I'm glad you blame Thatcher too ...
Why we must now fight ID cards
- Thread starter moon23
- Start date
I think the poor bloody taxpayer may have something to say about opening the floodgates to huge costs too ... and Human Rights law is massively misunderstood and subject to lots of entirely subjective statements about what rights are and are not and so it is not unreasonable to expect quite a lot of hopeless or entirely misguided cases being propped up.
Whilst I am in favour of improving access to justice (in all areas, not just this one), I do think that we need to consider some sort of "quality control" on cases. Perhaps there could be shielding from costs orders as far as an initial hearing at which the Court decides whether or not there is an arguable case and, if so, the Court could then extend the shielding but, if not, the litigant would have to proceed at their own continued cost? Or perhaps the Equalities and Human Rights Commission could be beefed up a bit and people could take their cases there in a free and straightforward system, with the EHRC the taking the case forward at their expense if they consider it arguable (whilst leaving the possibility of the litigant taking out a private case, at their own expense, if the EHRC declined).
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Realistically, given that the government wastes several billion a year on failed IT projects, a few million in court costs which will help prevent them investing in illegal database projects as a side effect is really a drop in the ocean. Even if it weren't pretty much essential for seeing justice done in respect of privacy.
I'm afraid I don't subscribe to the "there's lots of other ways they're wasting shedloads, so why bother?" approach - I don't see that as any reason at all for not thinking through whether any new proposal represents value for money or whether it could be achieved more cost effectively in some other form.
Why, on the facts, do you say that my proposals would prevent justice being done?
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
That wasn't quite what I was arguing. Let me be clearer. If we're going to invoke economics as one (of several) criteria for evaluating these schemes, let's do it properly. Not just selectively to argue only against the citizen having some effective recourse against the state in the case of abuse of their privacy.
and
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/Papers/database-state.pdf
So, over the next 5 years, we can reasonably expect based on past form that £25b of our money will be spent on systems that if delivered (by no means certain) invade our privacy in ways that are actually illegal (specifically including the NIR), £66b on systems that don't work properly or at all (£30b or so on ones that fail totally) and over £50b on systems that will have either significant problems with privacy, effectiveness or both, assuming that they actually work.
I'd like to see the benefits case for this please ...
and
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/Papers/database-state.pdf
So, over the next 5 years, we can reasonably expect based on past form that £25b of our money will be spent on systems that if delivered (by no means certain) invade our privacy in ways that are actually illegal (specifically including the NIR), £66b on systems that don't work properly or at all (£30b or so on ones that fail totally) and over £50b on systems that will have either significant problems with privacy, effectiveness or both, assuming that they actually work.
I'd like to see the benefits case for this please ...
So would I ... but you still ignore my point: just because money is being wasted elsewhere doesn't mean we should waste it on something else.
Why (on the facts of the suggestion, not just because others are pissing money up the wall) do you disagree with my suggestions for some form of quality control to prevent money being wasted by a flood of cases many of which can be expected to be entirely spurious, based on absolutely incorrect understanding of the law and their "rights" and/or with absolutely no hope at all of success?
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
I must admit having read back a bit I can't quite tell how your suggestion differs from government's plans to introduce ID cards and a national identity register.
Could you possibly highlight the key differences you want to see?
Could you possibly highlight the key differences you want to see?
ericjarvis
give a feck for the feckless
Unless the plans already include a way to counter this then it really has to be considered an inevitable part of the cost.
I think we may be talking about different things.
I have been talking about my suggestion (at 10:11 today) for a "gateway" in response to your quote (at 22:21 last night) about Recommendation 2 - shielding from costs for people taking private human rights actions.
In relation to an alternative ID card scheme suggestion, I have not made any detailed suggestions - all I would say about that is that (a) I think we need a reliable ID system; (b) I think biometrics are now at the stage where they can be incorporated into such a system; (c) that such a system has a lot of scope for reducing fraud and other impersonation issues and problems; (d) I do not think we need to have the whole linked databases thing behind it (though I don't necessarily share the apocalyptic visions of such a database raised by some campaigners); (e) it should be free or, at worst, at a similar cost to passport (which would make sense to link to / incorporate with it) and (f) there should be no power for the police to demand "papers" and no offence of not carrying it (though I would distinguish an offence of failing to register if we are to have a reliable and universal system).
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
The nature of a given thing is key. This database is specifically a tool of the state, and is set up by a government that has a proven track record of trampling over individual rights for what they perceive as a greater good. I doubt they ever met a means that wouldn't be justified by a preferred end.
If we didn't factor in the potential for abuse when governments pass laws, it's open season for authoritarians. Much of the trouble from Labour has been their inability of MPs to grasp the law of unintended consequences when they pass broadly-drawn laws.
poster342002
PROPER leftwing socialist
It'll soon create a thriving black market for alcohol being sold to ID-less under-25's for a start (and will be less-than-choosey about selling to under 18's too). That'll bring with it a rise in gang culture and other social ills we'd rather be without.
poster342002
PROPER leftwing socialist
In view of the recognition of the harm done by allowing young people access to age-restricted products, don't you think this is actually a good thing? Seeing as it is most likely a symptom of those selling such goods being made to take their responsibilities more seriously?
