View Full Version : Biometric ID cards

The Invisible Man
25th Apr 2004, 15:14
Having had an ID card all my working life I have no problem with the new compulsary ID cards to be issued within the next few years

Anyone have any comments, views, or against such idea?

25th Apr 2004, 15:28
The only issue I have is the predicted cost of £30 - £80 quid.

25th Apr 2004, 15:53
Another load of Blunkett bollocks. More useless gimmicks :*

25th Apr 2004, 17:07
So how do you prove that you are who you say you are when you go to have your photograph taken to put on your ID card?

25th Apr 2004, 17:10
Dont see the point personally - they'll give all these asylum applicants new ID cards free once they've entered the country anyway, so it won't stop them.

As for Al-Quaida? well if they cant get hold of originals, then they'll forge them. Its prolly not hard to get hold of the technology to make them, so i cant see how its gonna make a difference


25th Apr 2004, 17:16
If it's just a photo and maybe a retinal scan that is used as identifying data on the card, then I wouldn't be too bothered as it is not that different from my driver's licence. And I'm sure it will help crack down on the amount of fraud that goes on.

However I would feel distinctly uneasy about having fingerprints taken and stored as no system is 100% infallible so there would be the slight possibility of getting wrongly implicated in a crime. I'm sure the government will say "there are safeguards to ensure that the data is not used in an untoward manner or by policing agencies" but I just dont trust them with that info and they dont have a track record which engenders high levels of trust.

The Invisible Man
25th Apr 2004, 17:33
It will be 3D facial scan, iris scan and fingerprints. I still dont have a problem with this ( apart from the personal costs).

If it goes someway to reducing terrorism, illegal immigration,and crime, It will have my vote.

25th Apr 2004, 17:48
If it goes someway to reducing terrorism, illegal immigration,and crime. . . How ?

25th Apr 2004, 17:50
Forget the ID cards themselves – the real purpose of the programme is the establishment of a “National Identity Register” that will contain the biometric information collected as the cards are issued.

Whether or not it will be compulsory to carry the ID cards, it will be possible to establish an individual's identity at any time with an iris, fingerprint or face scan checked against the national database. With wireless technology police officers may be able to identify someone at any time with portable scanning equipment. The government's interest in using facial biometrics rather than iris or fingerprint scans probably has a lot to do with the fact that it may be possible to scan someone's face without their permission (although face recognition technology is unlikely to be very accurate).

Air travel is likely to become contingent upon a willingness to undergo a biometric scan - or perhaps a lengthy security interview as an alternative. Perhaps this is a good idea. But what next? Rail travel? Underground travel? Maybe fingerprint scans at entry points to the underground system to exclude individuals suspected, but not proven, to be involved in terrorist plots. Perhaps this also sounds like a good idea but a by-product of such a system would be the collection of an enormous amount of information about the movement of individuals.

Now what if the commercial sector also begin to employ biometric scans - perhaps upon check-in at a hotel, or when completing a purchase. These may be verified against the central National Identity Register rather than the ID card. Yet more information the government can collect about the activities of individuals.

When a political demonstration is planned close to Westminster the authorities may decide that the risk of "disorder" or terrorist attack means that only individuals willing to undergo an iris or fingerprint scan to establish their identity should be allowed into the area. This may assist in preventing people suspected of being involved in terrorism from attending - but it will also enable the authorities to collect information on who attends the demonstration.

All these applications are possible whether or not it is compulsory to carry an ID card - in fact they would all be possible if everyone issued with a card destroyed it. Once the national biometric database is established the cards themselves would become redundant. They are simply a pretext to get people who don't require a passport or driving licence onto the database. So I think the real reason the government is so keen on the system is that it will enable them to collect vast amounts of detailed information about people’s movements, purchases and other activities. From this they probably hope they will be able to identify “suspicious” patterns that might indicate involvement in criminal or terrorist acts.

Some of you might be comfortable with this - I'm not.

