Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Compulsory ID Card one step closer

TeeJay said:
I was responding to Fong's comments about ID theft and fraud - about people forging documents.

I would be interested in knowing ways in which a biometric system could be evaded and how people would go about creating multiple identities and false identities in a system using biometrics. Fong seemed to be suggesting that this would be easy. I don't think it would be at all.

I don't think they'd even need to. Despite all the best technical measures, all security systems are still vulnerable to 'social engineering' attacks. Besides, if you're a hardened crimininal, why would you even register for an ID card in the first place? (and therefore have your biometrics on the database)

Secondly, although the law currently on the books contains checks against misuse of the database, there is nothing preventing the law being changed at a later date. Besides which, the government couldn't run an IT project if it tried - I fully expect the sytem to be full of holes.
 
TeeJay said:
Do you regard passports as being "compulsory"? Do you object to having to submit a passport photo?

Or are you more concerned with your freedom to travel (with or without visas or restrictions) and with the behaviour of governments who hold information on people (including about our passports) and already have the powers to spy on people in various circumstances?

Not having biometric ID doesn't make people "free".
Having biometric ID doesn't make people oppressed.


Not just passport, on renewal of your driving licence you'll have to get an ID card as Im aware.
 
Crispy said:
I don't think they'd even need to. Despite all the best technical measures, all security systems are still vulnerable to 'social engineering' attacks.
'Social engineering' is a nice phrase - I have heard about it in the context of getting hold of someone's computer password for example - but how exactly would it work in evading a biometric ID system?
Besides, if you're a hardened crimininal, why would you even register for an ID card in the first place? (and therefore have your biometrics on the database)
It seems that it will be initially linked with passports, and there is a very obvious reason why someone would get a passport isn't there? As for other reasons - this would depend what they end up being used for, so I can't really say at this point.

I remember seeing an article a while back that there is a proposal that anyone visiting the UK for more than a certain amount of time will also be required to get an ID, although I will have to see if I can find more information about this.
Secondly, although the law currently on the books contains checks against misuse of the database, there is nothing preventing the law being changed at a later date.
This isn't a very good argument - you might as well outlaw the police force, courts and prisons on the grounds that they could be turned into stromtroopers later on with a change in the law. I am going to comment on what I think of the proposals being made now, not some non-existannt proposals that could theoretically be made in the future.
Besides which, the government couldn't run an IT project if it tried - I fully expect the sytem to be full of holes.
This would be an argument against moving medical records from paper files to electronic form for example - in fact against all government IT projects. Although it is worth being realistic about expected delays and problems, it isn't ultimately a very strong argument against the principle of biometric ID. At best it suggests that the government should wait until it has been show to work properly on a large scale possibly in another country.
 
The card may not be compulsory; it is the ID number that will cause people problems. Every form that you fill in nowadays will have a box for you to write you’re ID number; be it for councils, government, banks, phone, gas and every other company.
Once the private sector decide this is the only ID they will except that’s it game set and match.

The database is the problem not a piece of plastic that you don’t have to carry.
 
Attack the database . If the clerks doing the data entry fear for their families lives if they go to work system is buggered . Its worked for the animal rights nutters . :mad:
 
dylanredefined said:
Attack the database . If the clerks doing the data entry fear for their families lives if they go to work system is buggered . Its worked for the animal rights nutters . :mad:
So attack the working class people going to work and not the Government, that’s a novel thought :confused:
 
Epicurus said:
The card may not be compulsory; it is the ID number that will cause people problems. Every form that you fill in nowadays will have a box for you to write you’re ID number; be it for councils, government, banks, phone, gas and every other company.
Once the private sector decide this is the only ID they will except that’s it game set and match.

The database is the problem not a piece of plastic that you don’t have to carry.
We already have NI numbers, and I don't get asked for that by "councils, government, banks, phone, gas and every other company".

Phone companies typically require some sort of proof of address - for example a bank statement and another bill sent to that address. They don't seem to care about seeing a photo ID of any sort. Other companies are only interested in being given a valid credit card - again as long as they get paid they don't care who you are.

I don't see why all these companies would give a shit about someone's identity - in the two cases above they just care about having a valid address and being assured of being paid, rather than knowing who exactly is paying them.

In any case when people want to open a bank account they often need to provide ID (such as a passport - although as I have had the same account since a teenager I can't remember ever having to produce a passport), so in this specific case it wouldn't be a massive change.

