ID Cards / Identification Cards

[Jerry_B]

This seems to be your only argument, Jerry_B. Don't worry about it, because it won't work. Is that really all you've got?

My argument is that it doesn't matter whether the instrument being used is blunt, or sharp, the poor bugger on the receiving end will suffer, just the same.

It seems you haven't understood my point - which is that there isn't really an instrument in the first place. There's an idea about one, but whether it actually ever gets made, let alone used, is another thing entirely. Add to that the fact that the govt. seem compeletely inept at handling anything to do with technology, even on a small scale, and the sort of mass-tracking ID card scenario that some conspiracists seem to drool over seems laughable.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

This seems to be your only argument, Jerry_B. Don't worry about it, because it won't work. Is that really all you've got?

My argument is that it doesn't matter whether the instrument being used is blunt, or sharp, the poor bugger on the receiving end will suffer, just the same.

It seems you haven't understood my point - which is that there isn't really an instrument in the first place. There's an idea about one, but whether it actually ever gets made, let alone used, is another thing entirely. Add to that the fact that the govt. seem compeletely inept at handling anything to do with technology, even on a small scale, and the sort of mass-tracking ID card scenario that some conspiracists seem to drool over seems laughable.

I believe that, like the rest of the EU, modern, biometric, probably RFID enhanced, ID cards will be introduced in Britain.

http://www.statewatch.org/news/2005/jul/09eu-passports-id-cards.htm

Whether they work properly, or not, is beside the point, compared to the way such ID cards, backed up by comprehensive databases, might work in practice. It's how they are used, not if they will work, that is important.

Once again, whether a conspiracy is involved, or not, is irrelevant, to any possible, de-personalised, numbered, catalogued, cross referenced and indexed, end users, who have to suffer the great clunking fist of the new technology.

As to the potential and possible uses of modern RFIDs and database technology, where have you been for the last 20 years?

 

[Jerry_B]

Whether they work properly, or not, is beside the point, compared to the way such ID cards, backed up by comprehensive databases, might work in practice. It's how they are used, not if they will work, that is important.

Nope - it's entirely the point. They have to work first in order to provide the sort of surveillance needed, so they can't be used or abused if they don't work.

Once again, whether a conspiracy is involved, or not, is irrelevant, to any possible, de-personalised, numbered, catalogued, cross referenced and indexed, end users, who have to suffer the great clunking fist of the new technology.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if this already exists in paper form, via bureaucracy. Technology supposedly tidies up this sort of thing, but it seems that the current govt. can't get even smaller systems to work (i.e. Child Support Agnecy, NHS computer systems, etc.). Technology is not a magic bullet that's going to make things any easier, and the UK govt. certainly has a very poor track record of implementing it.

As to the potential and possible uses of modern RFIDs and database technology, where have you been for the last 20 years?

But these are all vague stabs at possibility. So far, the whole idea about RFID-equipped ID cards tracking our every move in real-time seems to be nothing more than conspiracists drooling over technology. The same thing happens with some parts of the nuts and bolts wing of ufology, especially the conspiratorial wing.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

...
Nope - it's entirely the point. They have to work first in order to provide the sort of surveillance needed, so they can't be used or abused if they don't work.

...

I wouldn't be at all surprised if this already exists in paper form, via bureaucracy. Technology supposedly tidies up this sort of thing, but it seems that the current govt. can't get even smaller systems to work (i.e. Child Support Agnecy, NHS computer systems, etc.). ...

Precisely my point. Look at the misery caused to the individuals who find themselves wrong footed by those systems...

 

[filcee]

So why stalk me and put this on another thread then?

Were you and he...buddies?

It's a paraphrase of a quote from 'Garth Marenghi's Darkplace', by the actor who's providing the voice on the Tyrannosaurus Alan advert...

 

[lupinwick]

This seems to be your only argument, Jerry_B. Don't worry about it, because it won't work. Is that really all you've got?

My argument is that it doesn't matter whether the instrument being used is blunt, or sharp, the poor bugger on the receiving end will suffer, just the same.