Boss Raptor
25th Apr 2004, 17:55
Very well put Stagger...and others...

1. They can't track down half the illegals/criminals we have now...and they will no doubt continue to allow questionables into this country and hand them an ID card

2. Or stop document/ID fraud...and never will as there will always be someone within the system prepared to provide the goods at a price...

3. Or keep said information completely secure

This will be a very emotive/political issue...as well it should be

25th Apr 2004, 17:59
A few more thoughts...

I'm sure Blunkett is aware of the above applications but is of course reluctant to tell people about them. However, when pushed he does acknowledge that it's the national database - not the card - that is critical. In response to suggestions that in itself an ID card isn't much help in combating terrorism (e.g. look at Spain). He said...

"The Spanish do [have an ID card] - but it isn't a foolproof biometric card with a database, with the ability to test not only the card... but actually the person and the card they hold. "

The key is the ability to test people against the database - not the cards themselves.

What about visitors to country? They won't have ID cards? Correct - but they will no doubt be entered onto the database as they arrive with biometric scans at the point of entry. Consequently people will only be able to visit the country under the identity they used when they first visited.

25th Apr 2004, 18:15
Did I just read that we are going to have to pay up to £80 for this privelige ?

I mean, does it really cost that to produce an ID card ? And even if it does why are the public expected to fund it ?

The words stealth tax spring to mind.

Turn the light off on your way out Tony.

25th Apr 2004, 18:31
Personally I don't have a problem carrying an ID card, and if it could take the place of the other little bits of ID we have, passports, driving licences etc, then all well and good. But asking me to pay £80 for it? Hmmm, don't think so:*

25th Apr 2004, 18:44
It probably won't cost you that much AeroSpark. The government is sure to do a deal with the market research industry... :(

25th Apr 2004, 18:54
I don't actually have much of a problem with an ID card as such - I can't get into my office without a machine-readable photo ID card - but I am frankly worried about what some knee-jerk authoritarian like Blunkett or his predecessor would actually do with the information they would gather.

Which brings a few points to mind:

1) How will we as individuals know what information is held about us, either directly on the card or on the supporting database?
2) Who will check the accuracy of this information, how will they check it and how will we know they have checked it?
3) What redress will the individual have if it turns out that the information held about them is incorrect?
4) Where will the card issue fees go, and who will profit from them?
5) Will private sector providers be involved in setting up and administering the scheme, in accordance with both Government policy and EU law?
6) Will the contracts for this work be tendered worldwide, in accordance with GATT and WTO agreements to which this country is a signatory?
7) What controls will be in place to prevent a non-UK contractor from exporting and misusing the information held on the database?

No wonder Mr Blunkett wants to pretend that ID cards will prevent terrorist atrocities........

25th Apr 2004, 18:59
Interesting points have been raised by Stagger and I do agree with what has been said. I'm guessing the 3-D facial scan data could be used to track and identify people more easily using CCTV. I have yet to hear a truly compelling argument in favour of introducing ID cards. I can understand how it can make certain types of fraud a bit harder to commit but I dont think that that alone warrants its introduction.

Gordon Brown is very quiet on the idea as illegal workers help support the economic growth we are experiencing by doing all the low end jobs that no-one else will (this is according to the Economist).

I am really willing to hear arguments on how ID cards can stop terrorism and crime but, from what I've read and seen in the media (especially after the tragic events in Madrid) I cant see how they will help. It just seems to be another way to control the law abiding majority (who will have to register to remain within normal everyday society).

Do we really want to live in a country where internal movement is heavily monitored and where police might be able to demand to see this ID card at any time? It may all sound like scaremongering but it is not unbelievable.

Benjamin Franklin said

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty"

Whilst this is rather extreme, naive and idealistic, the general idea is sound.

25th Apr 2004, 19:06
People often say nobody should be worried about things such as ID cards "if you haven't got anything to hide."

