NO2ID

Please explain to me how the ID card system would be a high value target. Step by step, not some vague waffle.

1) All of your personal identification and indexing information held in a single system.
2) That single system being put forward as a mechanism for definitive proof of your identity.

Ergo, one single high-value target, as per Mr.Watson's "all eggs in one basket" remark.

Guest (illogical): Your response was exactly the vague waffle I wanted to avoid. It's fully expected of course, because no-one has been able to give an explanation as far as I know. You guys are supposed to know the answers to these questions.

After spending up to 10 years working out how to make a fake ID and change the NIR database to reflect those changes, can you please explain what ultra-high-value targets a criminal will be able to attack and how.

I'll give you a starting point. First explain what fake and what genuine information will be on the card/database.

Then explain how an attack will be easier than now.

Gordon there is no point in your line of attack. It is irrational and insane.

Individuals are axiomatically self owners*. This is a fact. Logically therefore it is wrong to force individuals on to a database against their will or to prevent the free market from developing the ID verification techniques that best solve each individual circumstance. You and Blair are simply wrong in your insistance that the monopoly should control peoples identities. All these crazy manipulations are based on the assumption that the state owns the individual which is totally untrue. I would suggest you unlearn your enslavement ideology (collectivism) or seek psychiatric help.
* http://www.tolfa.us/L1.htm


http://mises.org/story/2355#11

Sovereign Individual
__________________
A proponent of the coming free age. http://tolfa.us/ http://www.startster.com/downloads/Mast ... System.pdf

We may be free individuals but we also belong to society.

Please provide evidence that you will be forced to be on the database. I may have missed it.

Or is this another lie?

I don't want ID cards, I think they're a waste of money and they don't provide any real benefits, but I have to agree with "gordon armitage" here. After 3 pages, the No2ID members have yet to give any decent reasons to the "nothing to hide..." argument. This is one of the most frequent replies you'll get from people so you really should have a sound response that isn't vague and full of waffle.

OK, I can see the problem if you are a wife beating victim or a secret agent, but what about the other 99% of people in the UK? How will the government knowing my shopping list, which movies I've been watching, which trains I've been on, who I've been phoning etc. really effect my quality of life?

The reasons I don't want ID cards are:
1) they cost too much
2) they invade privacy
3) they don't give enough benefits to counter 1 and 2

These 3 reasons are good enough that I don't even need to address the "nothing to hide..." argument. I'd rather people didn't know things about me they didn't have to, but I still can't think of anything really awful the government could do unless I was breaking the law.

Crime prevention requires us to give up some freedoms. For instance, a security camera in the bank tells people where you've been, your credit card bill tells people what you've been buying. The ethical question is "How much privacy are you willing to give up for crime prevention?". Most people would draw a line at having video cameras and tracking devices implanted in everyones head. It's up to you to convince people that ID cards are a step to far.

If you cannot do this, stop talking rubbish and stick to the real reasons you don't want ID cards. Saying that people that use the "nothing to hide..." argument are stupid and don't understand the world is a failing of you as a campaigner; the whole purpose of No2ID is to convince people that ID cards are bad.

Stop being pedantic and address the issue at hand. If I'm forced to go to jail because I committed a crime, does that go against that I own myself and cannot be made to do anything I don't want? Can I be forced to pay taxes? Can I be forced to not rob a bank? Who cares what the definition of "individual" is?

What you're saying doesn't mean anything and your just being pedantic about word definitions to avoid addressing the point. This doesn't convince anyone of anything.

Certainly.

Read this article again, carefully:

http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1665852,00.html

Observe that the NIR is planned to contain a superset of the data stolen from the DWP payroll database. Furthermore, while the DWP payroll only held details of a few tens of thousands of DWP employees, the NIR will contain information on everyone in the country over 16. Even if we assume that criminal gangs only want to carry out the same family tax credit scam, for them compromising the NIR is clearly much more valuable than breaking into the DWP payroll database.

It gets worse. The NIR contains a great deal of other information that payroll databases don't, but which is useful if you want to impersonate people online to steal their identities. Above all, the audit trail of identity checks gives the criminals a list of companies that you do business with, and which they should therefore target when trying to impersonate you.

Want to find out where I bank? Easy - just look at which banks have done an NIR check on me. It's pounds to pennies I bank with them. A bit of Mitnick-style social engineering using other information in the NIR gives access to bank accounts. Want to find a list of people who've recently bought expensive jewelry to steal? Easy, just look for NIR checks on large purchases at Aspreys. You can pop round and steal the goods at leisure. Want to find celebrities to blackmail? Check to see which ones have checked into addiction clinics.

