National ID cards, good or bad?

No, I still have a problem with it, for many reasons.

One, what data is to be gathered, held on the card, and who can access it, and under what circumstances? The government are still not answering this question.

Cost, why should I be forced to spend a couple of hundred pounds on something I don't want? Is that legal, the govt forcing £200 out of my hands?

Accuracy. The data will not be accurate. We do not a single repository for this data at present, and people will get new fake ID based on old fake ID, and there will have to be loopholes for people not registered at birth, so the system will be prone to abuse. The major abusers will be criminals, so it will not achieve it's goals of catching offenders. In fact, the system will be so unwieldly I doubt it will work. Recent goverment IT projects on similar lines have all been crashing failures. I don't see how thay can make this work.

Exactly, so an ID card need not be introduced. If the Police have 'reasonable grounds' to approach someone, then fair enough. Compelling people to carry a card, and giving Police the automatic right to interfere with an individual and ask to see the card must be refused.

If you are confused about the role of the Police, I suggest you go look up 'The Nine Principles of Policing' set down by Sir Robert Peel, father of the modern Police force. He foresaw a lot of the problems we face today with the Police and the Public, and set down these rules to try an avert them. The Police have suffered from 'function creep' and are in breach of these guidelines as we speak, and I would hate to see it go further, as it would question the validity of the whole organisation.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

String I am not going to argue those points, because your luck of knowledge is showing. Just to prove it: banks have to report to the government every transaction over 10 K and libraries have to provide (if asked) info on the readers reading habits.

So my points were right on the money and it is clear you wouldn't recognize fascism if it hit you in the face...
I also noted you couldn't show any difference between a driving licence and a national ID...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Valid concerns and you should get answers. Now suppose the government answers your concerns statisfactory, would you be for national ID?

Cost should be covered by the government. So if they do, are you for it?

OK, so you are against the imperfection of the system. So let's suppose they are trying to make it perfect, are you for it?

You got this completely backward. By having an acceptable ID on you gives you the oportunity to clear yourself quickly. Now even if you have a card but you fell the police are just messing with you, you still can refuse to show ID.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

not at all, in fact i would be so much further against it

 

Identity theft
Tony Blair said "ID cards are needed to stop the soaring costs of identity theft" in May 2005.[59] However, security experts have claimed that placing trust in a single document may make identity theft easier, since only this document needs to be targeted.[60]

Falsely obtaining such a 'secure' identity becomes very valuable because people are less likely to question its validity; effectively there is a single point of failure. This has happened in Australia, where identity theft has risen above British levels since the introduction of a widely used Tax File Number. Identity theft surrounding the Social Security Number is also a major problem in the USA. However, it can be argued that part of the problem in these countries arises from the lack of a national ID card as no positive identification exists which links one to one's unique ID number such as the Social Security Number. It is the lack of such means of identification, not necessarily the existence of the unique number itself, which promotes ID theft since there are no easily available means to verify one's SSN (such as a card with a person's SSN and photograph).

However, others[who?] claim that such comparisons cannot be directly compared with the introduction of identity cards and point out that such critiques usually offer not any alternative solutions to identity theft as it continues to grow.[citation needed]

Opponents to the scheme state that in order to apply for the new identity cards, existing documents such as passports will be used to prove identity; however, such identification is proficiently forged, allowing identity thieves posing as someone else to apply for cards. While new applications could be made using false documentation, existing cards and database entries would also be targets. Supporters note that such claims ignore that actual process, which allows for electronic checks of applications rather than a solely paper based system.

The NIR database would make an attractive target for computer criminals. Opponents also claim that any system involving human operators is liable to social engineering attacks, infiltration or bribery or blackmail of staff. Also with such information readily available to staff, the chances of a modern Protection Racket become realistic to ensure "the integrety of the information" for financial gain for an applicant; a custodial sentence would be unlikely to deter such criminal activity taking place as the assumption, in law is that the state holds accurate information. Supporters claim that there are potential ways of organising working processes to stop such attacks.