No - because the "cure" for this is going to be worse than the disease.
poster342002
PROPER leftwing socialist
Spot on!
Id go further and say the disease is hyped to justify the 'cure'. The plans for this type of ID verification and population tracking system has been in place since the 30s during time of crisis the Home Office have another go at trying to force them on us. Ultimatly they seek to oversee all our interactions for the purpose of governing people in thier model.
Just look at how function creep occured after the second world war when bureacrats thought up and increasing number of uses for ID cards, then consider the shifting reasons this goverment has given for them. As an idea it is floated to solve the shifting problems of the day with alarming regularity yesterday it was terrorism today it is illegal workers and underage drinking. Maybe tomorrow it will be the threat from climate 'extreminsts' Or a new generation of anti-capitalists.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
It's worth quoting Lord Goddard, a man who's gone down in history as an evil old hanging judge, but who helped get rid of ID cards the last time around. His ruling from 1951's Willcock v. Muckle:-
" ... it is obvious that the police now, as a matter of routine, demand the production of national registration indemnity cards whenever they stop or interrogate a motorist for whatever cause. Of course, if they are looking for a stolen car or have reason to believe that a particular motorist is engaged in committing a crime, that is one thing, but to demand a national registration identity card from all and sundry, for instance, from a lady who may leave her car outside a shop longer than she should, or some trivial matter of that sort, is wholly unreasonable. This Act was passed for security purposes, and not for the purposes for which, apparently, it is now sought to be used. To use Acts of Parliament, passed for particular purposes during war, in times when the war is past, except that technically a state of war exists, tends to turn law-abiding subjects into lawbreakers, which is a most undesirable state of affairs. Further, in this country we have always prided ourselves on the good feeling that exists between the police and the public and such action tends to make the people resentful of the acts of the police and inclines them to obstruct the police instead of to assist them [my italics].
[...]
"They ought not to use a Security Act, which was passed for a particular purpose, as they have done in this case.
"For these reasons, although the court dismisses the appeal, it gives no costs against the appellant."
Right, sorry if this has been covered allready but i got REALLY bored reading this thread, The tories have been saying they will scrap the terror laws that labour made if they get into power, they are probably going to get into power. Im not really happy about that but, er if they arent going to follow through on the bio metric stuff any way, is it worth us making a hoo har anyone know? (but im well up for hoo har making)
Hay up wondering when there is a stall next in Sheffield be nice to come along and help out, ill need a lampost to hang some things from mind you..
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Poor you!
Thing is (and I acknowledge this is a radical suggestion), if you look into the various PoTAs that were legislated before new Labour, you'll see that much of the stuff (except for the egregious shit like suspension of habeas corpus) was extensions of tory-era ideas. Scrapping the terror laws that Labour were responsible for won't solve the problem, the only thing that'd would solve it would be for the tories to completely revise the PoTA (as well as RIPA and others), and there's no way they'll go that far.
Poor you!
Thing is (and I acknowledge this is a radical suggestion), if you look into the various PoTAs that were legislated before new Labour, you'll see that much of the stuff (except for the egregious shit like suspension of habeas corpus) was extensions of tory-era ideas. Scrapping the terror laws that Labour were responsible for won't solve the problem, the only thing that'd would solve it would be for the tories to completely revise the PoTA (as well as RIPA and others), and there's no way they'll go that far.
well...i think a datebase is wrong, just wrong.
id rather read about people wanting to take action.
Im not in NO2ID, i went to a meeting, and frankly is was shit.
it was supose to be after the Convention of Modern Liberty, when they had the intrest of hundreds, but the person running the group cancelled the meeting because they couldnt be bothered, then called a last minute one, where 5 people turn up, in gross wine bar in a really random posh part of the city that was well out of the way...
and it actully made me thankful of the hand waving gestures of consensus decision making. Anyway, that really had nothing to do with anything
Me and a friend are showing Taking Liberties in a cafe and going to give out car/window stickers and try to start another local group - Pretty standard stuff, and this is all i can think of, attempting to form groups and get organised.
meh
poster342002
PROPER leftwing socialist
Indeed.
Maurice Picarda
Actually, might as well flounce.
Ross overstates the numbers. Badly. The £16bn he cites is the annual UK spend on public sector ICT, including in-house staff, phone and contact centres, blue light radio, and desktop infrastructure. The lot.
He then pretends that the whole lot will be spent on databases and systems to support them, which is simply nonsense.
Quite why people like Damian Green have latched onto this nonsense is unclear. Perhaps a barking libertarian is just a conservative who has been arrested.
Pickman's model
sunset spires and twilight woods
He'll have to eat it quickly before it is inserted in his fundament
Steel Icarus
an attempt was made
You mean Boris Johnson's beliefs are... inconsistent? Who'da thunk it
platinumsage
Well-Known Member
Pickman's model
sunset spires and twilight woods
Soz who are you talking about?
Similar threads
