ID Cards / Identification Cards

[Anonymous]

A number of credit card companies now issue credit cards with embedded RFIDs (radio frequency ID tags), with promises of enhanced security and speedy transactions.

But on today's episode of Boing Boing tv, hacker and inventor Pablos Holman shows Xeni how you can use about $8 worth of gear bought on eBay to read personal data from those credit cards -- cardholder name, credit card number, and whatever else your bank embeds in this manner.

BoingBoing

So yes, you can buy the readers, you can make them, the important bit then is the inherent security. Imagine a device which just writes random bytes to the card, that will break the encryption and render the card useless.

You see? I told you all.

Despite mass protests this faulty RFID scanning system will be widely used everywhere as a replacement for the criticised chip and pin.

This will then be used to boost the biometric ID database etc.

 

[rynner2]

We'll be able to sign up for ID cards at Tesco
By Philip Johnston
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 12/05/2008

Almost unnoticed last week, the Government announced it had shaved another £1 billion off the cost of its proposed identity card scheme.

It did so by deciding to let the "open market" capture citizens' biometrics, effectively outsourcing the cost of enrolling people on to the ID database. You could end up getting your fingerprints taken at a supermarket, rather than at a passport office as originally proposed.

Almost imperceptibly, the security architecture originally built around the ID card project has been dismantled.

When it was proposed in 2002, the intention was to establish a bespoke database. David Blunkett, then Home Secretary, said: "We've got to build a clean identity database from scratch. We can't use the National Insurance numbers, as there are 20 million more National Insurance numbers than there are people in the country."

But this idea was abandoned. Instead, biometrics will be stored on an existing system in the Home Office used for asylum seekers, biographical information will be held on a National Insurance database in the Department for Work and Pensions and a third database at the Identity and Passport Service (IPS) will hold administrative details related to the issue and use of the ID cards.

It was also envisaged that everyone would have to give an iris print, which is the most secure biometric with a far lower chance of false readings than fingerprints. Last year, however, the Identity and Passport Agency said it would proceed only with fingerprints, which are far cheaper to capture.

Still, at least these fingerprints would be taken in the secure and official environs of a government passport office, one of 70 being set up for this purpose. But when it became clear that far more than 70 offices would be needed to enrol 60 million people on to a database, and it would be costly, this changed as well. Hence the announcement that private contractors will be asked to bid for the work.

Does any of this sound secure to you? It seems to defeat the purpose of the whole exercise, which is to protect identities, capture terrorists, bear down on benefit fraud and stop illegal immigration. But of course none of these will be ameliorated by the possession of an ID card, which nobody will be required to carry with them.

As one perplexed campaigner said after the publication of the new costings: "The Government now appears to have junked the primary pretext for the scheme. So what is it for?"

The answer has nothing to do with security, any more than the presence of CCTV cameras everywhere has anything to do with stopping crime, as even senior police officers now concede. It is about political control. The state wants to know where you are, and those who run it have always believed it has a right to know, but have usually been beaten back by Parliament.

Information technology has provided the wherewithal for these details to be captured, so the Government has seized its chance. The problem for us, though, is that it expects to be given the information without guaranteeing its security.

The only thing that would make this bargain remotely worthwhile is the certainty that our details will be secure, and a promise that we will not be mistaken for someone else. After all, it is the law-abiding citizen accused of being an illegal immigrant or an armed robber who stands to lose most.

So what is the ID scheme for? A few years ago the Treasury was developing the Citizen Information Project (CIP) - an attempt to "improve services by increasing the sharing of basic citizen information (contact details such as name, address and date of birth) across central and local government."

This envisaged establishing a population register, initially using the passport, DVLA and National Insurance databases to access and centralise personal information. The population database would be updated as births, deaths and changes of address were registered, and people came to live in the UK. The CIP was abandoned in 2003 when the ID scheme took over.

A valedictory report on the project said: "The National Identity Register proposed as part of the Home Office Identity Cards Programme will deliver many of the CIP benefits... by effectively acting as the UK adult population register."

Shorn of much of its security paraphernalia, that is what the ID scheme now is. It will fulfil an aim of British public policy since the 16th century. The Tudors wanted to set up a population register, and another failed attempt was made in 1753, when it was proposed to take an annual local count of population, and a record of all marriages, births and deaths. The idea was never pursued and Britain instead moved to a census as a way of counting the population.

