Yes ... but yet again you miss the point. Without biometrics (i.e. now) then loads of identity documents can be made and used in lots of different names. As I thought you had realised (clearly mistakenly), with biometrics each forged one (a) has to be linked to a specific individual and (b) their biometrics also need to be forged. That is a massively more complex process and absolutely nothing you have posted or linked to has suggested otherwise.
ID Matters - Ripe for Satire
- Thread starter moon23
- Start date
Having removed you from fucking ignore I find you are still following me round from thread to thread, disrupting them for no other reason other than to have a pop at me. Was one fucking ban not enough? What the fuck is the matter with you, you sad fucking cunt? Do it again and more reports will be put in. Maybe this time they'll ban you for fucking good.
And I do not pretend to know all about the IT behind ID cards. I am arguing on the basis of common sense and logic. Which probably explains why it means absolutely fuck all to you ...
Jonti
what the dormouse said
The make-believe continues ...
Having paid hundreds of millions of our money to capture our biometrics on its leaky old databases, I guess our political masters are in no mood to fess up that they were clueless about the feasibility of their Grand Unified Surveillance System in the first place ...
more at theRegister
Having paid hundreds of millions of our money to capture our biometrics on its leaky old databases, I guess our political masters are in no mood to fess up that they were clueless about the feasibility of their Grand Unified Surveillance System in the first place ...
... here's clue guys. Just saying "Make It So" doesn't actually always work. Not in the real world, OK?
more at theRegister
With current documents you still have to link a photograph, the sex, age (roughly) on the fake one to the person wishing to use it. You can't just create 300 J.Smith documents all with the same details on for different people to use.
The biometric information encoded needs to be put onto a new card but that only takes a few minutes to do.
Whereas currently you need multiple ID documents e.g. Passport, Current Bill, Proof of address - with an ID card you will just need that card so any extra effort required to fake the card will be far less than that required to fake multiple documents (for one individual).
Not only wit the register (the real issue) are they are huge invasion of our privacy, they are also a massive security threat. Your living in denial.
DB most ID fraud involves lying about circumstances, you can change the status in the card to say 'entitled to benifets' without even having to replace the biometric encoded (which only requires an off the shelf fingerprint scanner to create BTW). This bloke read the details off the card with a nokia phone and a laptop.
I could equally say that you are taking a simplistic and exaggerated view, dealing with individual features as if they are intended to be the only safeguard. As someone who deals with identity theft on a fairly regularly basis I know only too well how easy it is to forge documents, etc. and I am not in denial at all about the fact that (a) someone will try and crack any new system (look what happened with Chip and Pin - not "cracked" in the way anticipated but subject to a whole new type of attack) and (b) there are dangers in putting all your eggs in one basket. But I do not recognise the planned system as being as simplistic (in terms of the security features planned) and I think you are being extremely pessimistic (in terms of how easy it would be to evade them on a large scale basis).
We definitely need a reliable form of ID in this country (for a whole range of reasons). Citizens have the right to their own identity (surely this is an absolutely fundamental right?) and to a system which allows them to assert it against someone else who is impersonating them.
Biometrics are now available to permit that to be done in a reasonably manageable way. Though not perfect, biometric ID documents will be very, very much more reliable than what we have had before now. They are a big step in the right direction though there is no way they will be perfect.
Again you are raising a single issue, based on what you say the card will end up being, and based on the card being used in a specific way.
I do not know what the final card will be. I don't know how it is intended to be used. I don't think anyone does. Things you state with confidence do not accord with things I have read.
Whilst individual issues and concerns are worthy of debate, in the absence of a definitive specification for the card and procedures and policies for how it will be used, you cannot use them to undermine the entire concept.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
magnificent bit of double think. Passing of government intrusion as an extension of 'citizens' rights
Especially stupid consdiering your following post, where you admit you dont know how the card will be used
I was talking about the principle.
Do you not agree that in an ideal world a person would have the right to their own identity and the ability to effectively assert it against anyone else who claimed it as theirs?
Until we know what it is we are trying to achieve we will never know whether or not any proposed scheme is likely to achieve it.
