Sinster censorship caused by Part P

33 views
Skip to first unread message

Rob Horton

unread,
Apr 23, 2005, 6:28:15 AM4/23/05
to
Just been reading a thread about the Which guide to DIY and it's
unavailability, possibly due to the electrical information contained
wihtin and Part P.

I have seen an online site stating that it had withdrawn some electrical
projects (can't remember the name of the site) due to insurance reasons !?

Surely this is wrong. As I understand it, ordinary people can still do
any sort of electrical work so long as they submit plans, get them
approved and get it inspected.

We are, afterall, adults and supposed to be able to make decisions for
ourseleves.

Information should not be hidden away

As a foot note, I have heard a rumour that in New Zealnd the authorities
have moved ion the opposite direction of Part P and de-regulated.
Apparently, deaths and injuries fell.

big...@meeow.co.uk

unread,
Apr 23, 2005, 6:49:32 AM4/23/05
to
Rob Horton wrote:

> We are, afterall, adults and supposed to be able to make decisions
for
> ourseleves.

One would think so, but it appears Labour does not. In fact Tony seems
to think we can not, even when grown up, be trusted to walk down the
street. This will be a criminal offence if ID cards become mandatory.
Basic concepts seems to be alien to some.


> Information should not be hidden away
>
> As a foot note, I have heard a rumour that in New Zealnd the
authorities
> have moved ion the opposite direction of Part P and de-regulated.
> Apparently, deaths and injuries fell.

Yet more evidence maybe... do you have a reference for this?


NT

Dave Plowman (News)

unread,
Apr 23, 2005, 7:54:59 AM4/23/05
to
In article <1114253372.9...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,

<big...@meeow.co.uk> wrote:
> > We are, afterall, adults and supposed to be able to make decisions for
> > ourseleves.

> One would think so, but it appears Labour does not. In fact Tony seems
> to think we can not, even when grown up, be trusted to walk down the
> street.

I'd like to think others wouldn't have introduced 'nanny state'
legislation, but history says otherwise.

> This will be a criminal offence if ID cards become mandatory.
> Basic concepts seems to be alien to some.

I *really* don't see the problem. We already have to carry works ID cards,
etc, so one other shouldn't be a problem. For honest folk at least.

--
*Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies.

Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

John Rumm

unread,
Apr 23, 2005, 8:39:23 AM4/23/05
to
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

>>This will be a criminal offence if ID cards become mandatory.
>>Basic concepts seems to be alien to some.
>
>
> I *really* don't see the problem. We already have to carry works ID cards,
> etc, so one other shouldn't be a problem. For honest folk at least.

It's not the ID that is the issue so much as the monster all
encompassing database that goes with it...

--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/

Alan

unread,
Apr 23, 2005, 8:38:16 AM4/23/05
to
In message <116k8p0...@corp.supernews.com>, Rob Horton
<mr_h...@com.yahoo> wrote

>Surely this is wrong. As I understand it, ordinary people can still do
>any sort of electrical work so long as they submit plans, get them
>approved and get it inspected.

IMO it is wrong to suppress information on the correct fitting of
electrical and gas items.

Despite legislation, untrained and incompetent people are still going
to attempt to fit gas and electrical appliances themselves. If no
instructions are given then there is greater chance that the item is
going to be fitted incorrectly and/or dangerously.

--
Alan
mailto:news2me...@amacleod.clara.co.uk

Andy Pandy

unread,
Apr 23, 2005, 8:53:44 AM4/23/05
to
On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 11:28:15 +0100, Rob Horton <mr_h...@com.yahoo>
wrote:

The restrictions will encourage people to return to the old practices
of adaptors, extension leads and multiple wired plugs, causing even
more accidents and injuries. They were unnecessary and
counter-productive IMO.

Andy

Dave Plowman (News)

unread,
Apr 23, 2005, 8:52:49 AM4/23/05
to
In article <426a3f50$0$42334$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>,

John Rumm <see.my.s...@nowhere.null> wrote:
> >>This will be a criminal offence if ID cards become mandatory. Basic
> >>concepts seems to be alien to some.
> >
> >
> > I *really* don't see the problem. We already have to carry works ID
> > cards, etc, so one other shouldn't be a problem. For honest folk at
> > least.

> It's not the ID that is the issue so much as the monster all
> encompassing database that goes with it...

All that information will be on a database somewhere anyway. Can't see the
problem with centralising it.

--
* I like you. You remind me of when I was young and stupid

:::Jerry::::

unread,
Apr 23, 2005, 11:11:12 AM4/23/05
to

"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4d601c6...@davenoise.co.uk...

> In article <426a3f50$0$42334$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>,
> John Rumm <see.my.s...@nowhere.null> wrote:
> > >>This will be a criminal offence if ID cards become mandatory.
Basic
> > >>concepts seems to be alien to some.
> > >
> > >
> > > I *really* don't see the problem. We already have to carry works
ID
> > > cards, etc, so one other shouldn't be a problem. For honest folk
at
> > > least.
>
> > It's not the ID that is the issue so much as the monster all
> > encompassing database that goes with it...
>
> All that information will be on a database somewhere anyway. Can't
see the
> problem with centralising it.
>

It's not ID cards as such that I object to but the reasons given for
the need, why can't they just have the guts to say "We want everyone
to have ID cards that we can then, if we think a need, can be use in
various ways to monitor people" rather than try and con us that if
every UK adult citizen living here legally has an ID card it will cut
down on illegal citizens and terrorism - the people who carried out
9/11 were in the USA legally and the authorities knew what they were
'studying', the people behind the Madrid bombings (IIRC) didn't have
ID cards and were there illegally even though Spain has ID card....


