info on it!) the system could give a false negative but the procedure wouldn´t be any different than if they have doubts about the ´realness' of your current passport. You would be taken to the side and they will try to check your identify (possibly recheck / validate if your id isn´t damaged and use some more sensative equipment etc)

Thats also why there are different types of biometrical info on your card. Because if you don´t pass the irisscan (you just got a piece of glass in you eye for example) there is still the finger print and of course dna and if all that fails (chip is damaged) you still have the photo id.

Basically the same would happen with an idcard.... But in 95% of the cases where you didn´t actaully do anything majorly wrong the photo id will still suffice.

Example:
- Checks for known and banned football holigans from a stadium. (mandetory id)
- Benefit fraude (as your identity is pretty much clear now) (and no someone on benefits doesn´t have the millions to spend in research to possibly fake an id)
- Criminals having fronts under false names

That you don´t store info about your own citizens in a huge database doesn´t mean btw that you don´t store the info of people coming into the country (temporary).

Having important things from your medical files on that ship can be very benificiary for quick reaction by medical staff (especially if you have a special allergy / or another uncommon medical condition which influances the way you should be treated). If the fact if you have HIV infected or not is one of them.......... I don´t know i´m not a medical expert.

On the subject of faking an id........
Now a days you only have to cut out the picture of someone that closely resembles you in age and gender. Which we saw on telly a year or 2 ago was very easy Takes under 5 minuts if you already have the pictures.

Now you can´t do that anymore as your face might be on the id but your not biometrical information. The chips in there are most likely not ´rewritable´ so you can´t overwrite you info on it. Also you can´t replace your chip with the one on the other id as the chip also contains your passport details (number etc) and your name.

So that only leaves recreating a totally new id. Although your biometrical information isn´t stored in a central database the other unique properties of each id will. So from the card id number they would still know who it was given to and their picture (as that was stored already) and if these things don´t match with your id something is obviously wrong.

This makes faking your id pretty much a lot trickier than it was. As you need an existing id to replace but you can´t use the base of this id as the picture is burned onto the card and possibly your face profile too so you would need to create a whole new card with your info on it. And than you need to create a chip and put your biometrical information on there. The specification of this chip is most likely not common knowledge and not for sale so you need to get one created by a company or build your own chip factory. And than still you wouldn´t know the full specs of the chip. And even than in a good check you would fail as your picture wouldn´t match the original id.

All a bit harder and more expensive and time consuming that replacing a picture in a passport

So you end up with a card which will not fool a thorough check which costs you a lot of money to develop (chip factory costs millions)...... isn´t really worth it...

Not as easy and cheap as getting a fake passport etc now for a few thousand quid if even that.

The biometrical system isn´t 100 foulproof but is a lot better than the current system in checking identities so if it´s available why keep the old insecure method? It might not stop the best and riches criminals all of the time but it will stop a lot more of getting a fake id.

---

by JtB
(quotes)

Thats terrible putting peoples health status (not just HIV) on the card would hinder their Job prospects and a invasion of privacy.

---

Just wanted to mention (and yes I am totaly against having HIV status on the card) But having a health problem or a disability should not effect your job prospects in a job that given your disablility or health problem you can do, we have in this county a disability law that works quiet well. If you seriously think you wern't given a job because of this then there are things that you can do, big companys now especially take care when rejecting people with health problems or disabilitys because of this.

---

Jayjay
Can anyone give me one piece of evidence that ID cards play any significant part in decreasing crime or stopping large scale violent acts (oh, alright, acts of terrorism, then)? Just one? Anyone?

---

No because we havent got ID cards yet, but can you prove it wont?

As for ID cards meaning you will automatically be asked to produce your ID everywhere you go is a crazy idea, at this moment in time if you are stopped by police and asked to show evidence for who you are you do, why should it be any different from having and ID card, introducing ID cards doesn't mean that on every street corner there will be someone asking to see it, surely it we be on benefit to people that look under 18 when they are infact 18 and being told they can't be served in a pub?, wont it be easier to go to a bank to get a bank account when you only have to produce on card instead of your passport and driving licence and two or three utility bills? after all not everyone drives not everyone goes abroad, trying to prove who you are when wanting anything on credit or just opening a bank account can be a totaly nightmare when you dont have whats classed as "official" ID as well as trying to claim benefits, when working for the DFEE I lost count of the amount of times people didn't have the "right" ID and would have to wait for days to recieve any money because they couldn't prove who they were.

I really don't see why having a very good form of ID is causing so many people so many worrys, and at the end of the day yes maybe there can be mix ups and people could try and frame you for something, but that can happen today.. why should having a universal ID for everyone in the country make this so different, I think people are reading far to much into these cards, after all we were all give a "number" when are parents gave birth to us, and we arn't now wanting to get rid of that.

---

by Jayjay
Sorry Maff, but 'only the guilty has anything to fear' is a piece of niavity I thought you were above. The guilty have nothing to fear because there is no evidence it will change conviction rates one iota. It's people like you and me who have everything to fear, because all it take is one faulty piece of data to make you look like something you most definitely are not.

---

Yeah, well i thought better and regretted saying that as soon as i said it, but i didn't want to edit it out and make it look like i'd said something else

www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/07/idcard_debate_details/

Apparently there's going to be a public debate at the London School of Economics on the 19th if anyone's interested.

(Edited by Stoo 08/05/2004 19:29)