NO2ID

gordon, please don't try to distort my words. I did not say that we are inconvenienced by crooks. If you have trouble parsing that sentence, I can make it clearer for you: I fail to see what benefit is to be derived by inconveniencing all of those who choose not to carry a card but who do not lie about who they are, while allowing people with fake cards to "operate where there is minimal security" .

Most of the inconveniences that we now suffer are the result of government regulations. Banks and lawyers were perfectly happy not to require ridiculous quantities of identity documents from clients until the government insisted that they do so. Similarly, airlines (other than El Al) seemed to think the previous security arrangements at airports perfectly sufficient until the government mandated more inconvenience in an attempt to show how tough they are. Effects suffered as a result of crime tend to be of an entirely different nature and will not be altered in any way by ID cards.

You have identified exactly why teenagers carry fake ID cards. The fact that they don't generally use them for anything too serious is beside the point. I was merely demonstrating that your assertion that there will be very few fake ID cards is not at all credible.

Regarding "ultra-high-value targets", I'm far more concerned about the well-being of people than the possibility of criminals making off with £10 million. Personally I don't think that ID cards will make much difference one way or the other when it comes to financial fraud, which is probably why the banks haven't tried to introduce photo-ID or biometric cards themselves.

Of course, the compulsory recording of biometrics on a central database effectively prevents anyone from using them as a secure token in other relationships, such as with their bank, should they choose to do so, and the NIR will probably make blackmail easier, but overall I do not rate these things as the most significant objections to the scheme.

I'm well aware that there is a £1000 fine for not updating DVLA records (if you continue to drive), but as I said previously, people are free to make their own decisions on such matters without affecting every other aspect of their lives. Bear in mind that there are generally ways to comply with requirements to update these existing databases without breaking the law. If I change my name and move to a new area, I can notify the new council of where I live without telling them my previous name. Similarly, I can legally buy property under a new name if I am not attempting to commit fraud. Getting a new driving licence in a new name should be a simple matter for anyone who can pass the driving test.

The NIR is very different. It will record all previous names. It will also ensure that records are linked by means of a unique identifier (NIRN) that will track you through life.

Why will an ID card be needed for medical treatment and other routine interactions with the state? Because government ministers say so:

David Blunkett:
Identity Cards, Next Steps, November 2003

Andy Burnham:
Written answer, 10th October 2005

Incidentally, the Commons Health Select Committee has complained that the government are unable to provide any figures to justify concerns about "health tourism".


It really doesn't take much imagination to consider how someone might use a centralised master database of names and addresses to track someone down. The easiest way would be to chuck 50 quid, or whatever the going rate is, to someone with access. There are other possibilities, of course, such as abusing the online facility to access personal data that the government have said that they intend to implement to enable people to verify that the data are correct and update records conveniently.

Geraint: *I fail to see what benefit is to be derived by inconveniencing all of those who choose not to carry a card but who do not lie about who they are, while allowing people with fake cards to "operate where there is minimal security" .*

The inconveniece arises because at present nobody knows who isn't lying.

In the past year, the cost of the inconvenience to me of proving my ID has been about the same as the cost of the ID Card.


"The NIR is very different. It will record all previous names. It will also ensure that records are linked by means of a unique identifier (NIRN) that will track you through life."

Past names can be hidden in normal use. It's common practise in other sensitive computer systems.

David Blunkett:
Identity Cards, Next Steps, November 2003

This is for immigrants. Immigrants are the only people who will be forced to have ID Cards. It means they can't walk into a hospital for a hip-replacement operation on the NHS.

I don't think this happens very much, if at all. I don't see how it can. Unfortunately this daft argument has been going on for about 15 years ever since Peter Lilley first raised it at a Tory party conference in the days when the Tories were the nasty party. It sticks in the mind because the press play it up.

I agree with Andy Burnham's comments. Especially about work. When illegal working is tackled, then the other two won't need much attention.

"It really doesn't take much imagination to consider how someone might use a centralised master database of names and addresses to track someone down. The easiest way would be to chuck 50 quid, or whatever the going rate is, to someone with access."