It seems you haven't understood my point - which is that there isn't really an instrument in the first place. There's an idea about one, but whether it actually ever gets made, let alone used, is another thing entirely. Add to that the fact that the govt. seem compeletely inept at handling anything to do with technology, even on a small scale, and the sort of mass-tracking ID card scenario that some conspiracists seem to drool over seems laughable.

How many governmental IT projects get reported because they're on time, under budget and working? None is my guess, not newsworthy.

We already count each and every car on the English and Scottish motorway network with some success, ANPR systems provide journey time evaluations etc. etc. And these systems aren't huge or even necessarly state of the art.

In the end, if the UK government can't produce it themselves then they'll buy it from another government which has it already.

 

[Jerry_B]

Precisely my point. Look at the misery caused to the individuals who find themselves wrong footed by those systems...

Your point now being what, exactly? Are you now agreeing with me that the new technology brought in to replace paper bureaucracies won't actually be any better, if it works at all? After all, if it doesn't work, then it also can't be anything of use and so cannot be used against the population as a means of control.

 

[Jerry_B]

How many governmental IT projects get reported because they're on time, under budget and working? None is my guess, not newsworthy.

We already count each and every car on the English and Scottish motorway network with some success, ANPR systems provide journey time evaluations etc. etc. And these systems aren't huge or even necessarly state of the art.

In the end, if the UK government can't produce it themselves then they'll buy it from another government which has it already.

But the track record for very large record keeping systems still isn't all that good. Expand the scale of things, make it a surveillance system and then also bring in a real-time element and IMHO the whole thing is a recipe for distaster - and an expensive distaster at that.

 

[lupinwick]

Funny how banks, stock exchanges etc. etc. do a similar job, process vast amounts of information in real time without huge amounts of issues.

Difference is largely in how the system is handled (from conception, design to implementation).

 

[Jerry_B]

But they're all alot different to the way the govt. tends to run things, in light of the way various systems have been put into place in recent times. And banks, etc. aren't involved with tracking all of their customers and clients in real-time. The track record of govt. schemes has not been all that great, especially when dealing with comlpex interlocking bureaucracies and trying to get them to work with technology.

 

[lupinwick]

I think the main difference is that business is more focussed on getting it working on time and to specification. There are also a lot fewer parties (ie. none) with a vested interest in making it drag on. You could go on for ages saying why government IT may fail.

 

[rynner2]

Cost of help for Britons in trouble abroad lifts passport price to £72
Richard Ford, Home Correspondent

The cost of a UK passport is to rise for the third time in less than two years to £72, the Government announced yesterday.

The increase means that the projected price of the planned identity card will be more than £100.

Charges for the ten-year travel document have risen by 70 per cent in less than two years and 300 per cent since Labour came to power a decade ago. The latest increase was blamed on a steep rise in charges added to the passport fee to pay for consular services at British embassies and diplomatic missions around the world.

Lord Triesman, a Foreign Office minister, said that the additional charges would help to fund services for Britons who get into trouble overseas.

“We have recently implemented a number of significant improvements to our consular services, from better training of staff to the newly built consular crisis centre, which responds to major incidents involving British nationals such as terrorist attacks and natural disasters,” he said.

“Whether dealing with the victims of crime, sickness or other unforeseen circumstances, consular officials are at the forefront of providing assistance to distressed British nationals.

“The consular premium increase will allow us to continue to provide world-class consular support and to invest in bettering that service.”

Until December 2005, a UK passport cost £42, meaning that when the new charge comes into effect in October, there will have been a 70 per cent rise in 22 months.

The price of other types of passports will also rise in October with an adult’s same-day “premium” service increasing from £114.50 to £123 and a fast-track collect service from £100.50 to £109.

A child’s five-year passport will rise by £1 to £46 and a fast-track adult passport, which is processed in a week, from £91 to £97.

The previous set of rises last October was to pay for new security measures, including a digital photograph in a micro-chip stored in the passport.

They also funded enhanced background checks on applicants and new face-to-face interviews for first-time passport applicants.

Yesterday’s announcement of a rise in the cost of the passport is likely to result in the charge for the combined passport and identity card being more than £100.

The Government has already said that the cost of the standalone card – without a passport – will be £30.