John Rumm

unread,
Apr 23, 2005, 12:21:49 PM4/23/05
to
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

> All that information will be on a database somewhere anyway. Can't see the
> problem with centralising it.

That is exactly the problem. It puts all sorts of information together
that before would have taken a reasonable amount of effort for someone
to gather, and will by default, make it available to anyone who wants to
see it.

(Yes I do mean "anyone". You make a system all pervasive and available
to a wide range of "people in authority", and even without any malicious
intent it will be compromised and publicly visible - long before it is
even finished. It only takes one badly configured router or wireless lan).

Rather than preventing identity theft, it will simply make it easier to
do and much harder to detect.

If you integrate the system into all facets of daily life, then far from
preventing terrorism, it will simply become a new target for it.

It would be one of the largest and most complex IT projects the
government has ever taken on. They do not have an impressive record it
this arena.

Remember there is a technology gap between organised crime and
government. However, there are no indications that the government is
going to catch up any time soon ;-)

So in exchange for costing an obscene amount of our money, can you see
any tangible benefits it would bring?

doozer

unread,
Apr 23, 2005, 1:02:34 PM4/23/05
to

I have been trying to think of ways to disrupt the distribution of ID
cards once Tony forces them through (lets face it the battle was lost
before it even started). The best idea I can come up with is to pretend
you have a medical condition that stops you from being able to sit still
long enough for them to get good bioinformatic data. For instance if
they have retina scans just keep looking the other way when they tell
you to look into the camera. If it's finger prints just move your finger
as it scans. We might not be able to stop it but if enough people look
the other way (sorry for the pun :o)) we might be able to make it cost
so much that they give up. After all they can hardly arrest you for
looking in the wrong direction can they.

I'm fairly confident that the government will screw up the
implementation to the point where it won't work anyway. After, of
course, wasting billions. Time to vote Liberal I think.

What I would like to know is this - why do they have to know someone's
name to know if they are doing something wrong. Surely whether what you
are doing is wrong, be it speeding or blowing things up, it is
irrelevant what your name is? Therefore why do we need an ID card to
stop criminals?

--

.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`· Shallow Sea Aquatics .¸¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·
.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯ http://www.shallowsea.com ¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`

Broadback

unread,
Apr 23, 2005, 1:19:19 PM4/23/05
to
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

> In article <1114253372.9...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> <big...@meeow.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>We are, afterall, adults and supposed to be able to make decisions for
>>>ourseleves.
>
>
>>One would think so, but it appears Labour does not. In fact Tony seems
>>to think we can not, even when grown up, be trusted to walk down the
>>street.
>
>
> I'd like to think others wouldn't have introduced 'nanny state'
> legislation, but history says otherwise.
>
>
>>This will be a criminal offence if ID cards become mandatory.
>>Basic concepts seems to be alien to some.
>
>
> I *really* don't see the problem. We already have to carry works ID cards,
> etc, so one other shouldn't be a problem. For honest folk at least.
>

A specious argument. If I have not got my works ID on me I will not be
prosecuted. If I turn up at work without it there is just a little
hassle to get in, no more no less.

Brian Sharrock

unread,
Apr 23, 2005, 1:23:25 PM4/23/05
to

"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4d601c6...@davenoise.co.uk...
> In article <426a3f50$0$42334$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>,
> John Rumm <see.my.s...@nowhere.null> wrote:
>> >>This will be a criminal offence if ID cards become mandatory. Basic
>> >>concepts seems to be alien to some.
>> >
>> >
>> > I *really* don't see the problem. We already have to carry works ID
>> > cards, etc, so one other shouldn't be a problem. For honest folk at
>> > least.
>
>> It's not the ID that is the issue so much as the monster all
>> encompassing database that goes with it...
>
> All that information will be on a database somewhere anyway. Can't see the
> problem with centralising it.
>

Many years ago I read a Science Fiction story set in the far
future where; #1 everybody carried a computer-readable ID card
and ... ; #2 At the age of nn? years folks were compulsorily
euthanised. The story centred on a person who wakes up one morning to
find that his ID card has been rescinded - no cash, no capability
to obtain food, re-enter his housing unit, purchase a transport
ticket, etc. etc. ... As I see it, the 'problem with centralising
it (ID cards cum database)' is more the cock-up than conspiracy
power that the government (of any political colour) would have.
How do you feel about the Dept of Pensions, NHS, bus-company,
Bank, Tesco/Sainsburys; local Take-Away; suddenly being told you'd
become a non-person because (fr'instance) David Blunkett had decided
that he fancied your wife? At this point, readers are invited to
shout out the name and provenance of _every_ government IT project
that has run to budget, and met the full spec within the original
time-frame ... [Opens window, listens ... deafening silence ] ...
and that's before we introduce the concept of the 'Law of Unintended
Consequences' let alone Murphy's Law.