I agree with your point however that it is *how* the system is used and what people are required to do that is the main issue. However having to carry a plastic card *is* part of this issue. I am not in favour of making it compulsory to carry a card nor am I in favour of giving any agency the right to randomly stop people and demand ID. I feel that this is often mixed up with the issue of "biometrics".
 
dylanredefined said:
Attack the database . If the clerks doing the data entry fear for their families lives if they go to work system is buggered . Its worked for the animal rights nutters . :mad:
Great :rolleyes:

"Opponents of ID cards call for child murder"

Which side of the argument are you trying to help here?
 
TeeJay said:
nor am I in favour of giving any agency the right to randomly stop people and demand ID.

Have the police not already got that right? Can the police not already arrest anyone who is thought to have given false particulars?
 
TeeJay said:
We already have NI numbers, and I don't get asked for that by "councils, government, banks, phone, gas and every other company".

Phone companies typically require some sort of proof of address - for example a bank statement and another bill sent to that address. They don't seem to care about seeing a photo ID of any sort. Other companies are only interested in being given a valid credit card - again as long as they get paid they don't care who you are.

I don't see why all these companies would give a shit about someone's identity - in the two cases above they just care about having a valid address and being assured of being paid, rather than knowing who exactly is paying them.

In any case when people want to open a bank account they often need to provide ID (such as a passport - although as I have had the same account since a teenager I can't remember ever having to produce a passport), so in this specific case it wouldn't be a massive change.

I agree with your point however that it is *how* the system is used and what people are required to do that is the main issue. However having to carry a plastic card *is* part of this issue. I am not in favour of making it compulsory to carry a card nor am I in favour of giving any agency the right to randomly stop people and demand ID. I feel that this is often mixed up with the issue of "biometrics".
Well we will have to wait and see :) N.I. numbers are currently meaningless I know of at least 30 people who have made up their NI number (the are loads of pages on the web that will show you, I think most temporary ones are you’re initials and numbers from you’re date of birth and I can’t remember where the last letter comes from but its all there to see) and some have been working on the cards for 5 years.

This ID card number will for all intense be secure and unique to the individual and the main difference is it is starting now so will be easy to collect.

I’ve had an ID card since the day I was born and I have never been ask to show it, if you really believe that private companies will not jump at this data then I think you are wrong, why do shops have all these cards for people to get points back, it isn’t because they want to reward their customers it is to see what they by, when they shop, how much they spend and add this to the information you gave to get the card then it becomes very useful, you need to look at it in the context of all the information they can freely get now like the Electoral roll and other such stuff.

To be able to confirm someone on their database is who they say they are I’d have thought was invaluable.
 
Lock&Light said:
Have the police not already got that right? Can the police not already arrest anyone who is thought to have given false particulars?
Not to randomly stop people iirc.
Part 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) empowers any constable acting with reasonable grounds for suspicion to stop, detain and search you or your vehicle, or anything in or on your vehicle for certain items, which may be seized...
http://www.yourrights.org.uk/your-r...ons-and-vehicles---without-arrest/index.shtml
The power of stop and search under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 can only be exercised if the constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting that stolen or prohibited articles or knives will be found. The Code of Practice elaborates on this requirement. There must be some concrete basis for the officer's belief, related to you personally, which can be considered and evaluated by an objective third person. Mere suspicion based on hunch or instinct might justify observation but cannot justify a search.

Reasonable grounds for suspicion cannot be based solely on attitudes or prejudices towards certain types of people, such as membership of a group within which offenders of a certain kind are relatively common - for example, young football fans. Nor can it be based solely on your skin colour, age, hairstyle, mode of dress, or previous convictions for possessing an unlawful article.
http://www.yourrights.org.uk/your-r...t-arrest/reasonable_grounds_for_suspici.shtml

There is also other legal gubbins, as outlined here:

LEGAL ADVICE FOR ACTIVISTS: Giving your details and showing ID

...and of course anti-terror and public order legislation.
 
Epicurus said:
I’ve had an ID card since the day I was born and I have never been ask to show it...
I thought you said that we would be required to produce these ID all the time? :confused:

Do companies require you to give them your id number?

Don't you think that your comment about NI numbers kind of suggests that the UK doesn't really have a very reliable system of ID at the moment?

I'm not against people coming to the UK to work - I am pro-immigration/emigration and in my heart agree with 'no-boarders'.