Well quite often people have perfectly legal things that they would like to hide.

For example, how many people would go to get tested for an STD if they had to produce an ID card?

What about a woman fleeing an abusive partner who wishes to register for various services under a different name so that he finds it harder to track her down?

25th Apr 2004, 20:28
Compulsory cards can also increase crime. After all, your robber/mugger etc. now knows that you'll be carrying a valuable document.

I've heard that in the Netherlands (and possibly elsewhere) rapists know their victims will be carrying an ID card.

So, after the attack they steal the ID card and warn the victim not to report the rape: "I know who you are" and so on.

Nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide ? Hmm :suspect:

25th Apr 2004, 22:00
"Did I just read that we are going to have to pay up to £80 for this privelige ?

I mean, does it really cost that to produce an ID card ? And even if it does why are the public expected to fund it ?

The words stealth tax spring to mind.

Turn the light off on your way out Tony."

Paracab, What are you talking about? Did you think that perhaps the goverment should fund these cards from their money? Instead of our money.

It's still early days yet and I feel that once the public start to realise what information is going to be collected and its possible use, there will be considerable opposition to the whole scheme.
It's being pushed on the back of fighting terrorism, and I've yet to hear a coherent argument to support that.

tony draper
25th Apr 2004, 22:08
All government money is "our money"they don't have any of their own.
Personelly the way things are shaping up in this world I think we should all be chipped, like pooches,bollix to civil liberties.

26th Apr 2004, 08:52
OK, so I've just read the actual published poll document (http://www.detica.co.uk/downloads/Detica%20-%20National%20Identity%20Cards.pdf) for the MORI survey.

Firstly, the poll was commissioned by Detica, an IT consultancy who stand to profit considerably if chosen to implement the scheme. Hardly independent then.

Secondly: "Although 94% of people are aware of the scheme’s existence, two thirds (67%) have little or no knowledge of the Government’s national ID card proposals."

Kinda makes a mockery of the claim that 80% of people are in favour of the cards when most of them don't even know what it is they are in favour of.

26th Apr 2004, 09:41
In common with many others I haven't yet heard a compelling argument for the introduction of ID cards.

I cannot see them leading to a reduction in terrorism or a significant reduction in crime given that there will undoubtedly be forged documents in circulation. In fact this may increase crime as the ID card may be taken as a guarantee of identity when it should be regarded just as suspiciously as any other document.

I am deeply concerned that the level of information held about us and our activities is reaching unprecedented levels, all pushed along by the cry of the war on terror. To me one point of democracy is that we have to play by the rules. We know the other guys don't, that is the price we have to pay, and have paid during previous terrorist campaigns in this country. That is why we shouldn't have detention without trial and other ideas that are being propagated at the moment.

I am tired of hearing people say "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" That in itself is certainly true; its when someone else thinks you have something to hide that the trouble starts.

26th Apr 2004, 09:54
That was frightening to read.

The theory that "if you had nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" rings true for the majority of British adults

Oh dear. I wonder what other scheme the government will dream up and then have the sensationalist media sell to us "for our own protection".

Where will this stop?

Interestingly enough, "preventing terrorism" was less popular than "being able to prove your age" as a given reason to introduce the cards. The only time I've had issues with my age was when I was 18/19 and trying to get in pubs/clubs. I've not had any other problems with trying to prove my age as an adult. Seriously, has anybody had a major problem with trying to prove their age as an adult (apart from my example)? I just cant think of any obvious ones.

The ID cards in conjunction with Blunkett wanting to remove jury trials in certain cases and also to change "beyond reasonable doubt" to "on the balance of probabilities" in terrorist cases, is very worrying. As Groundbased said "we have to play by the rules...and that is the price we have to pay."