But the population register concept was picked up in countries like Sweden, where everyone has a unique personal number (UPN) allocated at birth. For instance, 454010-1488 is a woman born on April 10, 1945 with the individual number 148 (an even number denotes a woman) and an anti-fraud check digit 8. All administrative records relating to this person carry the UPN from birth until death.

Politically, it seems peculiar that the Government did not define this whole exercise in the context of a population register from the start, rather than as the imposition of an identity card with all the attendant civil liberties connotations.

It would have sounded less sinister than an ID database and would have been far cheaper. A feasibility study for the CIP estimated it would cost £13 million to develop a register, £240 million to implement it and £25 million a year to run.

Given the gradual removal of the security walls around the proposed ID database, it is clear that this scheme has nothing to do with protecting our identities. It is about setting up a glorified population register to keep track of us.

Those who think the Government will scrap the ID cards are mistaken, since its main purpose is to establish a population database. This is also why it will eventually be compulsory to join in. You should start working out your UPN now.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main ... do1202.xml

 

[rynner2]

ID cards 'could threaten privacy'

The government should limit the data it collects on citizens for its ID card scheme to avoid creating a surveillance society, a group of MPs has warned.

The Home Affairs Select Committee called for proper safeguards on the plans for compulsory ID cards to stop "function creep" threatening privacy.

It wants a guarantee the scheme will not be expanded without MPs' approval.

The Ministry of Justice said it had to balance protecting the public with protecting a right to privacy.

'Ambiguity'

The National Identity Scheme is due to start rolling out later this year, and will eventually hold details on everyone in Britain over the age of 16.

The select committee said in a report: "It should collect only what is essential, to be stored only for as long as is necessary.

"We are concerned... about the potential for 'function creep' in terms of the surveillance potential of the national identity scheme.

"Any ambiguity about the objectives of the scheme puts in jeopardy the public's trust in the scheme itself and in the government's ability to run it."

The committee said it accepted the government's assurance that the scheme would not be used as a surveillance tool.

However, "we seek the further assurance that any initiative to broaden the scope of the scheme will only be proposed after consulting the information commissioner and on the basis that proposals will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny in draft form," it said.

Committee chairman Keith Vaz said there could be "potentially disastrous consequences" if data was mishandled.

Therefore, he said, the government should draw up a "broad outline of contingency plans" to deal with potential security breaches in the ID cards programme.

The report referred to the loss of two discs containing the personal details of 25m people last year.

"The minister's assurances that the government has learned lessons, though welcome, are not sufficient to reassure us or, we suspect, the public," it said.

The report also urged the government to set up new controls on the National DNA Database to prevent "unnecessary invasions of privacy".

It said the system should be changed to make it easier for people whose DNA is on the system to challenge its retention.

etc...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7441693.stm

And another Government IT cock-up here:

Fraudsters hack into Home Office website
By Ben Leach
Last Updated: 1:57AM BST 08/06/2008

Cunning computer hackers have hijacked the Home Office crime reduction website and used it to carry out an elaborate online scam.
The fraudsters set up a fake page on the website then sent millions of web users a "phishing" email purporting to be from an Italian bank, asking customers to visit the page and confirm their bank details.

Anyone who typed in their password left themselves open to money being stolen from their account.

The security breach began last Sunday and was not resolved until the following morning.

Jacques Erasmus, of internet security firm PrevX, who spotted the fraud, said: "This is very embarrassing for the Home Office. It is a bit like having a mugger hiding in the local police station nicking people's wallets when they come in." 8)

He said the fraudsters might have targeted the crime reduction website in ordered to show off or "stick it to the man".

The Home Office is investigating. A spokeswoman said: "The Home Office takes security of its information very seriously and a review of the security of our websites is already underway."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... bsite.html

 

[Timble2]

ID cards 'could threaten privacy'

...and the the Pope is Catholic.

Given the function creep that's occuring with anti-terror laws, this isn't really surprising.

 

[Analogue Boy]

Hot on the heels of Top Secret information left on a train, we see Hazel Blears having a laptop packed with sensitive information stolen.

I wonder if it'll take 42 days for the truth to come out in the police investigation?

 

[ihatethatmonkee3]

who was the one who had sensitive information on her constiuency computer, which was then stolen?

no personality means all these mps look - and sound - the same to me now.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

who was the one who had sensitive information on her constiuency computer, which was then stolen?

no personality means all these mps look - and sound - the same to me now.

