---

by Kneon Light
(quotes)

Can you give me a couple of examples. I can't think of anything I could possibly want to keep hidden (apart from a few websites I may have looked at when my wifes been out!)

---

Don't worry, there's a Home Office minister to do the thinking for you on that one.

Campaign groups the government doesn't like would be a major one.

---

by Byron
(quotes)

Campaign groups the government doesn't like would be a major one.

---

But this info wouldn't be on an ID card. How would ID cards make a difference to this?

Are were suffering from Collective Amnesia? We had this disccusion already in a previous thread. (Also called ID cards!)

But anyway it gives me the oppurtunity to restate my case and my objection.

1. It's a step further towards presumed guilt - where the ID card is used to prove your innocence.

2. Based on the last point it is a further erosion of personal responsibility. The more the "nanny state" makes decisions on your behalf (because presumably you can't be trusted to make them yourself) the less autonomy you have. This is a BAD thing.

3. I object to having to possess a tag in order to live. Cattle have tags.

4. I consider my DNA, Iris and Fingerprints to be personal possessions. They are my signature and they belong to me. I would consider having to give these over without my consent to be a violation of my human rights.

Lastly - in the thread I started some months ago I notice somebody had mentioned something along the lines of "This is not as bad as being Microchipped whereby you had something implanted under your skin". Actually I fail to see why it's much different. Presuming there were no health difficulties and the chip carried the same information how could you be for ID cards and not for having a microchip under the skin. Wouldn't it (according to the Pro ID Card lobby) be just a logical extension of the ID card allowing you to never lose your ID?)

---

by Funky Monkey


3. I object to having to possess a tag in order to live. Cattle have tags.

---

You already have one that's issued when your 16 .... it's called a NI number. And the majority of civil servants working in DWP can find you in approx 2 secs.

I have no objections to ID cards, infact I think in a lot of ways for the most part they will be very helpful to people, I'd love not to have to take my passport, a recent utility bill, my driving licence everywhere I go that I want to open a bank account or get credit.

After all we in everyday life have so many pieces of imformation about us held in computers, as I've already said your NI number, your Tax ref, your driving licence, your passport. Just get a credit report from Experian and see just how much info on you they actually have!! tis shocking really and thats just a credit reference agency!

---

by Byron
The burden of evidence shifts to you to prove yourself innocent.

---

Not the proof of your innocence shifts the proof of your identity shifts. You now have to proof your identity when asked for by the authorities. Thats something totally different. And whats wrong with proving your identity it's you isn't it

---

Of course biometric information is more valuable that credit details and address. They can't be used to categorise and incriminate you like biometrics can.

---

Many crimes specially drug related (not your petty drug dealer but the big guys) are found not by them being directly involved but by following the money trail.

---

If the biometric information wasn't so valuable the government wouldn't be willing to shell out over a billion pounds to collect it.

---

Uhmmm because it's the only known way of doing an almost fool proof check of identification. Have you got any idea how easy it is to copy an "normal" idcard / passport? Takes about 30 minutes and 5 grand. It is valuable not because they can predict from it that you will be a future criminal or that you have health problems which are very expensive to the NHS. Its the only way that they can get an identification which is pretty secure. Totally different value. Depending on the implementation (for example digital fingerprint and irisscan) there is very little chance of this information being used for anything else at all as what the heck would you want to do with a fingerprint and an irisscan? (and if someone would want to make a copy of your fingerprints to frame you they would just get it from the pint glasses you had your beers in yesterday evening in the pub.

---

Depends if the "efforts being made" actually increase security or just increase government power.

---

Making a shift if proof of identity isn't really that strange in this modern day and age. And honestly I don't see the problem with it except if you blow it out of proportion and say "proof of innocence". You shouldn't be able to get away with giving false identity to the Police which hinders their work.

---

4. I consider my DNA, Iris and Fingerprints to be personal possessions. They are my signature and they belong to me. I would consider having to give these over without my consent to be a violation of my human rights.