--

Brian


Andrew Gabriel

unread,
Apr 23, 2005, 1:35:11 PM4/23/05
to
In article <dYKdnbFOWeQ...@eclipse.net.uk>,
doozer <gra...@crazysquirrel.removethisbit.com> writes:

> John Rumm wrote:
>> Rather than preventing identity theft, it will simply make it easier to
>> do and much harder to detect.
>>
>> If you integrate the system into all facets of daily life, then far from
>> preventing terrorism, it will simply become a new target for it.
>>
>> It would be one of the largest and most complex IT projects the
>> government has ever taken on. They do not have an impressive record it
>> this arena.

Actually, they have a very impressive record -- of completely
screwing up every IT project they've attempted, together with
going massively over budget.

ID cards has already failed, because they haven't started by
trying to identify the problem they want to solve -- they've
started with a solution and are trying to make up a problem
which it fits. Now where have we seen that before?

> I have been trying to think of ways to disrupt the distribution of ID
> cards once Tony forces them through (lets face it the battle was lost
> before it even started). The best idea I can come up with is to pretend
> you have a medical condition that stops you from being able to sit still
> long enough for them to get good bioinformatic data. For instance if
> they have retina scans just keep looking the other way when they tell
> you to look into the camera. If it's finger prints just move your finger
> as it scans.

A day's plastering with no barrier cream, and you'll have no
finger prints for a couple of weeks. Bricklaying is probably
equally effective.

--
Andrew Gabriel

Mike

unread,
Apr 23, 2005, 1:45:06 PM4/23/05
to

"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4d60171...@davenoise.co.uk...

> I'd like to think others wouldn't have introduced 'nanny state'
> legislation, but history says otherwise.
>
> > This will be a criminal offence if ID cards become mandatory.
> > Basic concepts seems to be alien to some.
>
> I *really* don't see the problem. We already have to carry works ID cards,
> etc, so one other shouldn't be a problem. For honest folk at least.

You don't have to carry a works ID card. Not enforceable in law except in
military works. But of course as most also open the doors, etc, one is a
little buggered without.

As for ID cards, even if they are introduced, as far as I see the 1954
ruling still applies and any judge can demand their withdrawal.


John Rumm

unread,
Apr 23, 2005, 3:33:25 PM4/23/05
to
Andrew Gabriel wrote:

> A day's plastering with no barrier cream, and you'll have no
> finger prints for a couple of weeks. Bricklaying is probably
> equally effective.

In fact there is a multitude of areas in which the current biometrics
fail. Many fingerprint scanners will not cope with many Asian races
(ridges are two fine) as well as the aforementioned bricklayers etc.
Many afro caribian eyes are not sufficiently distinct for iris scanners
to work. There are a wide range of others with similar problems before
you get onto medical conditions. Blunket himself could not be iris
scanned for example.

There has been loads of coverage on the whole fiasco here:

http://forms.theregister.co.uk/search/?q=id+cards&x=0&y=0

:::Jerry::::

unread,
Apr 23, 2005, 4:03:31 PM4/23/05
to

"Broadback" <w...@towill.plus.com> wrote in message
news:3cveckF...@individual.net...
> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>
<snip>

> >
> > I *really* don't see the problem. We already have to carry works
ID cards,
> > etc, so one other shouldn't be a problem. For honest folk at
least.
> >
> A specious argument. If I have not got my works ID on me I will not
be
> prosecuted. If I turn up at work without it there is just a little
> hassle to get in, no more no less.

Do you drive (legally) ?.....


Stefek Zaba

unread,
Apr 23, 2005, 4:17:10 PM4/23/05
to
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

>
> I *really* don't see the problem. We already have to carry works ID cards,
> etc, so one other shouldn't be a problem. For honest folk at least.
>

Well, let's see:
- you choose where to work, you don't have anything like the same
choice about being a citizen/resident of the UK.

- your workID card typically doesn't carry a log of everywhere it's
been used; even if it does, that log's only about when you've carded in
and out of work (modulo tailgating ;-) and isn't on a country-wide database.

- the 'works ID' registration process is in the context of (typically)
one establishment - a few thousand people tops; and gives authorisation
to enter one premissseses with lower likelihood of challenge than
without. The 'national identity register' enrollment is s'posed to cover
the 40 million over-16s of the country, to *flawlessly* link enrolments
to authentic 'foundation documents' (replacement birth certs cost
between 7 and 12 quid, delivered to any address you care to ask for).
The huge range of uses which the National Register's meant to cover
makes the motivation for criminal abuse huge - both of the registration
process, and of suborning the pissed-off, privatised, temporary-contract
staff who end up with access priviliges. Current costs for getting DVLC
information are about 50 notes, AIUI.
That's without considering more serious, targetted attacks, to delete,
change, or simply louse up entries in the National Identity Register,
and the multitude of other flawlessly-implemented,
flawlessly-administered, flawlessly-designed (don Kevlar anti-trotter
helmets at this point) Government IT systems connected to it.