I think that's a bit unfair on Hazel Blears. She might be the same as the rest of them but what enthusiasm! She's an absolute Duracell battery of a human being, the hardest working woman in showbiznizz/politics.

 

[Peripart]

ID cards 'could threaten privacy'

...and the the Pope is Catholic.

He is? They must have slipped that one out on a "bad news day", 'cos it passed me by entirely. Sneaky bugger, who'd have guessed?

 

[lupinwick]

A bit more aggravation for the scheme

Britain's leading airline bosses have accused the government of using their industry as a political pawn in the national identity card debate by forcing aviation workers to join the scheme next year.

In a scathing letter to the home secretary, Jacqui Smith, the chief executives of British Airways, easyJet, Virgin Atlantic and BMI said that forcing airport workers to have an ID card from November next year was "unnecessary" and "unjustified".

All airport airside workers, who work in departure areas and on runways, must enrol in the scheme from next year under government plans, but the aviation industry is claiming it will bring no security benefits.

"First and foremost, no additional security benefits have been identified. Indeed, there is a real risk that enrolment in the national ID scheme will be seen to provide an added, but ultimately false, sense of security to our processes," said the British Air Transport Association (Bata) letter, signed by airline bosses including Willie Walsh of British Airways and Andy Harrison of easyJet.

It also accused the government of singling out the industry for politically motivated reasons, contradicting previous pledges that the scheme would be voluntary.

"This supports our view that the UK aviation industry is being used for political purposes on a project which has questionable public support," said Bata.

The first wave of the ID card scheme will see the cards becoming compulsory for non-EU foreign nationals living in Britain this year, and for 200,000 airport workers and Olympic security staff from next year.

Parliament is to decide whether the £4.4bn scheme should be made compulsory for British citizens.

The aviation industry has consistently demanded greater state support for the increased security costs at airports since the liquid bomb scare in August 2006, when expensive passenger and baggage screening measures were implemented by the government overnight.

Bata said it had worked closely with the Home Office and Immigration Service on tightening procedures, including longer passport checks, but said ID cards were a step too far and must not be made mandatory.

"The priority for government attention should be the improved efficiency of border processes, which would result in a more reliable operation and better levels of service for the travelling public," said Bata.

"We would urge you to reverse the decision to compel airport airside workers to enrol in the national ID card scheme."

A Home Office spokesperson said: "Biometric identity cards for airside workers lock identity to the individual providing far greater assurance of identity than currently exists within the aviation sector."

The spokesperson added that it brought benefits to employers and employees and reassurance to the public by identifying workers in security-sensitive jobs, including airport posts.

Department for Transport officials expressed concerns last year that airside workers might take the components for a bomb into airports and store them in departure lounges for terrorists to pick up and assemble on planes.

Source

Could be interesting given that the ID cards are thought not too add any real security benefit.

 

[rynner2]

Long article, begins:

End of cold calling and junk mail signalled by Information Commissioner
By Christopher Hope, Home Affairs Editor
Last Updated: 11:41PM BST 10/07/2008
Millions of households could see a big fall in the amount of junk mail and cold calls they receive after the Government's information watchdog said councils should be banned from selling personal details to companies.
DANIEL JONES

Richard Thomas, the information commissioner, called for a cultural change in how personal information is handled by government, councils and private companies.

He called for the power to raid the premises of organisations which flout data protection laws and a big increase in fines for bodies which break the rules.

Mr Thomas also questioned whether personal details should be sold to car clamping companies and asked why councils automatically sent out bus passes to people over 60 when it can cause offence.

The recommendations came in an independent Data Sharing Review, which was ordered by Prime Minister Gordon Brown last October, into the way the public and private sector handles personal information.

Local authorities make hundreds of thousands of pounds a year from selling on details from an edited form of the electoral register, which contains information on six out of 10 voters who allow their details to be included.

Typically companies pay £20 plus £1.50 for each 1,000 entries, according to a fee scale set out in the Representation of the People Regulations 2001.

The information is then used by market research companies and direct marketing organisations to send out millions of junk mail offers as well as making it easier to make unsolicited phone calls.

Mr Thomas said that firms which continued to use historic versions of the register to bombard homes with junk mail would be fined.