26th Apr 2004, 09:55
Blunkett was on the radio this morn going on about it "being impossible" to steal a biometric identity. First - not even the manufacturers think they are that good. Second - however good the biometrics are, the quality of the data linked to them is what counts. If you are a dodgy person, you'll obtain a card with your face and somebody else's name. Further, I'm not sure the biometric thingy's accuracy is enough to exclude the possibility of people with very similar characteristics - so the possibility exists that one person may have multiple cards.

William Gibson said that "The street finds its own uses for things - uses the manufacturers never think of".

tony draper
26th Apr 2004, 09:59
Why should anyone be concered about information on me being held, unless of course the information is incorrect.
I have no probs with a data base containing info on credit rating medical,blood group DNA present address, age, criminal record if any ect,why should I be,? I would go further I would make it a open data base accessable to anybody who punches in your ID number.
The idea that governments are building secret stores of information on every individual is laugable, on some individual they should be, its much more likely private companies that have all that kind of skinny on you right now.

26th Apr 2004, 11:24
Drapes you are correct in saying that it is private companies who have most of our personal info at the moment (eg store cards giving an accurate purchase history of each shopper). But most of what we use in the private sector is voluntary;

-we dont have to use store cards if we dont want to (thereby sacrificing the somewhat marginal £5 discount which you get after spending an awful lot)

-we dont have to use credit cards to purchase goods (thereby sacrificing some airmiles/cash back etc)

Personally I dont feel too uncomfortable with the private sector having this info as it is mainly used for market research thus as a consequence, I may get offered a higher credit limit or get emailed info about some targeted product promotion. I also know that if the data starts getting misused, I can engage legal proceedings against the companies in question via the data protection act.

I have no probs with a data base containing info on credit rating medical,blood group DNA present address, age, criminal record if any ect,why should I be,?

For the most part, I dont have a problem with it either. It is just DNA part that concerns me. Presently, my DNA and fingerprints will only be collected if I am arrested. It can then be used to solve further crimes. This is a pragmatic and practical approach to using new technology to fight crime, the reason being if you have caused trouble once, you might do it again, so the police will get the biometric data from you when they have the chance. At this moment in time, I'm happy in the knowledge that if there are mistakes in the police system, I can't be linked to a crime scene based on fingerprints and DNA evidence alone as the police dont have that info on me. I do not want this safety net to disappear unnecesarily.

I am also worried about the tracking issue but that has been covered in depth.

26th Apr 2004, 16:31
I do realise that I am starting to hector and labour the point (which is not a desirable state of affairs and it usually makes for boring reading in any case) thus this will probably be my last post on this topic.

I found this article in today's Independent;

Police will be able to order eye scans under ID card plan
By Ben Russell, Political Correspondent

26 April 2004

Police will have powers to stop and check people against a national biometric database under plans for a compulsory identity card scheme to be unveiled today.

David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, confirmed that police would be able to compare people against national fingerprint or iris records even if they did not carry the controversial document.

The draft Bill will outline plans to introduce biometric data on passports in three years' time, with a compulsory scheme introduced by 2013.

Civil liberties campaigners expressed alarm at the proposals, but a defiant Mr Blunkett insisted that legislation would be put before Parliament by the autumn after consultation on technical issues are resolved. A pilot test of the equipment needed for the cards will be launched this week.

Mr Blunkett said: "This isn't some kind of fetish. This is about recognising the massive change that's taken place in the world around us."

Under the draft Bill, people renewing their passports from 2007 will have to be scanned for biometric data such as their irises and fingerprints. Driving licences could also include the data.

By 2013, when the scheme is expected to become compulsory, 80 per cent of people of working age are expected to be included. The cost of the scheme, estimated at £3.1bn, will be met by increasing the price of passports to around £73.

The Home Office confirmed that police would be able to ask people to undergo a scan to be compared with the national list of identities.

Mr Blunkett said: "Even if the person didn't carry the card, [the police] would be able to check their biometric automatically with the equipment. "It's more than simply having a card. This is about true identity, being known, being checkable, being used in order to ensure we know who is in the country, what they're entitled to and whether they're up to no good." Under the draft legislation, the scheme can become compulsory without fresh legislation. But Mr Blunkett promised a full debate in both Houses of Parliament before such a move was confirmed.