However, at the moment it is people with more money and contacts who can come rather than everyone equally from rich and poor countries and and reports that there is no real or systematic management of migration and working in the UK seems to embolden people in their bigotry and anti-immigrant and anti-asylum views.

As much as I'd like there to be no controls on movement whatsoever, if there are controls I'd argue that they should be 'robust' - ie that they actually do what they are designed and meant to do.

I would also argue - ironically - that if we want "no borders" then ultimately reliable ID makes this more likely for more people rather than less: many of the arguments against free movement of people can be countered with the provisio that there is reliable ID in place.

Of course I accept that an ID scheme can be abused as well and could be used to restrict freedoms, but I believe that this depends on the legal framework and context and the way it is used and controlled, not in it simply existing or in the technology used (although biometric technology does make actually carrying an ID card redundant, as your own body becomes the ID card which connects you to the data on the larger database).
 
Epicurus said:
The card may not be compulsory; it is the ID number that will cause people problems. Every form that you fill in nowadays will have a box for you to write you’re ID number; be it for councils, government, banks, phone, gas and every other company.
Once the private sector decide this is the only ID they will except that’s it game set and match.

The database is the problem not a piece of plastic that you don’t have to carry.
Listen to this man :cool:
 
Good news! My passport has nearly expired, so I can get a new one before I'm forced to be registered :-)
I recommend everyone that hates the ID card idea to renew their passport this year.
 
Ms Barlow: The hon. Gentleman obviously was not present for the Second Reading debate, when all that was explained.

While we all value our civil liberties, protection from criminals should be seen as a right—a compulsory right that our Government should be expected to protect. When identities are stolen, our privacy is stolen. When identities are stolen, our financial safety and security are under threat. ID cards—and compulsory ID cards—will protect our ability to live as free individuals in society, without fear of terrorism or financial crime.

from last night's debate

this is such abject shit
a pox on everyone who voted for this last night
 
TeeJay said:
Not having biometric ID doesn't make people "free".
Having biometric ID doesn't make people oppressed.


No, it is just a great tool for anyone who wants to be oppressive.

If you can guarantee the benign character of all future governments and corporations with access to such a tool it would be a great relief.

While youre at it, could we have tomorrows lottery numbers?
 
Welcome to the machine.

Yesteryear we had God, the big force that all humans gave ultimate responsibility to. Better that than being repsonsible ourselves for our actions.

Nowadays, with decades and centuries of the advent and progression of technology, God and religion have been dissed and the machine has taken over. Technology is the new religion.

Free humans still apparantly need something higher than them. Thus with God having fucked off, it's now the machine.

Only when free humans embrace their freedom in full will we be able to fight off things like compulsory id cards. Of course, there are some of these humans around, but it's a small minority.

It's a foregone conclusion that the british public, as a whole, will accept them.
 
(an extract from a longer piece entitled when freedom fails…)

“First up, ID cards. Now the state still has a long way to go before this becomes a reality, and it can only be hoped that as people wake up to the reality of this expensive and unwanted scheme then resistance will grow to the point where it becomes unworkable.

Meanwhile 12,171 people have already pledged to refuse to sign up and put £10 towards a legal fund to fight the Act. Sign up here http://www.no2id.net/

Oppressive and irritating as having to use the ID card will be (and whilst not comulsory, you can guarantee you’ll need one to make a benefit claim, put your kids in school etc) the real beast lurks beneath the surface.

The creation of a national database is being planned with Orwellian stealth.

I’ve seen how it’s going to go down.

The Homeless Link database is used by charities and statutory services for dealing with current and ex-street homeless people. Each ‘client’ is held on this computerised record and any worker who is working with that individual, from any agency ‘in the link’ can access and post information about the client.

Information includes details on mental health/medication, current and former drug use, criminal convictions, housing history, employment and education, sexuality, physical health, pretty much everything about an individual you’d wanna know if you were some sinister control freak despot.

It also includes details of interventions, this means info about the any times that an agency has intervened in a clients life, a typical entry might be

“visited ***** today, he seems very down because his benefits haven’t turned up. is drinking heavily, have concerns about deteriation of his mental health”

or such like, allowing every other professional to read what is going on in that clients life without having to ring/e-mail a worker as they would have had to previously.

Whilst it was resisted by many frontline workers, and checks and balances were put in place (such as police not having access to the database - like we believe them) it is a very useful tool, and is used across the sector (although in the end this was enforced on workers rather than agreed with them).