You believe that anyone should be able to adopt your identity at will, without you having any superior claim to it?
Yes, I do. I wouldn't have fucking posted it otherwise. Why can't you just explain why they don't instead of just telling me I'm stupid.
(What is it with this fucking posting style - ViolentPanda and Pickmans Model both fucking love it too. It's so fucking annoying.
)
Jonti
what the dormouse said
The biometric delusion
The endless debunking of these lunatic schemes by indefatigable journalists and technical writers continues.
A biometric ID card is one that contains "passwords" that you can never cancel. That's not good.
If your biometric ID is ever compromised you're simply stuck with untrusted passwords that cannot be changed. That'll wreck a few lives, for sure. Perhaps even worse, biometrics are such a flaky way of establishing ID (see the linked article for details on the tech's remarkable inaccuracy) that ...
The endless debunking of these lunatic schemes by indefatigable journalists and technical writers continues.
A biometric ID card is one that contains "passwords" that you can never cancel. That's not good.
If your biometric ID is ever compromised you're simply stuck with untrusted passwords that cannot be changed. That'll wreck a few lives, for sure. Perhaps even worse, biometrics are such a flaky way of establishing ID (see the linked article for details on the tech's remarkable inaccuracy) that ...
More at theRegister.
Compared with the absolutely infallible method we have at present which consists of, er, a bit of paper headed "Birth Certificate" which has absolutely no means of linking itself to you as an individual and a bit of cardboard / plastic with (a) that name and (b) a nine digit/character number on it, again with absolutely no means of linking itself to you as an individual and which is recorded in about a million places to do with employment, tax, medical records, etc.
Pickman's model
sunset spires and twilight woods
good day?Having removed you from fucking ignore I find you are still following me round from thread to thread, disrupting them for no other reason other than to have a pop at me. Was one fucking ban not enough? What the fuck is the matter with you, you sad fucking cunt? Do it again and more reports will be put in. Maybe this time they'll ban you for fucking good.
revol68
what, fucking what?
What a hypocrite d-b is, to accuse me of following him!
It's remarkable how quickly d-b gets on my case, misrepresenting things!
Once a pig always a pig.
Jonti
what the dormouse said
In your eagerness to "converse" with me, you seem to have missed the point. Which is that the present system does not wrongly prevent millions of us from proving our right to work in the UK, obtaining non-emergency state healthcare, and sending our children to school.Compared with the absolutely infallible method we have at present which consists of, er, a bit of paper headed "Birth Certificate" which has absolutely no means of linking itself to you as an individual and a bit of cardboard / plastic with (a) that name and (b) a nine digit/character number on it, again with absolutely no means of linking itself to you as an individual and which is recorded in about a million places to do with employment, tax, medical records, etc.
But, as explained here, that is what we can expect from the Government's Big Brother Database, if it were ever implemented.
No... but there is absolutely no evidence that any new system would cause that either.
What we do know is that the current system does allow absolutely anyone to wander in, claim to be anyone they like and help themselves to lots of things they are not entitled to. And it allows thousands of people every year to have their lives turned upside down as a result of people stealing their identity to some extent or another. And thousands of others to be the victim of conmen as, despite all their best efforts, they have absolutely no way of knowing who the fuck they are dealing with.
Or do you not think these things are important.
Jonti
what the dormouse said
So you try to insinuate I don't think identity theft is important, or I would support the Big Brother Database
That's a cheap slur.
The fact there are issues with the present system, does not make any particular proposed remedy efficacious, does it?
That's a logic failure.
I'd like you to put aside the cheap slurs and illogical bluster, and try to explain why you reject the argument that the central government database can deliver neither authentication nor verification. Can you do that?
Or are you going to continue to bluster and insult those who argue, with numbers, that the project is both unfeasible and undesirable?
That's a cheap slur.
The fact there are issues with the present system, does not make any particular proposed remedy efficacious, does it?
That's a logic failure.
I'd like you to put aside the cheap slurs and illogical bluster, and try to explain why you reject the argument that the central government database can deliver neither authentication nor verification. Can you do that?