Tony Blair will attempt to counter fears about ID cards tomorrow in a speech to promote planned immigration. The Prime Minister will argue that planned immigration from Europe and beyond is good for the British economy at a time of economic growth. But civil liberties campaigners expressed alarm at the prospect of compulsory ID tests.

Shami Chakrabarti, a director of the pressure group Liberty, told GMTV: "He is too quick to offer various draconian measures as a magic bullet to whatever our fears are this week: terrorism, illegal immigration and so on. It does not actually solve these deep-seated problems we face."

David Winnick, the Labour MP for Walsall North and a member of the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee, said: "David Blunkett says that the British card will be more sophisticated than the existing Spanish card, but where is the evidence that any type of ID card would have stopped the massacre in Madrid?

"This is a costly exercise which will not do what is claimed by the Home Secretary and other enthusiasts."

David Davis, the shadow Home Secretary, said ID cards should be introduced without delay if civil liberties and technical objections could be overcome.

If having heard the various arguments you feel strongly enough in favour or against their introduction that you want to make your opinions known to a wider audience then there is a link below which gives the contact details for all the MPs, many of whom have email addresses.


Apologies if I have come across as overbearing and overly serious, I am a big fan of Jetblast and the jokes on it never fail to raise a laugh :ok:

26th Apr 2004, 19:10
Looks like Blunkett has confirmed what I suggested would be the case in my earlier post.

From the article posted by small_dog...

The Home Office confirmed that police would be able to ask people to undergo a scan to be compared with the national list of identities.

Mr Blunkett said: "Even if the person didn't carry the card, [the police] would be able to check their biometric automatically with the equipment. "It's more than simply having a card. This is about true identity, being known, being checkable, being used in order to ensure we know who is in the country, what they're entitled to and whether they're up to no good."

See - it's the database, not the cards that Blunkett wants. The cards are just a means to establish that database.

But notice he doesn't explain how checking someone's identity against the database can tell you "whether they're up to no good."

26th Apr 2004, 19:22
Where do they get this price from?

In Spain your Residentia (ID) card costs.....wait for it!....

JUST €6.50.

Sounds like rip off Britain just reared it's head again!:mad:

26th Apr 2004, 20:47
But notice he doesn't explain how checking someone's identity against the database can tell you "whether they're up to no good." I very much suspect that the onus will be on the individual to prove that they are not up to no good. It's going that way...........

26th Apr 2004, 21:06
Obviously, the next step will be to issue a new helmet to PC Plod. Incorporating cameras offering a 360° view, linked by Wi-Fi to Scotland Yard, where the images will be treated in real-time and information returned to the Bobby's drop-down HUD in milli-seconds: "Hello, hello, hello! Individual at your 5 o'clock is wanted for...!" Presumably Mr. Blunkett will be able to modify the level at which such warnings are launched in order to avoid PC Plod carrying out a "Stop and Search" on people who have merely forgotten to return their library books (unless of course, the books concerned subjects which could be construed as representing a danger...) on time.

It's high time everyone realised that the best way to circumvent the system is to be on the inside... :}

27th Apr 2004, 12:51
Caslance wrote...

"I very much suspect that the onus will be on the individual to prove that they are not up to no good. It's going that way..........."

I don't think it's going to be down to simply a question of people being up to “no good”. We seem to be moving away from a system where there is a relatively small list of acts that are criminal offences no matter who commits them, towards a system where different people are entitled to do different things. Under this new regime the ability to reliably identify people is critical.

Some examples…

1) Anti-social behaviour orders. These sometimes may prohibit someone from entering a particular area. So for example, whereas most people are entitled to walk down a street – it may be a criminal offence for a particular individual to do so. Person with an order against them is unlikely to carry an ID card so a system of stop-and-scan (using biometrics) on the street may be needed to find out who is breaking the law by being there.