Phil Booth, the national co-ordinator of NO2ID, a campaign that opposes the ID card, said: “Home Office excuses and dodgy accounting cannot conceal the outrageous expense of its ID scheme and passport holders should expect further rises as the cost spirals even further out of control.”

David Davis, the Shadow Home Secretary, said: “This is yet more evidence that the Bill for the Government’s £20 billion ID card project is to be met squarely by the taxpayer.

“It is shocking that they are having to pick up the tab for a white elephant that will do nothing to improve public safety and may well make it worse.”

Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said: “This latest price hike suggests the Government is going full steam ahead with its cynical plan to bury ID card costs inside each and every passport.”


Cost compared

Austria £47

Australia £77

France £40.70

Germany £40

Iceland* £162

Japan £108

New Zealand* £123

Norway £87

Switzerland* £218

US £54

*passports in these countries are only valid for five years, so this is the cost of two five-year passports equivalent to one UK ten-year passport

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/p ... 940204.ece

 

[thealien2000uk]

I.D. cards

I have looked into the U.K. I.D. card business very seriously and the premiss is that 1 smart card will take the place of several other cards with various information available to the professional groups that need it.

So your Doctor for instance will only be able to access your medical record, the police will only be able to access you criminal record etc.

But all of the three contenders of the new smart cards can be read at a distance of between 30 to 100 yards, so if they can be read at a distance they can be written to at a distance.

I have had the opportunity to have a play with these top 3 smart cards and with a little fiddling about with and tinkering, pdas and laptops and a little dodgy programming i could easily access all the seperate sections of the smart cards, admittedly the cards i had were in plain text and not encoded as they were test cards but they all could be read with extreme accuracy and the data could be changed at a distance.

The various information suggested for input on these so called smart cards have been put forward and are as follows:-

Information Available to
Birth Certificate Anyone
Criminal records bureau report Police, employers, job agencies, dwp
Criminal record Police, employers, job agencies, dwp
School reports Educators, employers, job agencies, dwp
Qualifications Educators, employers, job agencies, dwp
Curriculum Vitae Educators, employers, job agencies, dwp
Medical History/record NHS, Educators, employers, job agencies, dwp
Passport Hm customs, police, holiday agents
Job Seeking DWP, employers, Job agencies
Credit Report Police, banks, credit orgs, stores, services (gas,electric suppliers etc.)
Banking details Police, employers, banks, credit orgs, stores, services (gas,electric suppliers etc.)
Sexual Offenders List Police, schools, community centres, educators

And the list goes on.....

It has even been proposed that cctv cameras might have auto readers built in to track undesirable people.

Should any of this private information be allowed to be read at all?, never mind by the agencies who may have criminals working for them (cctv has produced hundreds of perverts working for the various cctv companies) or even the criminals holding the cards hiding or changing the information on these type of cards, and won't mugging statistics go up as criminals will want "clean" cards.

BIG BROTHER IS READING AND CHANGING YOUR SMART I.D. CARD.

I for one will not be carrying a smart card even if they make it law.

George Orwell eat you heart out, 1984 will be 2010.......

 

[thealien2000uk]

Oh by the way you will have to pay between £65 to £110 for the 3 proposed smart cards, not £5 as was first stated.........

But you will only need one of these cards

 

[lupinwick]

And the eborders scheme finally kicks off.

The UK has proposed a transatlantic arrangement for sharing biometric data about travellers as US coalition countries in the "war on terror" push for a global system to control migration.

The initiative officially lays the first brick in a concerted effort to establish a common border.

Launching the UK's borders and immigration strategy in Washington today, Home Secretary John Reid said the UK and US should "routinely share information about travellers of interest", as well as people caught with fake passports, or those trying to side-step immigration controls.

He proposed greater co-operation between coalition countries because, he said, the UK couldn't protect its borders "by operating in a bubble".

Source

Nothing too drastic just yet.

 

[Analogue Boy]

This from the Home Office Press Office...

http://press.homeoffice.gov.uk/Speeches ... st-century

The Identity Challenge
We work and live differently. The job for life is gone. Our families look very different to decades ago.

Hyper-mobility – physical and virtual – has become a fact of life. Nearly two thirds of consumers now have an internet connection at home.