---

I hereby urge you to remove all the fingerprints that you left through the years of any public property. If you leave something laying around like that you can't really say that "giving" these over is against your human rights. As a statement I suggest you start wearing surgical gloves all the time when in public to support your statement and not leave any more fingerprints

---

by Chambler
Not the proof of your innocence shifts the proof of your identity shifts. You now have to proof your identity when asked for by the authorities. Thats something totally different.

---

No, it isn't. Having to prove your identity shifts the burden to *you* to justify your precense. The thinking behind that: you're dodgy until you convince *them* you're innocent.

---

Many crimes specially drug related (not your petty drug dealer but the big guys) are found not by them being directly involved but by following the money trail.[/b]

---

As any lawyer will tell you, it's a little bit harder to link someone to money trails than biometrics.

---

Uhmmm because it's the only known way of doing an almost fool proof check of identification.

---

"Fool proof check of identification": no such thing. Biometrics like finger prints and iris scans are relatively easy to fake compared to other security methods. This is about information, not security.

---

Making a shift if proof of identity isn't really that strange in this modern day and age.

---

Ah the old justification for abolishing ancient liberties. It's just "mordernisation". Doesn't make any sense. Modern technology makes the old arguments *more*, not less, compelling, because the government can now doa lot more damage with your information.

---

And honestly I don't see the problem with it except if you blow it out of proportion and say "proof of innocence". You shouldn't be able to get away with giving false identity to the Police which hinders their work.

---

And people don't get away with it now. Very few suspects persist with false identities, and those that do are found out soon enough. It's called detective work. I'm more concerned with the police hindering *my* work.

---

I hereby urge you to remove all the fingerprints that you left through the years of any public property. If you leave something laying around like that you can't really say that "giving" these over is against your human rights. As a statement I suggest you start wearing surgical gloves all the time when in public to support your statement and not leave any more fingerprints

---

If the authorities have no record of those fingerprints, they remain private. So you're arguing against yourself here!

---

by Sange
You already have one that's issued when your 16 .... it's called a NI number. And the majority of civil servants working in DWP can find you in approx 2 secs.

---

No need to spend a billion notes on ID cards then is there!

---

I have no objections to ID cards, infact I think in a lot of ways for the most part they will be very helpful to people, I'd love not to have to take my passport, a recent utility bill, my driving licence everywhere I go that I want to open a bank account or get credit.

---

I don't see how taking your ID card would be any easier than taking your passport. Banks would still want two means of identity. Neither do I see how minor personal convinence can be used to justify a substantial loss of liberty, which your post hasn't addressed.

---

After all we in everyday life have so many pieces of imformation about us held in computers ...

---

Not biometric information. It's a major line to cross.

---

by Byron
Having to prove your identity shifts the burden to *you* to justify your precense. The thinking behind that: you're dodgy until you convince *them* you're innocent.

---

But you are dodgy Nothing can convince me otherwise Remember we have met you
I really get the feeling that you "think" that there will be a cop on every other corner gonna ask you for your id. When trouble arrises and the police acts on that there is asychronisity of data. As the people envolved know very well who is involved and who did what however the police doesn't. So you see that police will first calm down the situation which envolves acting to everyone in the direct area. After the situation is under control they start checking what did exactly happen and which people do we need to pick out. Do you think that is so unreasonable as they do presume more people as "less than innocent" than at the moment they arrive they can prove in a court of law.

---

As any lawyer will tell you, it's a little bit harder to link someone to money trails than biometrics.

---

This is however not what you said.... "They can't be used to categorise and incriminate you like biometrics can." They clearly can it happens a lot. And any lawyer will also say that DNA isn't usable in a lot of cases (or fingerprints for that matter) because if something happens in a public area or an area you frequent it only shows you have been there. And you really don't leave iris prints all over the place Getting someone on biometrics is only easy and allowed in very few situation and even than mostly as indirect evidance.

---

Biometrics like finger prints and iris scans are relatively easy to fake compared to other security methods.