Or are you going to continue to bluster and insult those who argue, with numbers, that the project is both unfeasible and undesirable?
No. I point out that the system is intended to address some current real major issues.So you try to insinuate I don't think identity theft is important, or I would support the Big Brother Database
I note that you simply ignore that point rather than addressing it, substituting your own question. When you answer the initial point I will consider addressing those you throw up as a distraction.
(ETA: And when I do, you can expect that it will include mention of the fact that The Register, reliable organ of unbiased reporting that it is, seems to think that using mobile phones as our proof of ID would be a far better idea ...
)
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
No you didn't, uyou made a wild claim which is actually largely unsustainable. You come up with totally spurious reasons why ID cards are actually enhancing our rights, even tho they do exactly the oposite.
I do NOT need to undeniably prove that it is I belboid, and not any other belboid, or Belboid, or bellboyd or whoever, who is buying that bottle of whisky. All I need to prove is that I am over 18. And that is easily done. No need for any card. Same in 99% of occasions when i would, in d-b horrid world - be required to 'prove' who i am.
And even if I used an ID card in such circumstances, it would actually NOT be any more secure a method of id'ing me than any piece of plastic. The nature of the id recognition on the chips means that no retailer would actually complete a full check on the card (it costs) but would merely read it - and that is something that even d-b cant deny is very very easily forgeable.
On the few occasions I do need greater proof, I'll take my passport. Just as good as an ID card (tho even that holds too much info for my liking, especially in its new format), so no need for one.
then there is the 'fact' that it will stop someone claiming to be me. Well, for one thing, it wont frequently, as (as said) full checks would rarely be carried out on the card itself. For another, I don't give a flying fuck if someone impersonates me to get NHS treatment. And there is already more than enough legislation on the books to deal with people attempting to 'steal' my identity, the idea that d-b put forward before, that these cards would help that in any real way is a simple lie.
In short, it is notable that this ex-copper is he only defender of ID cards on here, but hardly surprising. The only people who will benefit from this reactionary piece of nonsense are his ex-colleagues - so much easier to keep track of us all - serious forgers and government bean counters who might save a tiny bit of NHS & SS costs
I do NOT need to undeniably prove that it is I belboid, and not any other belboid, or Belboid, or bellboyd or whoever, who is buying that bottle of whisky. All I need to prove is that I am over 18. And that is easily done. No need for any card. Same in 99% of occasions when i would, in d-b horrid world - be required to 'prove' who i am.
And even if I used an ID card in such circumstances, it would actually NOT be any more secure a method of id'ing me than any piece of plastic. The nature of the id recognition on the chips means that no retailer would actually complete a full check on the card (it costs) but would merely read it - and that is something that even d-b cant deny is very very easily forgeable.
On the few occasions I do need greater proof, I'll take my passport. Just as good as an ID card (tho even that holds too much info for my liking, especially in its new format), so no need for one.
then there is the 'fact' that it will stop someone claiming to be me. Well, for one thing, it wont frequently, as (as said) full checks would rarely be carried out on the card itself. For another, I don't give a flying fuck if someone impersonates me to get NHS treatment. And there is already more than enough legislation on the books to deal with people attempting to 'steal' my identity, the idea that d-b put forward before, that these cards would help that in any real way is a simple lie.
In short, it is notable that this ex-copper is he only defender of ID cards on here, but hardly surprising. The only people who will benefit from this reactionary piece of nonsense are his ex-colleagues - so much easier to keep track of us all - serious forgers and government bean counters who might save a tiny bit of NHS & SS costs
If you would care to stop frothing at the mouth for a minute ... maybe you'd realise that this discussion was about using biometrics as the basis for proving ID, something which I argue is a vast improvement on our present ID systems.
It was NOT about the pros and cons of actual ID cards as opposed to passports.
It was NOT about the pros and cons of any particular technology or method of making use of the advantages provided by ID based on biometrics (Jonti made this mistake too).
It was NOT about proof of age.
You just cannot help yourself, can you? As soon as you see a post by me you just go off on one, inventing the sort of shite you think it will contain and randomly drawing all sorts of other conclusions. You need therapy ...
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