2 ) Youth curfews. Stop-and-scan may be employed to discover who is violating a curfew prohibiting individuals below a certain age being out on the street after 9pm for example.

3) Football violence. Some people have orders against them prohibiting them from attending football matches. Stop-and-scan as you enter the stadium may be used to make sure everyone attending is entitled to be there.

These are applications that are already around. But others might include the following (these are not as far-fetched as they might sound and are perfectly consistent with Blunkett’s previous legislation)…

4) People suspected, but not proven in court, to be involved in terrorist plots might be prohibited from travelling on public transport (aircraft, trains, underground, buses). Stop-and-scan would be needed to establish who is allowed to travel.

5) Individuals thought likely to incite violence or “disorder” at political demonstrations might be prohibited from attending. Stop-and-scan might be used to determine who can join the protest.

6) Anti-social behaviour orders could be introduced that prohibit certain people from buying and consuming alcohol (perhaps people with a history of drunken violence). Off-licences and pubs could be required to scan all customers before serving them. Police could visit bars to stop-and-scan customers to establish who was allowed to be drinking.

Perhaps some people might think that some of these applications sound like good ideas. But all would require large numbers of law-abiding people to be stopped-and-scanned on a random or systematic basis. Consequently, this would allow the government to collect vast amounts of information about the activities of individuals. The places they visit, the purchases they make etc.

27th Apr 2004, 13:06
As to the price, the cost of the Spanish card is unlikely to be a good representation as it doesn't have the same features, and also would have been issued directly by the government (correct me if I'm wrong in that assumption!) rather than by a profit-making institution. The mooted £30-80 cost is likely to reflect the cost to Detica, Capita or whoever else got the contract to administer the system and put in the necessary capital expenditure. They would then add a normal profit margin of around 10-12% to the spend they have to put in to come up with the price guide Detica quoted to Blunkett.

27th Apr 2004, 13:10
For my 500th post I would just like to repeat the Benjamin Franklin quote that small_dog posted earlier...

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Something I agree with in general although obviously there is plenty of room for debate over what constitutes "essential" liberty.

27th Apr 2004, 13:52
Dear all,

Here is a thought, why don’t we all simply tell Mr Blunkett we have got ID cards.


:) :eek:

27th Apr 2004, 14:58
I wonder if one will be able to get a discount if one applies for multiple ID cards.??

Say 5 identities for the price of three??? :E

Oh well better be a bit serious...

The UK has photo id for drivers licences + passports.

It's a very small step from bio-metric data to a national DNA database.
I mean, why not....if bio-metric data (iris scan/finger print / face scan) is supposed to provide better security than passport or photo driver licence then surely it makes sense to go for the DNA route....
I have a Privium card issued by Amsterdam Airport that carries my iris scan data on it. It is NOT on any database (OK let's assume I'm naive enough to believe that the awards they have won for dataprotection etc are really valid...) So I have signed up and pay for a system that proves my identity well enough to get me through immigration in Schiphol without a face to face contact with an official. (They do retain the right to randomly pull you aside for documnet checks...) BUT it is based on ME holding my dat not Big Brother.

This is one reason why I will not be travelling to the US again any time soon. Used to 2/3 times a year....now I will avoid unless absolutely necessary. The standard of the Homeland Security appear so low as to make me shudder at letting them hold my personal data. (OK flame me I as I can't back that up - it's an impression I have but I'm not alone having it...)

27th Apr 2004, 15:15
I do not agree with the scare mongering in this thread. To suggest forgery will be a problem is somewhat naive.

The equipment required to manufacture the cards will cost millions, and, incredibly the people responsible for the manufacture will be employing the latest technology to ensure they are not forged. Add the fact, that carrying forged documents equals a 10-year prison sentence and where is the demand for the fake ID? This level of investment is hardly worth it for a few terrorists, or to sell to a handful of illegal immigrants. Forgery is not an issue.