Mr Thomas admitted this proposal amounted to a return to the pre-internet age, with copies of the electoral roll only available in public libraries.

Although only 60 per cent of people agree to let councils sell their details, the report found "the language used on these forms can be confusing and many people do not realise it is the edited register that is on public sale".

It added: "We feel that selling the edited register is an unsatisfactory way for local authorities to treat personal information.

"It sends a particularly poor message to the public that personal information collected for something as vital as participation in the democratic process can be sold to 'anyone for any purpose'."

The study found that "the sale of the electoral register deters some people from registering at all".

It concluded: "We therefore recommend that the Government removes the provision allowing the sale of the edited electoral register.

"The edited register would therefore no longer serve any purpose and so should be abolished." The move would not affect the sale of the full register to credit reference agencies, however.

Mr Thomas's review, which was commissioned weeks before officials mislaid two CDs containing the entire Child Benefit database, found there was a lack of trust in the way organisations handled people's personal information.

In a message to Government departments and large organisations, the report called for a "significant improvement in the personal and organisational culture of those who collect, manage and share personal data".

"Public confidence in organisations ability to handle personal information is at a low ebb," the report said, calling for a tightening of procedures over data handling.

Mr Thomas said: "There is undoubtedly a lot of confusion and uncertainty, particularly about the law. People can sometimes hide behind the law and there is a significant lack of public trust in data-sharing.

"If there is to be sharing it's got to be absolutely crystal clear who is responsible for getting it right."

The 70-page report questioned whether the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency was right to sell information from its database to "private car-clamping companies for the civil enforcement of parking infringements".

It also raised concerns over whether Poole Borough Council was right to use "surveillance techniques to establish whether a child was living in the catchment area of a local school".

The report also asked whether local councils should automatically send out free bus passes to pensioners without asking first. "Some wives are surprised to find their husbands are not 50," he said.

Mark Walport, director of the Wellcome Trust and co-author of the report, said that people should challenge the level of information they were being asked to hand over to companies.

continues...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2282113/End-of-cold-calling-and-junk-mail-signalled-by-Information-Commissioner.html

This puzzles me, though:

...asked why councils automatically sent out bus passes to people over 60 when it can cause offence.

Round here, they don't.
It's a photocard, which means you have to apply for it and get photographed (usually at a public library).

 

[Anonymous]

Jacqui Schmitt has attempted to get the yoof of today to support her ID card vision for them all.
Of course, despite the age verification system, adults as well as young people have seen fit to post their views on the site.
No supportive views on the site except from the moderators posing as yoof - some of the views are of course very amusing.
See Jacqui spin and the response of the yoof here;

http://www.mylifemyid.org

 

[JamesWhitehead]

Does La Smith post on the site in person and where are the best bits?

It's rather slow to trawl through the whole thing.

It does look as if the blogosphere has sniffed out the site and occupied it. I wish the yoofs I know were as concerned and articulate as some of the posts I saw.

 

[Anonymous]

I'll keep an eye out for JS posting personal BS on the site, nothing as yet from what I saw other than her marketing team.

As for the yoof, yep - amazing to see such articulate yoof I agree.

For authentic yoof-speak you may have to visit the Tw@t-o-Tron (which feeds on comments from BBC HYS); an example of it's use on the My Life My ID site can be found here;

http://www.mylifemyid.org/node/263

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Doesn't Jacqui Smith post as J-Dogg62?

 

[Analogue Boy]

Jaqui Smith falls outside the 18-25 age group the site is aimed at therefore she cannot post.
It's all a bit ageist if you ask me. I mean, why should a cut-off point for an adult be an arbitrary 25? I am being denied a say on this platform that is supposed to be canvassing millions of minion's opinions and wonder if the Equal Opportunities bunch know about this and whether it flouts the Government's own agenda on ageism.

 

[Anonymous]

Jim - anybody regardless of their age can post.
You know this; you just select the appropriate age and there is no way for them to verify your age at all. Use an email address you have no name for and only receive junk mail in.
I don't think many of the yoof on there are actually yoof.

 

[Analogue Boy]

So much for the government's regard of accuracy of data collection.

Of course the point is facetious. They spend who knows how much on a site that I suspect is probably ripe for a tickle, costing lord knows how much - although the hyper-charismatic mods here could learn a lot from these data-mining bastards about hooky polls, leading questions, bald, bland statements and plain misunderstanding of the issues being put forward in the guise of debate.