The informal nature of the record keeping means that unsubstantiated allegations can appear that will dog a clients life for years. the void personally knows of one client who had a suspected and not very serious incident of arson on his record (for which he was never arrested let alone convicted).

This had an enourmous influence in the way he was treated as he began the long journey through the hostel system into a flat, as every professional who worked with him had him down as a potential fire raiser and treated him accordingly without any real evidence whatsoever that it was true.

Whilst clients do have the right to see information held on them (although this is rarely made clear) the agency involved can withold info if it feels that there may be a ’serious risk to the health and safety of the client or any other individual’ if the client is ‘allowed’ to see it. No-one will tell the client this information exists, it will just be removed from the database and his/her file when the request to see it is made.

The Government announced shortly before Christmas that it is creating a database for all children in the UK, to be up and running by 2008.

The database will hold the following details for every child or young person:

*basic identifying information: name, address, gender, date of birth and a unique identifying number based on the existing Child Reference Number/National Insurance Number
* basic identifying information about the child’s parent or carer;
* contact details for services involved with the child: as a minimum school and GP practice, but also other services where appropriate; and
* the facility for practitioners to indicate to others that they have information to share, are taking action, or have undertaken an assessment, in relation to a child.

which all seem very familiar.

Presumably when that child turns 18 then information will be transferred to the National ID database, thereby creating a lifelong record held by the state of an incredible amount of information about an individual. Behaviourial problems at school … you could still be living them down when your 50.

And imagine how much that information could be worth - to marketing companies, cops, drug companies, employers, paedophiles and ex-lovers, you name it, they’ll buy it.”
 
Lords continue to fight against ID cards - they may have bribed their way in but thank god they;re there.

"The Lords voted 219 to 191 - a majority of 28 - for a compromise motion watering down the controversial bill, despite a warning from the government that continuing to oppose the bill could have serious consequences for the future of the Lords."

-nice to see democracy in action - votw against it and well scrap the house of lords...grrrr

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,1741449,00.html?gusrc=ticker-103704
 
Guardian Unlimited said:
... a warning from the government that continuing to oppose the bill could have serious consequences for the future of the Lords ...
Are they planing to bomb/invade the place?
 
TeeJay said:
Which side of the argument are you trying to help here?
Did you not know? It is compulsory to greatly exaggerate every possible aspect of anything you are against, to treat all rumours as absolute gospel and to assume that the worst possible outcome will happen, regardless of any evidence / assurances to the contrary.

That way you ensure that any genuine concerns you have can be dismissed as the rantings of a rabid lunatic.

The only possible positions you can have are (a) naive mug, totally subservient to the State, "Sheeple", etc or (b) fight everything, all the time, deny the blindingly bleeding obvious .... :rolleyes:
 
Lock&Light said:
Have the police not already got that right? Can the police not already arrest anyone who is thought to have given false particulars?
No. And yes.

But the arrest only comes where there is evidence of an offence where a failure to provide a name and address suitable for summons would be grounds for arrest as an alternative. There is no power to stop someone simply to demand their details and there is no offence and no power of arrest if they do not provide them.
 
detective-boy said:
No. And yes.

But the arrest only comes where there is evidence of an offence where a failure to provide a name and address suitable for summons would be grounds for arrest as an alternative. There is no power to stop someone simply to demand their details and there is no offence and no power of arrest if they do not provide them.

I once got pulled over on a motorbike and the policeman who stopped me sent a patrol car round to my house, which no one was in, and asked me to tell them the colour of the curtains.

This was 'proof' of my identity.
 
Azrael23 said:
Im not takin an ID card


Get an Irish passport and you dont need to have an ID card...If you have parents or grandparents born there between ( i believe 1923 and present)... the uk state can`t force you to have a U.K. idenity card....alyough there are provisions for a variety of uk based "residents" you can avoid all that shit by merly telling any agencies you deal with that your over here for a short time only....
Note to all Al queda operatives....move to Dublin. ;)
 
"Peers have accepted a compromise deal over compulsory ID cards to end a stand-off with the Government that had threatened to spark a constitutional showdown.
Anyone renewing or applying for a passport will be added to a national identity register but will not have to have a card until January 2010. "

Mother fuckers! It's the bloody database which is the problem not whether you phsyically have a peice of plastic!
 
Back
Top Bottom