"They give ID cards to immigrants anyway, so what is the point?"

If they are entitled to be here, they get a card. Simple. If they don’t have a card, then claiming benefit and using the health service becomes impossible. Which is a GOOD thing. You should need an ID card to get a job in the UK. This leaves the majority of people who are not meant to be here very limited choices. Either leave, or attempt the process of becoming a legal immigrant. The latter will be aware it's only a matter of time before they will be asked to produce ID for some reason.

As for the civil liberty question, it all seems to hang on being wrongly accused of something. Or 'the state' knowing where you are/what you doing. Like they care!! - Your not important, just a number. You only become important when you break the law, at that point, ANY help the police can get is a GOOD thing. No matter how small or infrequent the help an ID card brings, reducing crime saves lives and ultimately saves this county money. The chances of being wrongly accused have to be described as 'slight'

As for the cost. You may consider this quite mad, but I would quite happily have a VISA or MasterCard or Switch sign on my ID card. The benefits are as follows

1. VISA et al sponsor the cost of the card.
2. I don’t normally have to carry more than one card
3. For somebody to use my credit card if I lose it they have to look like me and know my PIN number (latest card fraud attempt)
4. If somebody attempts to use it they could face the 10-year penalty discussed above
5. Credit card fraud would be reduced by a huge amount as a picture of the user is on the card itself.

Finally I would like the card to be my driving licence and passport as well. Also blood group and special medical requirements could be stored on board (just in case I'm in an accident)! :O

Takes cover for inevitable flak


The Doc

Biggles Flies Undone
27th Apr 2004, 15:37
So, stockpicker, are you picking up shares in the potential winner?

27th Apr 2004, 15:38
Sure would - if I knew who it was likely to be! Trouble is, I can think of at least 4 quoted companies off the top of my head that would be in the running for this one.

27th Apr 2004, 16:45
Stockpicker, does that list include an outsourcing company connected with a smartcard company?

27th Apr 2004, 17:32
So every one is sitting pretty are they?

I'm alright Jack!

What happens when the government of the day decides it's had enough of p1zz taking internet addicts and wants to send em all off to the ovens?

OK I know it's extreme but I just watched Enemy of the State on TV and it got me thinking.

The cost of this ID system would pay for an awful lot of police officers/customs men, immigration personel etc. :hmm:

27th Apr 2004, 17:37

I have the Privium card for AMS also.. mighty quick way of getting through! I am completely against the concept of ID cards with biometrics (and I stress with Biometrics) as long as they are run by a government. For some reason, I trust the people at Amsterdam Schiphol (and Indeed in Holland in general) with this information, and I have surrendered it voluntarily.

I would simply not trust my own government (Irish), or British or US or indeed any government with this information.

It is such a shame that people allow themselves to be manipulated by this "well, if it'll help catch these muderers and drug takers, well them i'm for it...."

It's disturbing how adept most of our Politicians have become at using fear as a tool of oppression.

27th Apr 2004, 19:50
The Scottish National Executive have refused to use these cards, and there are exceptions on religious grounds for those that chose to wear a veil, i.e. no photo, I don't know about the retinal scan. The front page picture of today's Telegraph rather puts a slant on that one!

Edited for spelling and to add the cost is 3 Billion, admittedly over a number of years, but I bet it works out more anyway,Nimrod scale overruns anyone?

27th Apr 2004, 20:11
So if your a Brit, but a Spanish resident mit Spanish ID card and you visit the homeland, will you require a British ID card as well, as you have a British passport?

Incidently, when we renew our passports at the Consul in Malaga, we are now being charged £80.

It's times like this when one is envious of T.I.M.
No ID or passport required!

29th Apr 2004, 22:06
I don't expect them to be a lot of use.

What do we do with people who lose them or forget them or are too chaotic to use them?

PC stops person, asks for card. No card. What happens now?