Due to the supposed security of the British system, proving that one's identity has been stolen could prove problematic. If a person's biometric information is discovered and exploited by an identity thief the subject has little recourse, since such information by definition cannot be changed or reissued.


[edit] Card tampering and forging
In addition to problems affecting the database, there may be the tampering or superficial forging of the actual biometric identity cards. In a recent case in Germany, criminals forged an ID card that included biometric data.[61]

A number of academics also point to problems of removing human interaction from security systems. Such problems can be seen with Chip and PIN credit card systems.[62] While not a criticism of the technology itself, the work notes that operators cannot simply leave the security up to the technology and must remain vigilant in preventing suspicious behaviour.

 

Sure. I'm the one who made lofty claims and then failed to support those claims, like: "Your president can detain you INDEFINITELY without a court hearing if he says you are a terrorist". And when I ask for legitimate proof, I'm the one who's ignorant because I don't accept what you say. So, now we're arguing by paucity of proof rather than prevalence of it.

Oh. Well, since you put it that way, I guess you win then. I mean, if you can unsubstantiated any points without proof, examples and solid references, then we can all play that game, can't we?

No, there would be: the Federal government would be issuing them and it has no business doing so. Show me a compelling reason why they should.

~String

 

Yes, but my requirement is that anyone accessing my details has to be granted access each and every time they ask, no blanket access, and justify it each and every time, and that I am made aware of their request, unless it would compromise a proceeding for a criminal investigation. So far the govt have not made this guarantee.

Also, I would need a guarantee that the data was 100% accurate. If that means keeping it simple, then that's what it requires, but so far the Govt have not published a proposed schema, and have not confirmed what data will be held on the card.

The government has no money but that which we give them through taxation, so them 'covering' the cost is impossible. I don't want my tax money squandered on a system that won't achieve anything.

Naivety showing there. Nothing is perfect. I work in IT, and I have performed data reconcialation exercises. Generally, a 90% hit rate is achieved automatically, leaving 10% to be reconciled maually. That means 6,000,000 records for people in the UK, cross referencing against all the possible sources of data, and even then it's not guaranteed to include everyone, wrongdoers will escape the census.

If I'm not breaking the law, the Police have no business with me,and terfore I have no need to 'clear' myself, we are innocent until proven guilty! If I am breaking the law, they already have adequate powers of arrest and detention. The question arises if refusing to show ID when randomly stopped becomes a crime in itself.

Random stoppages are in the realm of totalitarianism. I will not stand for that.

 

Hey LA, nice article, on;

If there are electronic systems, such as the passport database, that could be queried to verify the ID of an applicant for an ID card, why don't we just grant access to existing databases to law enforcement?

All we are doing by introducing an ID card, is replicating data from other sources, and that is obviously a waste of money (plus, replica databases get out of synch with each other, trust me, I've done this). All we need is access to the existing databases, via a metadirectory, you know, like one of those web sites that finds you the cheapest car insurance, by going to every insurance companies web site for you. IE we enable a central computer system to have live access to all the other govt databases, National Security Number, Passport, DVLA, NHS, PNC, etc, and it should be able to get a match based on name, d.o.b. and address. No new card required, just the utilisation of what we already have.

The only thing left to debate then, if who gets to access the meta-directory under what circumstances.

 

I am more than happy to debate you on each of those claims, but not in this thread. Feel free to challenge me in the formal debate group.

The banking example is personal: Try to transfer 11K to anyone, it will take 5 days instead of 5 seconds because of the government's anti-terrorist measures. Of course terrorist can't transfer let's say 9 K.

Wait a minute! They can!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

By showing your ignorance on that point I don't really see the point of proving the rest for you...Do a google search...

 

Who said anything about breaking the law? How about witnessing something? let's say you and a few other people are eyewitnesses at an accident. Now you have the choice of stick around for a few hours (happened to me) or identifying yourself and make a statement later.

Or let's say there was a murder and the police made a quick dragnet around a few blocks. It is just natural that they are going to identify EVERYONE inside the dragnet to eliminate who is NOT a possible suspect.

etc.etc.etc.