Remember, all this information (and more to be used in frauds and crimes I haven't thought of) can be deduced from the data on the NIR.

If you have read the Acts passed such as the Identity Cards Act 2006 you will see it will be illegal (ie an criminal act) for you to refuse to be registered.

That is the evidence you are being forced onto the databases. You are given no chance to refuse or opt out in any way.

As far as I am concerned it is the crux of the matter and fundamental. Politicians waffle on about the benefits of this and that but the real issue is do I want an Id card and an entry on their database. In my case no thank you very much leave me out of it and if they will threaten me with fines and imprisonment then I say that is an infringment of my liberty. I have already had to leave the country and continue moving to save myself from being forced to finance the Iraq war and other statist monsters so I would say I have strong principles and have made great sacrifices to stick to them. This issue is critical and as I have said elsewhere collectivist ideology is the cause of the 170,000,000 people who were killed in state wars in the last century.

The issue of self ownership is fundamental. It is about fully respecting oneself and naturally fully respecting each other sovereign individual. It is from this basis that we can acheive a fully peaceful, harmonious and happy society. The notion of imposing ID cards from a centralised state system is fascism pure and simple and is an inexcusable denial of ones humanity and an afront to your fellow human beings.

If what I was saying didn't mean anything it wouldn't challenge people to think and it wouldn't arouse feelings and discussion in the way that is does. I am just one person and I invest a lot of my time in this and I don't even have any intention of living in the UK in the future so believe me when I say I think you are in grave danger if you ignore the dangers of the database state. If you sit in the box and make no attempt to move outside of it you may well believe that you are free. However if you try to do something different you will find that you are tightly constrained. I for one have spent years in misery because of the states belief that it should prevent me from living in the country where my girlfriend was and I blame it for that and for forcing the British to finance Iraq (the blood aint on MY hands mate) which as I have said has forced me into a nomadic lifestyle and I know I AM DOING THE RIGHT THING.

KitFox: Where in the ID Card Act does it say it will be illegal for you to be registered if you are not already a UK citizen?

you mean if you you refuse to be registered?

well if your not a UK citizen and spend more than 3months in the UK you will require one and if you are a uk citizen you will require one

so yes you are being forced to have and carry an ID card and goto the NIR & its accompanying databases by law and you cant refuse or stop it if government gets its way.

sorry I cant remember the presise parts of the act, but i'm sure someone like geriant or guy will be aware of the relevant sections.

Contradictions do not exist in reality but only in the minds of people who do not think clearly.



There is a contradiction in this statement. How can an individual be free and yet be owned by society? Either one or the other can be true and it is very hard for any sane person to deny that an individual is whole, complete and excercises free will in making reasoned, action decisions for themselves. Therefore they can not possibly belong to society or the state as you maintain.

(since this seems to be deviating somewhat)

How well would a response of "that's a false dichotomy" be received?

The assertion that
"if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear"
is no different from saying
"if you're not with us, you're with the terrorists".
How best to put this across? Would a simple statement to that effect be enough?

It splits everybody into either "innocent" or "guilty" (by which jury?) with no consideration for "not under suspicion" or "never even accused".

The difficulty is with constructing a similar enough (and short!) false dichotomy which whilst potentially plausible at an extreme, shows unequivocally that the argument of 'nth-ntf' holds no value.

At risk of repeating a posting somewhere,
Source => Part of a series on detailing the various ways in which arguments or points are made badly, but often persuasively which seems to fit the bill.

Guest: What's this 'owned by society' mularky? Never heard the phrase before.

You said it.

If I join a golf club I'm 'owned' by it? Interesting interpreation.

The Govt has made it clear throughout that the intention is for all residents to be registered. Who must be registered (on the basis of designated documents) is left to delegated legislation, as are all other significant details of the scheme save its monolithic centralised character and audit trail.

It is highly likely that compulsory (or pseudo-voluntary) registration for aliens would be brought by creating certificates of residential status under immigration legislation and using them in combination with the designated documents procedure. However it isn't going to happen until there's a Register for them to be registered on, and it can't happen to EU citizens until it's compulsory for British ones. (The European court would look at the substance of a pseudo-voluntary registration procedure and pay no attention to Home Office dissimulation.)

NO lowercase gordon. You will have joined the golf club.