At what age are cards compulsory?
PC stops person. "I'm only fourteen" says burly lad. What happens now?

How can we restrict access to services?
Injured person with no ID turns up at A & E. Turns out he is HIV positive. What happens now?

Destitute non English speaking person turns up at door of council office. No money, thin clothes, no ID, it's raining and the forecast is 3 deg. C. overnight What happens now?

It isn't simple is it?

What about the HRA? What about medical ethics? What about Police resources?

I don't know the answer, but I am sure that these are some of the questions.

29th Apr 2004, 23:40
Would all the proposers of the "you've got nothing to fear if you've got nothing to hide" argument please post their real names?

Don't all rush at once now. :}

30th Apr 2004, 09:26
Cannot see what all the fuss is about personally, apart from the cost obviously. What is there to fear unless you have something to hide? The issue of course will be how easily can the cards be copied, will the technology work? In fact combine driving license and passport into the clever little device and eliminate the need for more than one document......

Retinal scanning seems a good idea, but is the technology mature enough to use at airports etc.. in a 'Minority Report' type way where it reads and checks against its database??

Exemptions on religious or any other grounds is simply 'luvvie' rhetoric which is why we have the many problems that are now simmering very close to the surface but are still considered too sensitive to tackle, has anyone complained about +ve discrimination about the Mets future recruiting policy? Nope as they'd get branded a racist.

ID Cards + Mature technology, correctly regulated, is not a problem...the problem is civil liberty and racial minority campaign groups who will influence policy on who has pictures etc..... will be the fundamental failure, why are they afraid? Because they all have something to hide and lose.

The issue of migrant workers, as alluded to earlier, is simple to tackle, different card SPONSORED BY, AND PAID FOR, BY THE COMPANY detailing same details but with a DATE they are permitted to remain in the country digitally encoded on the chip.

Paulo some of us do not need to worry as WE ARE ALREADY CARRYING ID CARDS stating exactly who we are on them, oh and many of us have been and fought terrorist organisations over the last few years.....

PA-28, the SNE will have no choice to accept any legislation as correct me if i'm wrong but a national executive cannot veto a bill passed in the Commons and Lords, or are the 'natives' up north forgetting their place and having delusions of grandeur?

30th Apr 2004, 10:40

The legislation covers too many devolved and reserved matters to be easily dealt with in Scotland. The feeling is that seperate legislation will be required for us up here in God's Country.



30th Apr 2004, 11:04
Some of you seem to miss the point that carrying the ID card is not going to be compulsory. So what use is it then ? I hear you ask.

Well the answer is that the authorities only want the database of Face scans,iris scans and fingerprints.(and Oh how much they would love to add DNA to that list). The card is simply a means to an end.

So if the Police stop you in the street there is no need to see your ID card - they can simply point a video camera ( or even a phone with a camera) at you and hey presto you've confirmed who you say you are. In fact if they used the card without cross checking with the database then forged cards would be rife.

However it does mean that the authorities might just want to check everyones id as they enter a Public Building or train station , airport etc- so they put cameras there. Before you Know it your i.d. will be being verified without your knowlege several times a day. Your id and your movements will be logged.

This may seem far fetched but at the moment all car number plates are scanned as they enter London. All your movements are monitored and logged by your mobile phone provider.

I have absolutely nothing to hide but if I'm not breaking the law then who I am and what I doing is no ones business but my own.

30th Apr 2004, 11:27
I've been banging on about some of the points that GeneralMelchet has made throughout this thread but people still don't seem to get it.

Just to reiterate what Melchet has said....

The whole point of ID cards is so that people who don't need a biometric passport, or biometric driving licence can be forced to have their biometric details entered into a national database.

With a national biometric database of iris scans or fingerprints you could be identified using a scanner whether or not you are actually carrying your ID card.

The government seem keen on using facial biometrics so they can develop the applications that GeneralMelchet has noted - remote identification of individuals by video camera.