 

What if we start to do it the other way around? Have the national ID first and let's say driving licence would be a stamp in it? If you make it similar looking like a passport you might don't even need a passport. Whatever DVLA,PNC are, we could get those data from the national ID center.

So instead of a bunch of datacenters, having one central one is less costly...(if cost is your biggest problem)

 

Yeah - you already need a social security card to work in the US, but that doesn't seem to actually stop anyone. I don't see why a special "national ID" would work any better. Seems like a waste of time/money. If employers WANT to hire illegals, lack of a card isn't going to stop them.

"Your papers, please..."

 

I'm under no obligation to stick around, being a witness is purely voluntary, but I can go to a Police station and volunteer as a witness post facto, no ID card required.

Come on, that's bullshit. Try harder.

 

Because we would have to scrap or dual run systems, and that would lead to chaos, confusion, and easy forgery?

We already bear the cost of the DVLA (Driver Vehice Licensing Authority) and the PNC (Police National Computer).

Turning things on their head, and centralising requires that data reconciliation I talked about, to make sure John Smith at the DVLA is John Smith on the PNC, 'cos the former might not want to inherit the criminal record of the latter.

Either way, we don't need an ID card. If the data is there, Police ask our name, and date of birth, and get the picture from our passport and or drivers license flashed up. That simple. We could secure access via a pin, to prevent people using other's name and d.o.b.

All we need is a metadirectory. Simple, data is there, we just need to secure the access to it.

 

There goes your credibility....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

just because you can't imagine the situation... :shrug:

hey, just because I like you:

You are on a small cruiseship where a murder happens. 300 people on board, obviously one of them is a killer. Don't you think the police should take EVERYONE's identity, before letting them off? I guess you agree holding back 300 people is a bit hard....

 

They can only bring something into effect if the public is apathetic. Currently the governments doing a pretty good job of making sure that's not the case with ID cards. For instance trying to get people to "Pay" for them or face criminal charges( This is on top of things like Passports and Driving Licenses)

The ID card doesn't replace anything, currently the suggestion is that it would only really be used by the Benefits agencies, Not the NHS, the Police, Banks or anyone else. So basically it's pretty F*ing useless. Everybody would be expected to pay to get the card, this means people that are in work and have no intention of collecting benefits would be spending out on a "service" they don't need.

Obviously should they try to force people to use them, don't just say "NO!" make damn sure you don't go along with it. You won't be the only person saying "NO!" and not doing as "you are told".

In the long run it's just another great waste of money for the government to make vast amounts of cash disappear without even a whimper from the public. Other examples are "The Millennium Dome", "The Chunnel (Channel Tunnel)" even the "London Stock exchange" was not spared back in the early 1990's with it's "Taurus" project.

Technically if you are concerned about your information falling into the hands of criminals then obviously the Identify card is not the way to go, as you can get any more corrupt than the government itself. (That's in the UK of course)

 

In the US you are explicitly NOT required to show the police an ID just because they ask for it. In many states you are required to tell them your name, but you are under no obligation to show the police an ID if you don't want to. The only time the police can demand to see an ID is if they stopped you while you were driving, in which case they can demand to see a driver's license. If you're on foot (or a passenger in a car, or whatever) you don't have to show them. Every once in a while you read a story about some idiot cop who arrests someone for refusing to show an ID, which usually results in the police giving the victim a big cash settlement to make up for the illegal arrest.

 

As I understand it, part of the reason so many states are refusing to go along with the national ID is that the federal government is trying to require states to go along with it, but not actually giving them any money to pay for it...basically demanding that the states pay for a federal project.

 

It is that, also for some states, the DMV just cannot handle it in the time frames required. People think the DMV is bad and the lines there long now? Imagine how bad it will be when *every* driver has to report in to exchange his or her license. The volume of people waiting for service will be enlarged beyond anything those departments ever expected to handle.

It was once suggested that this initiative might be linked to a federal I.D. card, the Social Security card, but I recall reading that Social Security Administration let it be known that they'd never be able to handle a program of that scope.