Now wait a minute. Didn't MP's used to refer to us as 'the Electorate' rather than 'consumers'?

So I can see already how secure identity will suffuse working life, private life and our use of public services.

So life will be pretty much impossible without a 'voluntary ID Card' in the future. As far as I can see, this is the only acknowledgement to privacy and it seems the NIR will have a role to play there too.

But a system created to build public trust must be overseen by something trusted by the public.

That is why I believe we should examine whether Parliamentary oversight can be strengthened further.

More powers...more laws required?

But we have talked about this long enough. Now I believe it is time to get on with it.

In 20 years time, I suspect that the National Identity Scheme will be just a normal part of British life – another great British institution without which modern life, whatever it looks like in 2020, would be quite unthinkable.

Translation - Come on, we've just about got rid of their right to protest, what are we waiting for?

http://press.homeoffice.gov.uk/Speeches ... st-century

 

[rynner2]

Another sign of the times:

Text messaging to spell end for parking meters
By David Millward, Transport Correspondent
Last Updated: 2:09am BST 28/06/2007

The decision to rip out more than 2,000 of the machines has been taken by Westminster City Council, which was responsible for their first appearance in the capital almost 50 years ago.

With parking costing up to £4 an hour, the council believes it is unrealistic to expect motorists to carry fistfuls of coins.

In addition, Westminster calculated that it was losing £100,000 a week to thieves breaking into meters.

Motorists will use credit or debit cards to pay for parking.

Those with a mobile phone will be able to do so by text, after setting up an account with their card and car registration details.

Drivers will have to text in the bay number and the amount of time for which they wish to pay.

Shortly before their money runs out, they will be sent a text warning and given the option to top up.

Those without a mobile phone can use payment machines that accept cards.

Traffic wardens will have hand-held computers on which the registration numbers of cars that have paid to park will be displayed.

Motorists without either a mobile phone or a credit or debit card will have to use council car parks.

Westminster said that its decision to scrap cash parking on the streets had received overwhelming backing from motorists.

The AA welcomed the initiative yesterday. "The ability to top up payments by phone when a meeting over-runs or you get delayed is a huge step forward in fairer parking," said Paul Watters, head of roads and transport policy.

"There still needs to be an on-street machine option to cater for the occasional visitor, who may not want the fuss of setting up an account or even know about the new system."

http://tinyurl.com/2mrl2x

 

[Analogue Boy]

I've been arguing for a while that centralising data is not in the interests of the general public and that some people who have access to this data cannot be trusted. Large firms are being proved to be insecure and it is THEIR handling of data storage that is responsible for much fraud. This is not helped by the morality of individuals working in those companies who can steal and sell on the data.

Furthermore, whilst it was always stressed that only the relevant departments see the relevant data, I suspected it wouldn't be long before confidential information would be passed around various bodies.

To those who have a belief in the system and say they 'have nothing to fear'... Why is the watchdog 'horrified' by some recent cases...

"Over the last year we have seen far too many careless and inexcusable breaches of people's personal information. The roll call of banks, retailers, government departments, public bodies and other organisations which have admitted serious security lapses is frankly horrifying.

"How can laptops holding details of customer accounts be used away from the office without strong encryption? How can millions of store cards fall into the wrong hands? How can online recruitment allow applicants to see each others' forms? How can any bank chief executive face customers and shareholders and admit that loan rejections, health insurance applications, credit cards and bank statements can be found, unsecured in non-confidential waste bags?"

And more..

Debt collectors linked to a financial services subsidiary of General Motors and private equity firm Cabot Square Capital were named in a court case this year over the illicit market in private information stolen from government databases.

and more...

A further concern was the case last year of Abbey's call centre staff who were selling its customers' bank details in an underpass near Bradford. In fact, this happens far more often than is realised because the banks always hush up breaches of security.

and more..