It doesn't. I agree. It can be done now.[/quote]

Serisouly you accuse us of lying, but that my friend has to take the biscuit.

let me make it perfectly clear to you, EVERYONE in the UK as a registered citizen will be REQUIRED by law to carry a valid ID card about their person at all times when they leave their front door. They will also have to present at anytime when required to do so by those with the power to make such requests (such as police, civil servants etc)

Please if you havent already then do actually read the ID Cards Act before spouting such utter tripe on these boards.

You are using disinformation tactics. Lie, lie, lie, lie, lie.
Why do you attempt to avoid the issue with such disinformation tactics?

The police etc. will be able to check identites without the physical presence of a card by checking a persons biometrics which are a part of their body. Essentially your body will link you to a unique NIR record and the card might as well not exist.



Simple. All you do is make contributions to the NHS voluntary. The people who do not wish to have a national ID card can then direct their money towards alternative health care providers. This argument then reveals itself for what it is! A gross manipulation.

If the government offers an insurance service such as job seekers allowance it should be contractually agreed and others should be able to offer similar services in voluntary agreements. Obviousely if a person does not wish to pay for a service then they can not be eligible for it. That is quite different to forcing people to pay for a service and then arguing that they must be forcefully biometrically branded to stop the 'unperson' from accessing the service without paying. First you have to justify legal plunder which you can not do because it is an immoral act. We have nothing to loose because charitable donations will protect those who are unable to pay for services.

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

KitFox, the act requires people to enrol on the National Register when applying for a designated document and, after 2010, to accept an ID card at the same time, but there is nothing yet that requires the cards to be carried.

Gordon,

the inconvenience certainly does not arise because "nobody knows who isn't lying". My bank, who have had the benefit of my custom for many years, do not have any doubt about my identity and until recently were prepared to offer me services with a minimum of hassle. Recent changes, resulting from the Financial Services And Markets Act 2000, have introduced inconvenience because the Financial Services Authority, acting on behalf of the government, now demands that they keep an auditable paper trail to prove that they know who I am. This additional bureaucracy does nothing to protect either me or my bank. The inconvenience is purely a result of excessive government regulation.

Your suggestion that "past names can be hidden in normal use" completely fails to address the point that anyone with access to a person's NIR record, either through a corrupt civil servant, abuse of the online convenience features, hacking, or any other method, will certainly have access to the previous names. This is a major problem with the legislation and one for which the government have offered no justification. Given that compiling a centralised list of everyone's previous names is likely to increase the risk of harm for some people, what justification is there for compiling it in the first place?

Your assertion that only immigrants will be required to prove their entitlement to health services is just plain nonsense. Do you envisage a system in which anyone just saying that they are a citizen will be absolved of any need to present their ID card, while anyone admitting to not being a citizen will be required to prove their identity? Or are you perhaps thinking that it will be alright because only non-white people will be made to suffer this indignity in practice?

Chucking 50 quid at someone does not necessarily work now because there is not yet a central government database containing everyone's current and previous names and addresses. I have already explained how someone can easily avoid updating data on a database which they fear might be compromised. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Geriant, I am of course assuming that once issued to over 50% of the country voluntarily then they will force the registration of the remaining population and indeed it seems that not only the ID cards Act but also other acts passed by the governemnt in recenrt times are clearly preparing for this to be the case.

Hence it is a resonable argument to use that doesnt bend the truth, simply jumps a lil forwards of the current times

It is very important to be precise with language lest people accuse us of the same liguistic manipulation the government uses with the word voluntary. If an ID card is a prerequisite inorder to obtain a passport (itself obligatory to travel abroad) then calling ID cards voluntary is a manipulation. The plan is to coerce us into the ID database. NO one will be phoning up the government and saying, "hey I heard you had this great ID database thing. Can I sign up for it please?" Holidays in Spain are voluntary. ID cards are not.

Geraint: The additional bureaucracy at the bank does not affect you personally (or me), it has to be applied to everyone to be effective. You yourself have pointed out the ways a system can be subverted. Chucking 50 quid at the bank clerk should do it.

The security of personal information depends how many people have access to that information. Very few people, maybe less than a hundred - all in the security services - need full access to a person's record. Updates and verifications do not need read access. You use such a method every time you change your PIN or password. A secure system needs to be different from the system most people use at work.