---

Have you been watching too much minority report? The chips used on the biometric id cards come from a special company (based in france if I recall correctly) its a special chip which is also used for the US biometric passport. You can't change the data on the chip so you would have to make a new chip to put the "fake" information on. And as the information how this chip is designed is secret you would need very high tech facilities to slice the chip in 1 atom thin layers and view their design under an electron microscope. After which you could possibly backward engineer the chip. Than you need to produce it which requires your own chip foundry as no chip foundry will produce that chip for you as they all know what it is. At that point you would need special scanning equipment to gather the information that goes onto the chip also you would. Old fashioned passports get copied by taking a picture and gently cutting the top layer of the passport open and replacing the pictures and glewing the top layer back on.

Also which "other security methods" please be specific and are you also against those btw?

---

This is about information, not security.

---

You still haven't showed me why this "information" is valuable. I personally think I put a down a pretty good case why an irisscan would have very little economy value at all. But your argument is "The government is spending loads of money on it to get it so it must therefor be valuable". Since when is government spending a good indication if something is important / valuable or not

---

Modern technology makes the old arguments *more*, not less, compelling, because the government can now doa lot more damage with your information.

---

Damage? With a picture of the vains in your eyes? Do you really think that someone couldn't do a lot more damage with your personal details as banking information / insurance / policies etc? If so I'm more than willing to trade you a picture of the vains in my eyes with all your bank and personal data. Time change and a lot more can be done with information this is why being able to prove your identity comes way more important so only you can change this information. Authorization is a big part of information security. But if you are trying to fight the digital revolution you started a few years too late and you where fighting a losing battle to start with. It's here to stay, information is all around and widely avialable. Better try to secure it and make sure it can't be used by "ill wishers" than trying to abolish it.

---

And people don't get away with it now. Very few suspects persist with false identities

---

Yeah we've seen that on tv - the drunken driver being pulled over. God if you are stupid enough to drink and drive I really don't think you have the brains to create a consistant false identity. You can't just think up a false identity at the side of the road. But if you can get passport and bankaccounts etc in that name it makes it a lot harder to disprove your identity. It's really not idiot boy racers I'm worried about here there are way bigger fish to fry here. And those aren't as easily found out with so called "detective work".

---

If the authorities have no record of those fingerprints, they remain private. So you're arguing against yourself here!

---

Funny definition of private you have there: If the authorities have no record of it it is private. Private == not within the public domain. If you leave your fingerprints all over the place it is free for everyone to make a copy of them and store those. Sure not very many people will do that but still if you are so against this information becoming public you shouldn't leave it laying around

---

by Chambler
But you are dodgy Nothing can convince me otherwise Remember we have met you

---

Bow Mr Pot, arise Sir Kettle.

---

I really get the feeling that you "think" that there will be a cop on every other corner gonna ask you for your id. When trouble arrises and the police acts on that there is asychronisity of data. As the people envolved know very well who is involved and who did what however the police doesn't. So you see that police will first calm down the situation which envolves acting to everyone in the direct area. After the situation is under control they start checking what did exactly happen and which people do we need to pick out. Do you think that is so unreasonable as they do presume more people as "less than innocent" than at the moment they arrive they can prove in a court of law.

---

Sorry don't really get what you're saying here.

---

This is however not what you said.... "They can't be used to categorise and incriminate you like biometrics can." They clearly can it happens a lot. And any lawyer will also say that DNA isn't usable in a lot of cases (or fingerprints for that matter) because if something happens in a public area or an area you frequent it only shows you have been there. And you really don't leave iris prints all over the place Getting someone on biometrics is only easy and allowed in very few situation and even than mostly as indirect evidance.

---

Think you're working on Dutch law there, because under English law getting a suspect's biometric data is easy (the police don't even need a court order) there are virtually no limits on how the data can be used, and it's given as direct evidence in court.