Mr Thomas said he was concerned that a market in stolen data was growing despite recent adverse publicity. "During a recent investigation we turned up at the offices of a private investigation agency and while we were there the fax machine leapt into life. It was a request from another firm asking them to find out if a woman had cancer. It also asked the agency to check a list of clinics to see if another woman had had an abortion.

http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2123182,00.html

 

[Ringo]

A lot of what is being discussed here is already in place and in operation here in Sweden. ID cards and personal identification numbers are helpful and save an awful lot of fuss. The do provide security for everyone concerned. Let's say you're buying a car, employing a person, have a bump in the car, renting a video, opening a bank account etc, as long as you see their ID and write down their number, you have them. You can search online where that person lives, find their telephone number, even check how much money they make in a year. The system is so engrained here that kids os young as 5 years old can recite their number, in case they get lost etc.

I realise change isn't always welcome and I hate the idea of my life being open to government scrutinty but then again, things work much better and far more smoother here than they ever have done in the UK.

And regarding paying for parking by text message, that's a fantastic idea. And you even get a chance to top up so you don't get a ticket, isn't that a good thing? Here in Stockholm they have stopped taking cash on buses and you have to buy tickets from newsagents etc. But, you can also pay via a text message and they send a reciept to your phone which you can show the driver. I love it.

 

[Analogue Boy]

But as you can see above, Britain isn't like Sweden in the way it handles data. At best it's slipshod, look at the recent fact that known terrorists have been let into the country unchecked and allowed to go about unobserved.

Plus, unlike Sweden which has a history of neutrality, the UK is now seen by many to be a truncheon in the hand of the US 'World Policeman' which makes us a target and therefore (if they can get the surveillance right) we will be more closely scrutinised as a populace. That's just my opinion though.

 

[Ringo]

I agree with you there but what is it that people are so dead against?

Having an identity card or having biometric data on the card? I think most of us would agree that especially these days, a common, recognised and controlled means of identification could come in handy - instead of producing three old gas bills to prove who you are.

When it comes to the data on the card, that is another question. From reading other posts, yes the data can be overwritten and manipulated so obviously the technology isn't secure yet. But, if the system was 100% secure, tried and tested, then I'm sure people would still object for one reason or another.

If the government do introduce them, I suppose you have three choices; use it, refuse and go to jail or move to a different country.

 

[lupinwick]

I suspect its a number of things, its not necessarily distrust of ID cards regardless of the form they take but rather

Distrust of the UK political system and our politicians in general (seen generally as lying scum in the pay of corporations).

Distrust in the ability of the government (doesn't matter which party) to deliver any of its promises ( interesting article).

Distrust of the systems in place to prevent abuse of the data either by corporations, the government or criminals.

Distrust in the motives behind the introduction of ID cards.

 

[lupinwick]

When we think about our personal data, what bothers us most is generally not the initial collection and use, but the secondary uses. I personally appreciate it when Amazon.com suggests books that might interest me, based on books I have already bought. I like it that my airline knows what type of seat and meal I prefer, and my hotel chain keeps records of my room preferences. I don't mind that my automatic road-toll collection tag is tied to my credit card, and that I get billed automatically. I even like the detailed summary of my purchases that my credit card company sends me at the end of every year. What I don't want, though, is any of these companies selling that data to brokers, or for law enforcement to be allowed to paw through those records without a warrant.

There are two bothersome issues about data reuse. First, we lose control of our data. In all of the examples above, there is an implied agreement between the data collector and me: It gets the data in order to provide me with some sort of service. Once the data collector sells it to a broker, though, it's out of my hands. It might show up on some telemarketer's screen, or in a detailed report to a potential employer, or as part of a data-mining system to evaluate my personal terrorism risk. It becomes part of my data shadow, which always follows me around but I can never see.

The second issue about data reuse is error rates. All data has errors, and different uses can tolerate different amounts of error. The sorts of marketing databases you can buy on the web, for example, are notoriously error-filled. That's OK; if the database of ultra-affluent Americans of a particular ethnicity you just bought has a 10 percent error rate, you can factor that cost into your marketing campaign. But that same database, with that same error rate, might be useless for law enforcement purposes.

Source


This may sum up a lot of peoples problems with ID cards and the use of secondary and tertiary sources for data.

 

[Analogue Boy]

I agree with you there but what is it that people are so dead against?

Having an identity card or having biometric data on the card? I think most of us would agree that especially these days, a common, recognised and controlled means of identification could come in handy - instead of producing three old gas bills to prove who you are.