- your works-ID card isn't tied to a national database which makes the
card irrelevant: at least for iris scans, the efficiency of recognition
means it's pretty reliable (prob-of-misidentifying down in the
one-in-a-million-million range) to go straight from 'look into this
tube, please, Sir' to 'ah, Mr D Blunkett, Upper Floor Sh*gpad, Admiralty
House' - whether or not the geezer asking for your biometrix is acting
lawfully or otherwise.

Maybe we'll see an honest, well-informed debate, seriously examining the
risks and benefits on all sides. Me, I'd keep those anti-trotter helmets
firmly on the bonce...

Stefek

Andrew McKay

unread,
Apr 23, 2005, 4:31:02 PM4/23/05
to
John Rumm wrote:
> Blunket himself could not be iris scanned for example.

Are you sure about that? His blindness might be caused by a problem
involving the optic nerve which passes from the eyeball thru to the brain.

I don't know about these things but I wouldn't have made an assumption
that just because people are blind it would limit their ability to be
tested.

Also, iris testing? I thought the ID cards relied upon a fingerprint of
the back wall of the eye? The Iris is at the front.

Andrew

--
Please note that the email address used for posting
usenet messages is configured such that my antispam
filter will automatically update itself so that the
senders email address is flagged as spam. If you do
need to contact me please visit my web site and
submit an enquiry - http://www.kazmax.co.uk

Biff

unread,
Apr 23, 2005, 5:28:13 PM4/23/05
to
Andy Pandy <Andy...@nosuch.co.uk> wrote in message news:<v4hk61pirqpqd3tka...@4ax.com>...

> The restrictions will encourage people to return to the old practices
> of adaptors, extension leads and multiple wired plugs, causing even
> more accidents and injuries. They were unnecessary and
> counter-productive IMO.
> Andy

Part P has not a lot to do with extension leads etc.
Biff

Mike

unread,
Apr 23, 2005, 5:41:04 PM4/23/05
to

"Andrew McKay" <use...@kazmax.co.uk> wrote in message
news:KZMX16...@kazmax.co.uk...

> John Rumm wrote:
> > Blunket himself could not be iris scanned for example.
>
> Are you sure about that? His blindness might be caused by a problem
> involving the optic nerve which passes from the eyeball thru to the brain.
>
> I don't know about these things but I wouldn't have made an assumption
> that just because people are blind it would limit their ability to be
> tested.
>
> Also, iris testing? I thought the ID cards relied upon a fingerprint of
> the back wall of the eye? The Iris is at the front.

Rumour has it next year's passports will require fingerprints anyway so
nobody is going to bother with iris scans or suchlike for ID cards.


big...@meeow.co.uk

unread,
Apr 23, 2005, 5:54:15 PM4/23/05
to
Stefek Zaba wrote about ID cards:

> Maybe we'll see an honest, well-informed debate, seriously examining
the
> risks and benefits on all sides.

Benefits: there is none. The arguments for are simply specious.

Cost: large, money that could be spent doing some very useful things
instead.

Risks: anyone undertaking even basic history or political study will
begin to see there are significant risks in giving government / one
group of people complete legal power over another. Anyone with a clue
as to whats going on in the world will realise that IRL no system or
group of people is beyond abuse, ie it will be used abusively. It is
inevitable given the wide variety of human nature, the non existence of
any perfect human-nature filter, and the many limits of the
technologies involved.

Law and order: the day it becomes a criminal offence to walk down the
street is the day the law will have lost all credibility and all
respect. This is what happens when ID cards are introduced. Their
mission creeps until it is a criminal offence to walk down the street
without the card. Our lowish crime rate has a lot to do with respect.
When that is lost, crime goes right up.

Seriously if anyone thinks its a non issue they must have no education
about fundamental concepts of law, government and society. There seems
to be much more awareness about this stuff in the US, where their
struggles are so much more recent than ours, and in some cases ongoing.

In the UK are people so remarkably unaware that they might actually
vote it in.


NT

Andrew Gabriel

unread,
Apr 23, 2005, 6:05:18 PM4/23/05
to
In article <KZMX16...@kazmax.co.uk>,

Andrew McKay <use...@kazmax.co.uk> writes:
> I don't know about these things but I wouldn't have made an assumption
> that just because people are blind it would limit their ability to be
> tested.

Iris scanning includes a check that the pupil responds to
changes in light level, so it isn't fooled by holding up
a photograph of someone's iris. That reflex doesn't always
work in blind people (actually I know an otherwise normally
sighted person for whom it doesn't work either).

> Also, iris testing? I thought the ID cards relied upon a fingerprint of
> the back wall of the eye? The Iris is at the front.

Anyone trying to leave their fingerprint on the back of my
eye will find themselves coughing up their testicles...

--
Andrew Gabriel

raden

unread,
Apr 23, 2005, 6:11:42 PM4/23/05
to
In message <ba59d0c9.05042...@posting.google.com>, Biff
<bi...@biffvernon.freeserve.co.uk> writes

I think that's what he was getting at

--
geoff

Andy Hall

unread,
Apr 23, 2005, 6:16:10 PM4/23/05
to
On 23 Apr 2005 14:28:13 -0700, bi...@biffvernon.freeserve.co.uk (Biff)
wrote:


Indirectly it does, because it discourages people who may be competent
to do so from doing what would other be fixed wiring and which is
intrinsically safer.