The risk of harm is offset by the good.

You do not understand the NHS. You do not walk into a GPs surgery and say "I am a citizen, treat me." The GP wants your medical records from your previous GP. From the day you are born you have a GP and a medical record (if you are born here). You can go into any GP's surgery now, give your name and the name of your usual GP and that will be sufficient to confirm your ID for the purpose of the consultation. If you are a foreigner seeking treatment, you will not have a medical record and will be asked for ID. It's as simple as that.

Unperson: I will be volunteering. It will save me a lot of hassle and expense. People are volunteering to have their fingerprints taken at Heathrow Terminal 3 this morning. It's saving them hassle.

KitFox: It would be very foolish to make ID cards compulsory. That's why it won't happen.

Speak for yourself. When the bureaucracy inconveniences me, it affects me personally.

I very much doubt that the system is effective. If it can be easily subverted, what justification can there be for imposing the inconvenience upon each of us?

I certainly have no intention of bribing bank clerks with £50 to open a new account for me. Don't be ridiculous.

The government have said that they intend to allow people to check their records online; that requires read access. Your guess of less than a hundred people with access is preposterous; even government ministers refuse to estimate how many people will have access. Incidentally, with a bit of guesswork and a computer to perform repetitive tasks, simple yes/no verification can provide a great deal of information in certain circumstances.

In your opinion. In mine, there is a great deal of risk of harm and no good to offset it. However, I would be very interested to hear what benefits you think ID cards will bring, as long as you are also prepared to say how they would be achieved.

Thank you for telling me what I do and don't understand. If you can leave your arrogance and impertinance behind, perhaps you might then want to consider why Andy Burnham, when a Home Office minister, said to me over coffee that everyone would be required to present proof of ID cards before obtaining non-emergency medical treatment. Do you have greater knowledge of the government's intent than the minsters responsible for the scheme?

Please stop making things up and asserting mere guesses as facts.

People like you should be shot.

Charming.

unperson: If holidays in Spain are voluntary, then passports are voluntary, therefore ID cards are voluntary.

Geraint: If you use internet banking, you will have noticed that you cannot update your records on line. You can check your statement, but cannot correct errors.

You haven't understood my point about 100 people having access to personal information. You're intelligent. Think. (I'm not going to explain further.)

You suggest others will chuck 50 quid.

If Andy Burnham said that, he was probably mistaken because it isn't necessary.

Guest: gordon armitage did not post the comment 'people like you should be shot.'

Which just goes to show how crap this site is. No security whatsoever. Brilliant!!!!!!

You are using false logic to manipulate the 'cattle'.

Holidays are voluntary, passports are compulsary inorder to travel 'abroad' and internal passports (cattle 'cards') are intended to be compulsary to carry out a wide and ever increasing range of activities forcing those that do not comply out of society. There is a clear and unambigous distinction between the words voluntary and compulsary. It is intended that these cattle 'cards' or chips would be compulsary.

Poppycock! I use internet banking with several banks and building societies, in the UK and elsewhere, and they all allow me to read statements, check and update records (e.g. contact details) and initiate transactions. With every one of the banks (no, I shan't name them*) I can change my address through internet banking, which is the kind of thing that government ministers have suggested that people will be able to do online with the NIR - checking and updating records.

Of course I cannot update a statement directly. Why would I want to? It is a copy of the bank's record of transactions for a specified period. I am perfectly entitled to keep my own records as I see fit and to update them however I like. If there is an error on the bank's statement, it almost certainly means that there has been a mistake which requires a transfer of money to rectify. As no bank would be foolish enough to allow customers to edit the balance of their accounts and I am not aware of ever having encountered a mere printing error on a statement, I fail to see what benefit would be derived from having the ability to change a statement without also amending a financial transaction, unless I wished to defraud someone and use an altered statement as false evidence. Statements are equivalent to the audit trail of the NIR, not its primary records. No one has ever suggested that we will be able to amend the audit trails associated with us.

In other words, you have no answer and are unable to defend your ridiculous assertion. The reality is that vast numbers of people will have access to the NIR and it will leak like a sieve.