On the plus side, it seems to have become a bit of a recruiting drive for No2ID and teh legit l33t yoof are seein thru it.

It sucketh...biggly.
1/10

 

[stu neville]

...although the hyper-charismatic mods here could learn a lot from these data-mining bastards about hooky polls, leading questions, bald, bland statements and plain misunderstanding of the issues being put forward in the guise of debate...

TBH, on the one hand, their mods have a lot to deal with, such as, from a random page this:

Re: Re: Not a hope in heck I'll ever get a card

i read id cards r bein given 2 4ren immigrants l8tr this year an its compusory for em to ave it. if this true how u gonna stop em then? u jus spouting off lota sound an fury IYAM. if you a 4rener an u cant get into uk w/o one an u need it 4 a job wot u gonna do? this country is racist man and u bwd if u think ppl gonna die ina ditch 4 sum 4reners they h8 anyway moanin cus they gotta av id cards. soon as ppl start usin em b jus like card readers at tesco now man. b everywhere quik as a flash. wot u gonna do then?

On the other hand, when confronted by a post by "Himmler" (avatar: a picture of Himmler) which reads:

i think i'm going to enjoy it when things kick off over here.



it's only a matter of time imo

...the mod Debbie swings into action thus:

Hi Himmler,

Thanks for posting. Just wondered what it was specifically that you were going to enjoy when things kick off.

Thanks,

Debbie
Forum Moderator

God, she's good. I'll see if there's a transfer window, and put in a bid straight away.

 

[Analogue Boy]

I believe that first one is a bit of a controversy piece. Some on the boards think the guy is a moderator posing as teh yoof.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

I believe that first one is a bit of a controversy piece. Some on the boards think the guy is a moderator posing as teh yoof.

It does seem rather amusing and has flair, in a suspiciously literate, SMS sort of way.

 

[feen5]

i read id cards r bein given 2 4ren immigrants l8tr this year an its compusory for em to ave it. if this true how u gonna stop em then? u jus spouting off lota sound an fury IYAM. if you a 4rener an u cant get into uk w/o one an u need it 4 a job wot u gonna do? this country is racist man and u bwd if u think ppl gonna die ina ditch 4 sum 4reners they h8 anyway moanin cus they gotta av id cards. soon as ppl start usin em b jus like card readers at tesco now man. b everywhere quik as a flash. wot u gonna do then?

I felt like a young lad again reading that, it took me a while to negotitate my way through all that text speak.

 

[rynner2]

Anyhow, back to gubmint incompetence...

MoD admits loss of secret files

More than 100 USB memory sticks, some containing secret information, have been lost or stolen from the Ministry of Defence since 2004, it has emerged.

The department also admitted that more than 650 laptops had been stolen over the past four years - nearly double the figure previously claimed.

The Liberal Democrats condemned the latest security breaches as evidence of "shocking incompetence".

But the MoD insisted its policies were "generally fit for purpose".

Previously the MoD had confirmed that 347 laptops were stolen between 2004 and 2007.

The Mod said it has no idea on when, where and how the memory sticks were lost.

Defence Secretary Des Browne issued revised figures after "anomalies in the reporting process" were discovered.

The official total is now 658 laptops stolen, with another 89 lost. Just 32 have been recovered.

In a separate response, ministers said 121 of the department's USB memory sticks had been taken or misplaced since 2004.

Some 26 of those went this year - including three which contained information classified as "secret" and 19 which were "restricted".

BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner said the incident was "embarrasing" for the MoD as they had no idea how or when they had been lost or stolen.

Liberal Democrat MP Sarah Teather received the information after tabling a question in parliament.

Ms Teather said: "It seems that this government simply cannot be trusted with keeping sensitive information safe.

"This shows a shocking degree of incompetence."

Shadow defence secretary Liam Fox said: "To treat national security in such a cavalier fashion is unforgivable."

A Ministry of Defence spokesman said any loss of data was subject to a full inquiry and measures were being put into place to improve data protection.

This is the latest in a series of data loss incidents:

Last month the MoD was heavily criticised by a review of its data procedures which warned that basic security discipline had been forgotten and there was "little awareness" of the danger of losing information.

'Action plan'

But an MoD spokeswoman said officials were taking the situation very seriously: "Any loss of data is investigated fully.