--

.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Bob Eager

unread,
Apr 23, 2005, 6:51:38 PM4/23/05
to
On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 21:28:13 UTC, bi...@biffvernon.freeserve.co.uk (Biff)
wrote:

Exactly. Part P does not control extension leads. It does control extra
sockets. Thus people will just use lots of extension leads (probably
partly coiled/rolled).

Cringe.

--
Bob Eager
begin a new life...dump Windows!

raden

unread,
Apr 23, 2005, 6:59:20 PM4/23/05
to
In message <boFtmkZn...@ntlworld.com>, raden <ra...@kateda.org>
writes
I worded that badly, didn't I

given the choice between expensive "proper" part P approved wiring and a
couple of quid for an extension, what are most people going to do ?

--
geoff

Alan

unread,
Apr 23, 2005, 7:00:54 PM4/23/05
to
In message <1114293255.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
big...@meeow.co.uk wrote

>Law and order: the day it becomes a criminal offence to walk down the
>street is the day the law will have lost all credibility and all
>respect. This is what happens when ID cards are introduced. Their
>mission creeps until it is a criminal offence to walk down the street
>without the card. Our lowish crime rate has a lot to do with respect.
>When that is lost, crime goes right up.

Respect for the Police within the group of my 'law abiding' friends has
fallen dramatically as more notice more and more Police tax collection
points on our major roads.
--
Alan
mailto:news2me...@amacleod.clara.co.uk

John Rumm

unread,
Apr 23, 2005, 7:19:50 PM4/23/05
to
Andrew McKay wrote:

>> Blunket himself could not be iris scanned for example.
>
>
> Are you sure about that? His blindness might be caused by a problem
> involving the optic nerve which passes from the eyeball thru to the brain.

It is nothing to do with him being blind (although that may impact the
mechanisms that try to verify the eye is "live") - it it to do with
uncontrollable eye movements. There are a number of medical conditions
that cause this even in fully sighted people.

> I don't know about these things but I wouldn't have made an assumption
> that just because people are blind it would limit their ability to be
> tested.

In itself blindness does not rule out iris scans... but much depends on
the cause of the blindness. Not having eyes for example would be a
pretty good non starter.

> Also, iris testing? I thought the ID cards relied upon a fingerprint of
> the back wall of the eye? The Iris is at the front.

Iris scans and retinal scans are two very different things. The latter
is far harder to do quickly however without sophisticated medical
scanning kit - not at all well suited to a quik ID check.

John Rumm

unread,
Apr 23, 2005, 7:25:05 PM4/23/05
to
Mike wrote:

> Rumour has it next year's passports will require fingerprints anyway so
> nobody is going to bother with iris scans or suchlike for ID cards.

The ICAO (is that the right ETLA?) will require a biometric on passports
- however all they *require* is a digitised facial biomtric - i.e. a
photograph.

It is the UK gov that is attempting to add FUD to justify their case by
saying that fingerprint or iris scans etc will also be required - they
won't, and there is currently no international treaty setup to use them
should it be there.

(Although the US are toying with the idea of RFID enabling passports to
facilitate quicker checks on them at immigration desks. This add the
reassuring prospect that someone will be able to skim all the usefull
informatiion from your passport just by walking close by you!)

John Rumm

unread,
Apr 23, 2005, 7:32:36 PM4/23/05
to
Andrew Gabriel wrote:

> Iris scanning includes a check that the pupil responds to
> changes in light level, so it isn't fooled by holding up
> a photograph of someone's iris. That reflex doesn't always

Yup, that is why to fool them you have to cut out the pupil of the photo
and look through the hole while the photo is scanned ;-)

John Rumm

unread,
Apr 23, 2005, 7:42:16 PM4/23/05
to
Alan wrote:

> Respect for the Police within the group of my 'law abiding' friends has
> fallen dramatically as more notice more and more Police tax collection
> points on our major roads.

There have already been studies that show a correlation between a rise
in general crime in an area, and saturation with said yellow boxes. It
seems they encourage people to be less cooperative with the police in
general.

big...@meeow.co.uk

unread,
Apr 23, 2005, 7:54:23 PM4/23/05
to
:::Jerry:::: wrote:

> Do you drive (legally) ?.....

Nothing wrong with a license to drive, the annual slaughter justifies
some basic checks on competence. Drivers license is not an ID card that
must be carried to avoid prosecution.

However there is no comparable justification for a compulsory ID card.

NT

chris French

unread,
Apr 23, 2005, 8:48:38 PM4/23/05
to
In message <ZrnGWuFm...@amacleod.clara.co.uk>, Alan
<junk_...@amacleod.clara.co.uk> writes
>Respect for the Police within the group of my 'law abiding' friends
>has fallen dramatically as more notice more and more Police tax
>collection points on our major roads.

If they are law abiding what is the problem?

This 'tax'is easily avoided by dint of not breaking the relevant law.
--
Chris French, Leeds

raden

unread,
Apr 23, 2005, 9:05:07 PM4/23/05
to
In message <COKDOAV1...@familyfrench.co.uk>, chris French
<newspos...@familyfrench.co.uk> writes

>In message <ZrnGWuFm...@amacleod.clara.co.uk>, Alan
><junk_...@amacleod.clara.co.uk> writes
>>In message <1114293255.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>>big...@meeow.co.uk wrote
>>
>>
>>Respect for the Police within the group of my 'law abiding' friends
>>has fallen dramatically as more notice more and more Police tax
>>collection points on our major roads.
>
>If they are law abiding what is the problem?