I didn't suggest that many people are likely to bribe clerks to open bank accounts, although presumably there are some people who do so in order to avoid scrutiny. However, there is documented evidence that people certainly do bribe officials for access to information stored on government databases. The government even offer it for sale quite legally in some cases, such as our personal data stored on DVLA's database.

None of the ID scheme is necessary. Successive Home Office ministers have said the same thing, face-to-face, in letters and in Parliament. There is no mistake: it is the Home Office's intention that ID cards should be presented routinely when people seek non-emergency healthcare. Apparently they are not quite so keen on paying for the infrastructure to make this happen, hoping instead that the Department of Health will raid its budget to pay for all the scanners, but no doubt they can come to some arrangement with the Treasury if there is sufficient political will.

This site allows Guest users to enter any name that is not taken by a registered user. Anyone who cares that others might impersonate them can register, thus protecting their forum identity. If someone chooses not to do so, for whatever reason, then they leave themselves open to being impersonated.

Moderators may act if people try to impersonate registered users, but it would be wrong to do so for guest users as it would prevent certain people from having the plausible deniability that they obviously crave. Freedom of choice and self-responsibility for identity protection - you wouldn't really expect anything less here, would you?

* Concealing the names of the banks with which I do business is a sensible security precaution. Note, however, that the audit trail of the NIR would deny us this security if the NIR is used to verify identities when accounts are opened.

Comparisons to Nazi Germany are subject to extreme, East Germany's more appropriate as their paper-based NIR just ground people down into nothing. Didn't physically kill them so much as destroyed their minds and souls.
Read Anna Funder's Stasiland!

"Past names can be hidden in normal use. It's common practise in other sensitive computer systems. "

In the Lords a government minister stated that the "former names" was intended to be optional. It was not discussed further after that point, as the original mover agreed to drop the point after being assured that that was the case.

If it's now become mandatory, the government has misled parliament.

Contradicting both the express words of the Act (which have been slightly broadened since the first draft) AND what McNulty said in committee refusing opposition amendments on thos point.

Some time ago, I suggested the compilation of a definitive list of about 50 things that we actually do have to hide. Perhaps covering the 'slightly' illegal - exaggerating tax returns and credit applications - as well as the legal, but mostly the MORAL discrepencies that we all have as human beings. Affairs are an easy example of so called 'immoral' behaviour that includes a large proportion of the public. It may not be a good example to include on a list, but it helps explain what I mean.

There are lots of lesser things that we naturally prefer to keep to ourselves. Just what these things are, I'm not clever/brave enough to figure out. Perhaps a list could be anonymous so as not to be turned against us. It's sole aim is to inform the 'nothing to fear' brigade and those members of the public that just don't care. It would illustrate the realities of how RFID technology could be used against people who are not 'terrorists', 'immigrants' or 'scroungers'.

People would be compelled to read it. Who could resist? It's a very simple way of reaching a lot of people with very little effort. We play the government at it's own game and aim for the lowest common denominator - fear.

Just my thoughts.

I'm with Carpe Noctum and the Chicken (AKA Mr.Clark) on this one ... exactly what I was going to say ...



I usually add, and I guess if you don't have anything to hide, you would mind the Government fitting CCTV in every room in your house?

If you've got 'Nothing to Hide' you've got 'Nothing Inside'

If the government has nothing to fear why do they hide so much? Trite? maybe, but true nonetheless....

Thinking about it, also, a keylogger on your PC. After all, if you've nothing to hide, you don't mind if they see everything you type...

Getting back to the original question - in my experience, a lot of people who use the phrase 'Nothing to Hide, Nothing to Fear' phrase, also use the word 'crime' at some point in their pro-argument.

A possible way to counter this is to give some examples of law changes that would make a lot of people criminals,

e.g.
making a joke about the PM or government
or
meeting in groups of more than three.

Maybe look up some [harsh] laws that people in other countries have been executed for breaking, freedoms that we take for granted while others on the same planet can't afford to.

It's kind of the diplomatic 'ok, you may trust this government, but what about the next, and the one after that...' line of thought [i know a lot of pro-Labour people, so it pays to be diplomatic ]

Sorry - didn't mean to post twice.

Wendy (guest):

a compiled list of universal (or nearly universal) examples would be a great idea, as i'm guessing a lot of us frequently come against this argument?