---

Have you been watching too much minority report? The chips used on the biometric id cards come from a special company (based in france if I recall correctly) its a special chip which is also used for the US biometric passport. You can't change the data on the chip so you would have to make a new chip to put the "fake" information on. And as the information how this chip is designed is secret you would need very high tech facilities to slice the chip in 1 atom thin layers and view their design under an electron microscope. After which you could possibly backward engineer the chip. Than you need to produce it which requires your own chip foundry as no chip foundry will produce that chip for you as they all know what it is. At that point you would need special scanning equipment to gather the information that goes onto the chip also you would. Old fashioned passports get copied by taking a picture and gently cutting the top layer of the passport open and replacing the pictures and glewing the top layer back on.

---

Or fool the famously reliable computers of government company EDS, which will actually be reading the ID cards. Do you know for sure this French company will be making the ID card chip?

---

Also which "other security methods" please be specific and are you also against those btw?

---

Anything from encryption to a pin number. If this chip is as impenetrable as you say, they'd be equally safe on it!

---

You still haven't showed me why this "information" is valuable. I personally think I put a down a pretty good case why an irisscan would have very little economy value at all.

---

Since no one here has argued biometrics have economic value, you well might have, but to what point I'm not sure!

---

But your argument is "The government is spending loads of money on it to get it so it must therefor be valuable". Since when is government spending a good indication if something is important / valuable or not

---

A good indication of what's valuable to *them*.

---

Damage? With a picture of the vains in your eyes? Do you really think that someone couldn't do a lot more damage with your personal details as banking information / insurance / policies etc? If so I'm more than willing to trade you a picture of the vains in my eyes with all your bank and personal data.

---

To the bloke in the street, the cash details are more valuable. To a government intent on controlling it's citizens, the biometrics win.

---

Time change and a lot more can be done with information this is why being able to prove your identity comes way more important so only you can change this information. Authorization is a big part of information security. But if you are trying to fight the digital revolution you started a few years too late and you where fighting a losing battle to start with. It's here to stay, information is all around and widely avialable. Better try to secure it and make sure it can't be used by "ill wishers" than trying to abolish it.

---

Who's trying to "fight the digital revolution"? I'm fighting to stop it being abused to rob people of privacy. If I want to take the risk of identity fraud, my choice.

One moment you're arguing that biometrics are worthless, the next they're so valuable the government is justified in spending a billion of taxpayers' cash on them. So which is it?

---

Yeah we've seen that on tv - the drunken driver being pulled over. God if you are stupid enough to drink and drive I really don't think you have the brains to create a consistant false identity. You can't just think up a false identity at the side of the road. But if you can get passport and bankaccounts etc in that name it makes it a lot harder to disprove your identity. It's really not idiot boy racers I'm worried about here there are way bigger fish to fry here. And those aren't as easily found out with so called "detective work".

---

Not sure what your point is here either.

---

Funny definition of private you have there: If the authorities have no record of it it is private. Private == not within the public domain. If you leave your fingerprints all over the place it is free for everyone to make a copy of them and store those. Sure not very many people will do that but still if you are so against this information becoming public you shouldn't leave it laying around

---

Unless someone has a master copy of your biometrics to compare prints with, in effect they're not in the public domain, because no bugger knows who they belong to. You're anonymous, therefore, they're private.

---

by Byron
Or fool the famously reliable computers of government company EDS, which will actually be reading the ID cards. Do you know for sure this French company will be making the ID card chip?

---

Well they have some patents on it so pretty sure that those chips will be made there. As the UK hasn't turned into China just yet

---

Anything from encryption to a pin number. If this chip is as impenetrable as you say, they'd be equally safe on it!

---

encryption is a nice buzz word but you need to encrypt something which can than prove your identity. Having just a pin is very limited. Pins are numbers which limits the maximum number of combinations combine this with the fact that the average person can't remember very long sequences of numbers you kinda run into a limitation. Although here we have something you always carry with you you can't forget it as it's kinda attached and producing it is no problem what so ever. And best of all it's unique and convient as when was the last time you left your eyes at home?

---

Since no one here has argued biometrics have economic value, you well might have, but to what point I'm not sure!

---

I am arguing the value of biometric information compared to information already out there which we don't seem to be all that bothered about. If Biometrics in the form of fingerprints and irisscan has no economic value it's not very likely that it will be "sold" to third parties later on. Which if I recall correctly was one of your earlier arguments.