The problem appears to me to be that the laws are becoming increasingly
claustrophobic

e.g. the right to peaceful protest is currently on the line

>
>This 'tax'is easily avoided by dint of not breaking the relevant law.

So what are you going to do when what you consider unjust laws actually
begin to affect you ?

or someone makes a mistake, and you're suddenly a criminal

--
geoff

Mike

unread,
Apr 23, 2005, 9:29:27 PM4/23/05
to

"raden" <ra...@kateda.org> wrote in message
news:UXwe5Fgw...@ntlworld.com...

> >>> The restrictions will encourage people to return to the old practices
> >>> of adaptors, extension leads and multiple wired plugs, causing even
> >>> more accidents and injuries. They were unnecessary and
> >>> counter-productive IMO.
> >>> Andy
> >>
> >>Part P has not a lot to do with extension leads etc.
> >>Biff
> >
> >I think that's what he was getting at
> >
> I worded that badly, didn't I
>
> given the choice between expensive "proper" part P approved wiring and a
> couple of quid for an extension, what are most people going to do ?

Get in quick before Part P Section 2 stops it !! :-()


Andrew McKay

unread,
Apr 24, 2005, 3:12:17 AM4/24/05
to
John Rumm wrote:
> Yup, that is why to fool them you have to cut out the pupil of the photo
> and look through the hole while the photo is scanned ;-)

Shhh! There might be terrorists reading this newsgroup....

Stefek Zaba

unread,
Apr 24, 2005, 4:37:09 AM4/24/05
to
Andrew McKay wrote:

>
> Also, iris testing? I thought the ID cards relied upon a fingerprint of
> the back wall of the eye? The Iris is at the front.
>

Definitely iris, not retinal scanning (which is what you sketched).

www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/jgd1000/ is the authoritative source.

Stefek

Andy Hall

unread,
Apr 24, 2005, 4:38:03 AM4/24/05
to
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 00:32:36 +0100, John Rumm
<see.my.s...@nowhere.null> wrote:

>Andrew Gabriel wrote:
>
>> Iris scanning includes a check that the pupil responds to
>> changes in light level, so it isn't fooled by holding up
>> a photograph of someone's iris. That reflex doesn't always
>
>Yup, that is why to fool them you have to cut out the pupil of the photo
>and look through the hole while the photo is scanned ;-)


I think the bees might suspect.......

Stefek Zaba

unread,
Apr 24, 2005, 4:42:27 AM4/24/05
to
John Rumm wrote:
>
> Yup, that is why to fool them you have to cut out the pupil of the photo
> and look through the hole while the photo is scanned ;-)
>
Just so. One of the absolutely crucial distinctions that's very rarely
mentioned in general discussions is between 'supervised' and
'unsupervised' measurement of the sample biometric. 'Supervised' means
there's a trained, motivated person watching you present the biometric -
e.g. at border control points. 'Unsupervised' sampling, at ATMs say,
allows the whole range of photos, gummi-bears, and all the rest of the
equipment-fooling stuff to be deployed by the attacker.

Oh, and then there's 'stupid', which is doing it over the Net an
trusting the attacker's computing equipment. Doesn't stop some people
saying 'and ID cards will work for electronic commerce, too!'...

Stefek

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

Harvey Van Sickle

unread,
Apr 24, 2005, 4:50:24 AM4/24/05
to
On 23 Apr 2005, Rob Horton wrote

-snip-

> As a foot note, I have heard a rumour that in New Zealnd the
> authorities have moved ion the opposite direction of Part P and
> de-regulated. Apparently, deaths and injuries fell.

If they've deregulated, it's from a position which was way, way more
more draconian than Part P.

I've just spent a fortnight in New Zealand, much of which was doing
small jobs for my mother-in-law -- one of these was to install a PIR
light in the garage.

I established early on that to do any work -- anything at all -- which
breaks into the main circuit is prohibited unless done or certified by
a registered electrician. It was thus illegal for me to wire the light
into the lighting circuit via a junction box (which is what I'd planned
to do.)

The retail industry there accommodates this by selling PIR units with a
plug -- one version plugs into a mains point, while another has a
bayonet plug to fit into a light socket. The mains or light socket,
though, must be an existing one: it would be illegal to install a new
point or a new light socket unless qualified/certified, as that job
would require breaking into the main circuit (which isn't allowed).

--
Cheers,
Harvey

:::Jerry::::

unread,
Apr 24, 2005, 5:14:52 AM4/24/05
to

<big...@meeow.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1114300463....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

The point I'm making is that like it or not any of the present ID type
cards could and probably will be (if there is not a specific ID card)
made into a 'sudo ID card' [1] and it's carrying made compulsory, if
passports and drivers licenses are converted into 'sudo ID cards' that
alone will cover most of the adult population [2] - it's just a mater
of what information will be held on the card and why.

If HMG want us to have compulsory ID cards then we will have
compulsory ID cards, like it or not.