"The recent report on data losses by Sir Edmund Burton found that MoD policies and procedures are generally fit for purpose, but also identified a number of areas where MoD needs to do better in protecting personal data.

"MoD has developed, and is now working through, an action plan to address all of the report's recommendations and bring the department's handling of personal data to an acceptable state."

Since the Burton report in June 2008 the MoD has recalled 20,000 non-encrypted laptops and are now encrypting them.

So far half have been through the process. About 2,000 are unable to be encrypted so have been taken out of service.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7514281.stm

 

[GNC]

I'm sure it's not only the MoD who lose memory sticks. We need to make them much bigger or put a beeper in them to make them easier to find.

 

[Mythopoeika]

The Liberal Democrats condemned the latest security breaches as evidence of "shocking incompetence".

But the MoD insisted its policies were "generally fit for purpose".

Perhaps that means the government intended to lose all that data?

 

[Analogue Boy]

Surely the loss of a memory stick is not a loss of the data but a loss of a copy of the data. Which could mean that it may be genuinely down the back of a sofa somewhere or has possibly been traded or sold on.
The 'loss' of so many laptops seems more like endemic carelessness or extreme bad luck.

 

[ArthurASCII]

I don't reckon it's incompetence, carelessness or bad luck. It's just good old theft

I worked alongside the MoD as a contractor for nearly a decade. There is a "magpie culture". People would buy laptops on the back of projects - the laptops would then "disappear". And woe betide anyone who left a memory stick lying about on a desk - it'd be "trousered" instantly.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Perhaps they should open a new Ministry of Irony then they could send all the people who can't remember how they lost memory sticks to work there.

 

[rynner2]

Jacqui Smith warned by first group to be given ID cards that they will not improve security
By Andrew Porter, Political Editor
Last Updated: 11:25PM BST 20/07/2008

The first group of workers to be have compulsory ID cards forced on them have warned Jacqui Smith that the measure will not improve security.
Union staff representing airport workers will this week meet the Home Secretary as a matter of "urgency" to discuss their concerns.

When ministers announced the plans to phase in compulsory ID cards, airport workers were chosen as the first people to have to carry them.

The Government has been determined to bring the scheme in, despite claims that it is a costly waste of time.

However, the Home Secretary is now facing strong criticism from the unions as well as opposition parties.

In a letter to Miss Smith, Frances O'Grady, the deputy general secretary of the TUC, said the issue was also one of civil liberties.

She said: "Unions representing the airport workforce recognise the need for effective security measures, but see no evidence at all that these proposals that these proposals would enhance airport security arrangements.

"They have raised a number of specific issues: the move has significant civil liberties' implications; that it would not be cost effective, and indeed, appears to impose additional burdens on business and employees with no measurable security benefit."

The Unite union, which represents some airport workers, have also attacked the plans, saying it is wrong that workers should face a £30 charge for an identity card before they can apply for an airside pass.

Some estimates put the cost of the ID card scheme at £18 billion over 10 years. The Home Office puts the cost at nearer £6 billion.

Damian Green, the Shadow Immigration Minister, said: "As the ID card scheme comes closer, opposition is rising. It is a significant blow to the Government that the first group who will have to carry them are resisting strongly.

"This shows that when the practicalities are made clear, people recognise that ID cards will not add to security but will damage privacy and civil liberties and cost huge amounts."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... urity.html

Many interesting comments follow...! Might there be industrial action?

 

[lupinwick]

I don't reckon it's incompetence, carelessness or bad luck. It's just good old theft

I worked alongside the MoD as a contractor for nearly a decade. There is a "magpie culture". People would buy laptops on the back of projects - the laptops would then "disappear". And woe betide anyone who left a memory stick lying about on a desk - it'd be "trousered" instantly.

Testing to destruct was always a good way to get new kit.

However, coming back on topic, have the government come up with any really convincing arguments as to why we need ID cards? Or are all the existing arugments being shot down and no more explanations being proffered?

 

[Analogue Boy]

The major concerns are not with the ID card itself which is just a piece of plastic with a chip in it. The thing that naysayers are suspicious of is the extensive centralised database behind it and the accuracy and safety of information held on it.

Aside from another security lapse this weekend, the government doesn't seem capable of ensuring any security on precious data at any level.

And the recent debacle over the sats markings indicate that the private sector couldn't handle it that much better either.