---

A good indication of what's valuable to *them*.

---

You are mixing the means and the ends. Increased security is the goal and using biometrics is a means to that end. The ends are what are valuable to *them* not the means by which to achieve it.

---

To the bloke in the street, the cash details are more valuable. To a government intent on controlling it's citizens, the biometrics win.

---

This is what you keep saying. But I don't hear why. Please explain to me how a picture of vains in my eyes can put more control on me as a government who has free access to my "other information".

---

I'm fighting to stop it being abused to rob people of privacy. If I want to take the risk of identity fraud, my choice.

---

You forget one little detail how takes the burden for that identity fraud...... In most cases this isn't you. It's very easy to say oooh yeah thats my choice to make if you don't suffer the consequences. This isn't a decision you can take as an individual because it impacts other people. And your freedom ends where it impacts others.

---

One moment you're arguing that biometrics are worthless, the next they're so valuable the government is justified in spending a billion of taxpayers' cash on them. So which is it?

---

Yet again means to and end Biometric information a such represent very little economic value. Although there are applications in which biometrics could be used which are extremely profitable. But the government doesn't invest billions in "biometrics" because they think it is such a "funny" thing to do. Their underlaying goal is security in one way shape or form which to them is worth all that money.

---

Not sure what your point is here either.

---

That the good old detective work doesn't work in cases when we aren't talking about simple identity fraud as we picked those out anyways. It's the big guy and the somewhat more advanced criminals that now still delude the law.

---

Unless someone has a master copy of your biometrics to compare prints with, in effect they're not in the public domain, because no bugger knows who they belong to. You're anonymous, therefore, they're private.

---

If I know who you are..... and I know which glass was yours than by all likelyhood the majority of finger prints on that glass will belong to you. So I don't need a mastercopy I just need to be very focused

Although biometrics under UK law might be easily obtained by police that doesn't mean it tells you anything more. A hair found in a stairway suggest that you have been there. Doesn't tell you how long ago and what you where doing there. Sure there are other biometric sample which are due to their placing somewhat more directly incriminating in certain cases. But in most cases it isn't direct evidance that links you to a crime it just places you at the spot and than even time is a important factor which are hard to determine by biometrics alone.

(Edited by Chambler 12/12/2004 02:26)

---

by Byron
(quotes)
Or fool the famously reliable computers of government company EDS, which will actually be reading the ID cards. Do you know for sure this French company will be making the ID card chip?

---

It will eithier go to the lowest possible tender or the one thats most likely to make a sizeable donation to the Labour party wont it.

---

by Sange
(quotes)

You already have one that's issued when your 16 .... it's called a NI number. And the majority of civil servants working in DWP can find you in approx 2 secs.

---

Well they can on the days their computers feel like working

This isn't really the same thing. The card was issued to me, but I was also issued with a card for "Mr Blobby's Fan Club" which also has a unique ID number. (Ok, I made that up but you get the idea). The NI number is useless for identity. And according to my NI number I live at 51 Johnson Street, Blackburn. Somewhere I have NEVER lived.

Yes, DWP must have my current address from my employer. Big woo. They have financial info about me to. As Chambler points out, banks have all sorts of info on me. NI is not a cattle tag. I could, if I want, quit my job, and become a homeless person. Then all data DWP had on me would be meaningless. You see, I dont need my NI card to live (in fact I lost my NI many years ago).

The tagging thing comes in by virtue of the fact that the gov't are saying "in order to exist, you must exist in our database - otherwise you are a criminal". I will not stand for that. I suspect others wont. Maybe me + byron will be sharing a cell for not taking one of these damn cards.

---

by Chambler
(quotes)Well they have some patents on it so pretty sure that those chips will be made there. As the UK hasn't turned into China just yet

---

Yes but China has turned into China. You said earlier no chip foundy would make this chip? I'm sure they would in China. China already fabricates fake semiconductors. It's usually only a matter of time before the fraudsters catch up.