You will find plenty of fellow collectivists here! http://www.politicsforum.co.uk

Gesh: Thank you. I thought the situation was something like that. EU citizens are free to move in and out of the UK, so would not be forced to register.

Gradually we will get two classes of citizen. Trusted citizens who have registered, and untrusted citizens who will come under more scrutiny and may well be denied credit etc.

Indeed. You write that as if it is a good thing. No doubt the government do hope to achieve such a segmentation of the population, whereas what most users of ID cards would probably hope for is a scheme that separates the trustworthy from the untrustworthy.

Note that "trusted" is not the same as "trustworthy". There will be no shortage of fake ID cards allowing people with criminal intent to avoid excessive scrutiny; meanwhile, life will be made much more difficult for the innocent who have something to hide, such as victims of domestic abuse who would be terrified of updating a leaky central register with their current name and whereabouts.

Geraint: "Trusted" is not the same as "trustworthy." Agreed. Those not having ID cards will be deemed untrustworthy.

There will be far fewer fake ID Cards than there are fake Credit Cards (ie not many) and the fakes will not allow more people to escape excessive scrutiny. They will enable people to operate where there is minimal scruitiny.

I still haven't had an answer to my question (on another thread) "How will ultra-high-value targets be attacked using a fake ID Card?"

Victims of domestic abuse do not operate undercover now. They are already known to various agencies who could all blow their cover.

gordon: "deemed untrustworthy", i.e. "untrusted". The point remains that an ID card bears little relation to the underlying trustworthiness of its carrier.


Evidence for this wild assertion? Stopping to chat to a group of teenagers in the street is far more likely to reveal that they carry fake ID than fake credit cards. I would also submit that there are more fake passports in Britain than fake credit cards. If you have evidence to the contrary, I would be very interested to see it.


I partially agree with you on this. ID cards, genuine or fake, will not allow people to avoid the excessive scrutiny that comes from the imposition of more bureaucracy. However, I fail to see what benefit you believe is to be derived from allowing people with fake cards to "operate where there is minimal security" while inconveniencing all of those who do not choose to carry a card but who do not lie about who they are; unless you believe that forcing people to carry ID cards is a benefit per se.


It has been answered many times. High value targets will be at greater risk of attack through the data stored on the National Identity Register than through fake cards.


"Undercover"? What a sinister-sounding phrase you use to describe someone who tries to protect their privacy. Do you really not know anyone who has moved house and has an unlisted phone number in the hope of not being tracked by an ex-partner? If not, you might wish to consider enlarging your social network before proclaiming how people do or don't "operate" now.


And everyone is free to update their details with the various agencies as they see fit. If someone fears a violent ex-partner who works for DVLA, they can choose not to update those records and live with the consequences, which won't include being denied medical treatment or the ability to enrol their children at a local school.

Centralisation of records on one national, master database is a profound change. Until the introduction of the NIR, there is no obligation upon people who move to a new area to tell central government where they have moved to. At the moment, people do not need to live "undercover" to maintain their privacy and security. I see no reason why the state should try to force them to.

Geraint: I agree. We are all inconvenienced by the crooks. It's a pain. And costly too.

I didn't know about the extent of teenagers carrying fake ID, but what exactly does it allow them to do - apart from drink alcohol, buy fags and other teenage preoccupations?

Nobody is asking you to carry a card. I won't be carrying one, just as I don't carry a passport or driving licence. I won't need to.

It has been asserted that there will be a greater risk of high-value attacks on the NIR. What I want is an example of what would happen if the attack succeeds. How will it be easier to make off with 10 million quid?

I dot know someone who has been subject to domestic abuse. Undercover was not meant to be sinister. I understand their reasons perfectly well. I don't understand how the NIR will make it easier for them to be tracked down. That's all.

The consequnce of not updating the DVLA system is a £1000 fine. Not many people seem to know that, so I assume it is rarely applied.

There's probably a similar fine for not notifying the local council for Council Tax purposes.

And probably a similar fine for not notifying the Inland Revenue.

And there's certainly an obligation to tell the Land Registry when you buy a new house. Not for tenants of course.

Why will an ID card be needed to enrol your children at a local school or have medical treatment? You already have an NHS number and medical records at you GP.

Now I can see the case for not enroling pupils without ID, because I'm told a number of parents lie about their address so they can get their kids into a 'good' school. I'm sure it can be worked around though. The authorities aren't evil.

Oh yes they are. Inherrently.