[1] talk has already started about converting passports into sudo ID
cards, whilst holding the same sort of info as the proposed ID card,
and if HMG wishes to go down this route they don't even need to place
the decision before Parliament AIUI - Passports being Crown and not
Parliament granted.

[2] yes it would be possible not to have any type of ID card but will
people really want to give up the 'right' to either go out of the
country or drive ?...


:::Jerry::::

unread,
Apr 24, 2005, 5:29:00 AM4/24/05
to

"chris French" <newspos...@familyfrench.co.uk> wrote in message
news:COKDOAV1...@familyfrench.co.uk...

In one respect you are quite correct, but when speed limits are
reduced for no real reason and soon after a camera is erected you
really do have to ask what the real reasons are, now it could be that
they want to piss off so many motorists that they stop using their
cars and thus reduce the number of cars on the road but the more
likely reason is that it's a location that will generate income (what
ever the official line says).

I know of two cameras that have been erected within the last 18
months, both are sited for income generation rather than any safety
issues relating to speed, one is blatantly miss sited in so much that
the real danger point on the said road is a mile further down the road
(were people have been run down whilst crossing) *after* the camera -
drives can and do still exceed the speed limit at the danger point....


RichardS

unread,
Apr 24, 2005, 8:11:56 AM4/24/05
to
"John Rumm" <see.my.s...@nowhere.null> wrote in message
news:426ad6a7$0$575$ed2e...@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net...

> Mike wrote:
>
> > Rumour has it next year's passports will require fingerprints anyway so
> > nobody is going to bother with iris scans or suchlike for ID cards.
>
> The ICAO (is that the right ETLA?) will require a biometric on passports
> - however all they *require* is a digitised facial biomtric - i.e. a
> photograph.
>
> It is the UK gov that is attempting to add FUD to justify their case by
> saying that fingerprint or iris scans etc will also be required - they
> won't, and there is currently no international treaty setup to use them
> should it be there.
>
> (Although the US are toying with the idea of RFID enabling passports to
> facilitate quicker checks on them at immigration desks. This add the
> reassuring prospect that someone will be able to skim all the usefull
> informatiion from your passport just by walking close by you!)
>

About 2 seconds in a microwave oven should remove that particular danger.


--
Richard Sampson

mail me at
richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk


Message has been deleted

Alan

unread,
Apr 24, 2005, 9:05:26 AM4/24/05
to
In message <COKDOAV1...@familyfrench.co.uk>, chris French
<newspos...@familyfrench.co.uk> wrote

>In message <ZrnGWuFm...@amacleod.clara.co.uk>, Alan
><junk_...@amacleod.clara.co.uk> writes
>>In message <1114293255.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>>big...@meeow.co.uk wrote
>>
>>
>>Respect for the Police within the group of my 'law abiding' friends
>>has fallen dramatically as more notice more and more Police tax
>>collection points on our major roads.
>
>If they are law abiding what is the problem?

No problem for the law abiding individual but it could be a problem for
law enforcement if respect for the Police no longer exists.

>This 'tax'is easily avoided by dint of not breaking the relevant law.

The tax can be avoided by paying more attention to the roadside rather
than paying attention to what is in front of you. I'm sure this aids
road safety.

The Police can only operate if the population at large agrees to what
they are doing.

IMO, a large number people don't agree on how the yellow boxes and speed
traps are being operated by the Police and believe they have little to
do with road safety and more to do with generating cash.

How long before the majority of the population are classified as
criminals by these yellow boxes and who many of are going to have the
attitude of 'f**k them' when it comes to dealing with the Police in the
future.
--
Alan
mailto:news2me...@amacleod.clara.co.uk

Message has been deleted

big...@meeow.co.uk

unread,
Apr 24, 2005, 9:19:40 AM4/24/05
to
chris French wrote:
> In message <ZrnGWuFm...@amacleod.clara.co.uk>, Alan
> <junk_...@amacleod.clara.co.uk> writes

> >Respect for the Police within the group of my 'law abiding' friends

> >has fallen dramatically

Although not perfect, there is still plenty of respect and cooperation
between police and public. Imagine what would happen to crime rates if
that evaporated entirely.


> If they are law abiding what is the problem?

1. It is not whether one is law abiding that counts, it is whether
certain people think you are or not. The 2 are obviously different
things.

2. Are you going to tell us there has never been, is not currently, and
never will be any law that is unjust or even outrageous? Such laws
always exist, society is never perfect.

3. Will you put your hand on your heart and tell us there are never any
miscarriages of justice? Have you ever even been in a courrt and
appreciated the considerable problems involved in determining the truth
and the guilt or innocence?

4. And finally, if the law says you must carry ID cards, and you commit
the awful crime of walking peacefully down the street, and are
arrested, assaulted, strip searched, thrown into a cell, threatened,
prosecuted, and so on, will you still tell us its abiding by the law
that counts? And that what happened to you was in fact just? Can anyone
be so naive?


NT

big...@meeow.co.uk

unread,
Apr 24, 2005, 9:27:25 AM4/24/05
to
:::Jerry:::: wrote:
> <big...@meeow.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1114300463....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > :::Jerry:::: wrote:

> > > Do you drive (legally) ?.....