---

by Funky Monkey
(quotes)

Well they can on the days their computers feel like working

---

Random amusement: An EDS contractor broke the 60,000 PCs at the DWP by pushing out a Windows XP patch to all the PCs by accident (mostly Windows 2000).

EDS are the company handling the national ID card scheme, as it happens.

They're also known for over running every single contract they've been awarded for the UK government. Previous things EDS have been involved with include the new Passport IT systems, which caused massive delays, and changes to the Child Support Agency which messed up badly.

They're also sueing the UK government for a good few million, as the UK government recently pulled out of an IT contract they've handed to EDS, who ran it over budget by millions and delayed it.

I used to work with EDS. They're great, and don't profit _massively_ from everything IT wise in the UK they can for shareholders. Oh no.

---

by Funky Monkey
I'm sure they would in China. China already fabricates fake semiconductors. It's usually only a matter of time before the fraudsters catch up.

---

The reverse engineering process alone would cost a few million. Creating the masks to create the chips would cost around the same. Than the chip still needs to be made. Pretty costly won't you say for making a few chips as there isn't really a big market for them.

Also these are the same chips used in the US idcards. With it being such an important part of their security framework do you seriously think they will not keep very good tabs on companies that could possibly copy them and abuse them? With it being a project which would take a pretty long time to complete not really something you can keep secret to this kind of security agencies.

It would be a serious political problem for all parties involved. This isn't the same as making fake semiconducter products as there isn't a billion people internal market for this.

(Edited by Chambler 13/12/2004 19:40)

Let's just put one thing into perspective:

Remember Cellnet's original Pay As You Go mobiles? People learned how to chip the mobile, and there was a fairly huge underground market of people selling chipped mobiles. A group of serious criminal folk in Birmingham, I believe, liased with people from China to help develop their own chip to the system.

You know Retina scanners? They've recently found having excessive water in your eyes (ie blink a lot) confuses the current models of scanners to give you a pass.

You know the multi-million pound, years in development, "Copy protected" music CDs you see, which you can't copy? You can get around them by drawing a circle along the outside edge of the disc with a perm marker, it turned out.

You know the Xbox, which Microsoft spent millions trying to defend against chipping? Took a few months.

You know Playstation 2?

Telewest boxes?

NTL boxes?

You can go on, and on, and on, and on (and on) with these examples. Identity fraud in the UK is a big, big business - you'd be amazed how easy it is to get a fake passport - and as such I'd hardly expect any ID scheme to stay secure for long.

Worst comes to worse: nick somebodies wallet.

Using biometrics for authentication instead of a pin number or a password is a stupid thing to do. Once someone finds a way to copy your biometrics, you're hosed as you can't change your biometrics like you can change a password.

Encryption is only as secure as the key. And every key can be stolen, especially if the government is involved. Steal this one key, that has to be presens at every point where data is stored on those chips, and you're set.

You don't have to copy the chip, you only have to mimic the behaviour of the chip if you insert it in the reader for that chip. And doing things like that is fairly easy, as everyone with a modded XBox can attest.

And if you can't get the chip cracked... there's allways the central database that has to maintained by those nice civil cervants... lots of options for social hacking there too.

So I don't see those chipcards reducing anything but the petty passport-copyers.

By the way, has anyone noticed the topic-id of this thread?

That'd be funny if it was 3 6's, instead of 4. You did mean that, right?

---

by Funky Monkey
(quotes)

Well they can on the days their computers feel like working

I could, if I want, quit my job, and become a homeless person. Then all data DWP had on me would be meaningless. You see, I dont need my NI card to live (in fact I lost my NI many years ago).

---

Just try and live without one, even if you gave up work and became homeless you are still in the system. Even a lot of people that are homeless reley on the NHS Dr's etc etc. People can become lost from the system but in reality you are still there.

---

The tagging thing comes in by virtue of the fact that the gov't are saying "in order to exist, you must exist in our database - otherwise you are a criminal". I will not stand for that. I suspect others wont. Maybe me + byron will be sharing a cell for not taking one of these damn cards.

---

Awwwwwwww I'd come and vist ya both