When it comes to the data on the card, that is another question. From reading other posts, yes the data can be overwritten and manipulated so obviously the technology isn't secure yet. But, if the system was 100% secure, tried and tested, then I'm sure people would still object for one reason or another.

If the government do introduce them, I suppose you have three choices; use it, refuse and go to jail or move to a different country.

There is, and we should assume, never will be a 100% solution for safe encryption of data. As has been pointed out, some don't trust Government to securely handle the data they already have, let alone a more comprehensive breakdown on us. Secondly, even if the data is 100% locked and secure, you have to factor the dubious morality of the people handling it. There have been recorded incidents of confidential info being sold on under leaky underpasses and private investigators getting confidential information from 'some other source'. Thirdly, there's function creep. While the stated reasons for collection of this data may seem beneficial to us at the moment, it doesn't necesssarily guarantee that its use will remain benign for the next few decades.

 

[lupinwick]

An interesting violation of freedon? Or something necessary for discipline?

Staff at Oxford University are searching the website, collecting photographs of students who they say have broken rules on post-examination celebrations, and handing down fines. The student union has branded the move a “disgraceful” intrusion into privacy and has e-mailed every common room advising how to prevent dons viewing the photographs.

Last week the university’s disciplinary officers, the proctors, began e-mailing students whose profiles contained pictures of “trashings”, where students spray each other with champagne, flour or worse, to celebrate finishing their exams.

Source

This is probably the kind of thing people are worried about.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

An interesting violation of freedon? Or something necessary for discipline?

Staff at Oxford University are searching the website, collecting photographs of students who they say have broken rules on post-examination celebrations, and handing down fines. The student union has branded the move a “disgraceful” intrusion into privacy and has e-mailed every common room advising how to prevent dons viewing the photographs.

Last week the university’s disciplinary officers, the proctors, began e-mailing students whose profiles contained pictures of “trashings”, where students spray each other with champagne, flour or worse, to celebrate finishing their exams.

Source

This is probably the kind of thing people are worried about.

It's difficult to see how freedom is being violated in such instances. All it means is that you have to think twice about posting something which might get you into trouble (and, to be honest, you'd be pretty daft to do it in the first place). You simply have to choose how you want to portray yourself (a choice people have always had to make) in any given circumstances.

 

[lupinwick]

I think its the lengths the university have gone too, its a case of them actually checking faceboard for misdemeanours.

You could argue that its the equivalent of riffling through a private photograph album.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

I think its the lengths the university have gone too, its a case of them actually checking faceboard for misdemeanours.

You could argue that its the equivalent of riffling through a private photograph album.

Not neccessarily. They may have been made aware of or even seen for themselves certain things that have happened. They may even have been informed that the evidence is there on the website.

I'm more concerned by the fact that people hold a degree from Oxford in higher esteem that other universities if this is the level of its graduates.

 

[lupinwick]

I'd suspect that university students are the same everywhere after their finals. However you may expect better from the universities which provide a high proportion of MPs etc. (just look at the photos of Blair, Campbell and Johnson which surfaced in the past year or so).

They may have been made aware of or even seen for themselves certain things that have happened.

That depends it could be that they were doing a regular check on graduate entries in facebook. The article certainly seems to imply that social networking sites are used as the first stage in vetting - and almost certainly its not known to the candidate (vettee?).

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

I'd suspect that university students are the same everywhere after their finals. However you may expect better from the universities which provide a high proportion of MPs etc. (just look at the photos of Blair, Campbell and Johnson which surfaced in the past year or so).

They may have been made aware of or even seen for themselves certain things that have happened.

That depends it could be that they were doing a regular check on graduate entries in facebook. The article certainly seems to imply that social networking sites are used as the first stage in vetting - and almost certainly its not known to the candidate (vettee?).

It's not so much that students misbehave that worries me more that they lack the foresight to realise documenting it could come back to haunt them. I suppose there is a violation of privacy here but ultimately it's about people adjusting to a changing culture. People probably need to learn that maintaining privacy might involve a more careful vetting of what they put into public spaces they can't fully control.