> > Nothing wrong with a license to drive, the annual slaughter
> justifies
> > some basic checks on competence. Drivers license is not an ID card
> that
> > must be carried to avoid prosecution.
> >
> > However there is no comparable justification for a compulsory ID
> card.

> The point I'm making is that like it or not any of the present ID
type
> cards could and probably will be (if there is not a specific ID card)
> made into a 'sudo ID card'

It is already used to prove ID, but this is fundamentally different to
the ID card proposed. The driving license is a different thing, has a
genuine justification, and is not a significant problem.


> [1] and it's carrying made compulsory,

that is not possible, since at no time can everyone be expected to have
a driving license.


> if
> passports and drivers licenses are converted into 'sudo ID cards'
that
> alone will cover most of the adult population [2] - it's just a mater
> of what information will be held on the card and why.

no, these are very diffrent things to ID cards. The fact that they also
prove or semi-prove ID does not make them the same thing.


> If HMG want us to have compulsory ID cards then we will have
> compulsory ID cards, like it or not.

wrong, obviously. The government and the governed always exist in a
balance of power, and it must be so for society to remain reasonably
healthy.


> [2] yes it would be possible not to have any type of ID card but will
> people really want to give up the 'right' to either go out of the
> country or drive ?...

License and passport arent ID cards. Look at what the problems are with
ID cards, quite different.


NT

:::Jerry::::

unread,
Apr 24, 2005, 11:27:08 AM4/24/05
to

<big...@meeow.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1114349245.6...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
<snip>

>
> License and passport arent ID cards. Look at what the problems are
with

But they can be made into them quite easily. There has already been
talk about how passports could be made to hold the same information
that they want ID's cards to hold, what's more (as I've already said
before) they don't even need Parliamentary approval to do so.

> ID cards, quite different.
>

It's no different, a database is a database. How secure that database
is, well. that's another issue.

The point is, if HMG want to introduce an ID card then they will, if
they have a majority and use the whip they will be able to make
carrying it compulsory, once introduced I can't see any future HMG
giving them up. QED...


:::Jerry::::

unread,
Apr 24, 2005, 11:34:17 AM4/24/05
to

"B Thumbs" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:4D60A1AC96%brian...@lycos.co.uk...
<snip>
>
> And a jolly good idea. Why shouldn't those who /choose/ to break the
law not
> help out the local economy. I do speed at times, but i don't moan
when
> caught.
>

You missed the vital line in the other posts "....but when speed


limits are reduced for no real reason and soon after a camera is

erected you really do have to ask what the real reasons are...." and
" For years the Council stonewalled them by saying traffic and
accident levels did not justify a camera.", I don't think anyone
object to the placing of cameras at danger spots but when speed limits
are reduced and then camera are installed it's nothing what so even to
do with preventing accidents.


raden

unread,
Apr 24, 2005, 1:55:28 PM4/24/05
to
In message <KZMX16...@kazmax.co.uk>, Andrew McKay
<use...@kazmax.co.uk> writes

>John Rumm wrote:
>> Yup, that is why to fool them you have to cut out the pupil of the
>>photo and look through the hole while the photo is scanned ;-)
>
>Shhh! There might be terrorists reading this newsgroup....
>
Well, at least we know that Blunkett isn't

(he's trying to make a comeback you know)

--
geoff

raden

unread,
Apr 24, 2005, 2:03:27 PM4/24/05
to
In message <426b775e$0$73818$892e...@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
":::Jerry::::" <m...@privacy.net> writes

>
><big...@meeow.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:1114300463....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> :::Jerry:::: wrote:
>>
>> > Do you drive (legally) ?.....
>>
>> Nothing wrong with a license to drive, the annual slaughter
>justifies
>> some basic checks on competence. Drivers license is not an ID card
>that
>> must be carried to avoid prosecution.
>>
>> However there is no comparable justification for a compulsory ID
>card.
>>
>
>The point I'm making is that like it or not any of the present ID type
>cards could and probably will be (if there is not a specific ID card)
>made into a 'sudo ID card'

Do you mean pseudo ?

of not, what is sudo?


--
geoff

Mike

unread,
Apr 24, 2005, 2:39:10 PM4/24/05
to

":::Jerry::::" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:426bc1c0$0$82526$892e...@authen.white.readfreenews.net...

> The point is, if HMG want to introduce an ID card then they will, if
> they have a majority and use the whip they will be able to make
> carrying it compulsory, once introduced I can't see any future HMG
> giving them up. QED...

They can introduce them but the judiciary can, have (in 1954) and hopefully
will again make having, let alone carrying them, optional.


Mike

unread,
Apr 24, 2005, 2:41:08 PM4/24/05
to

"RichardS" <no...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:3d1golF...@individual.net...

> > (Although the US are toying with the idea of RFID enabling passports to
> > facilitate quicker checks on them at immigration desks. This add the
> > reassuring prospect that someone will be able to skim all the usefull
> > informatiion from your passport just by walking close by you!)
>
> About 2 seconds in a microwave oven should remove that particular danger.

Uh ... how ?


Mike

unread,
Apr 24, 2005, 2:43:32 PM4/24/05
to

"Alan" <junk_...@amacleod.clara.co.uk> wrote in message
news:I$7CTJGWm...@amacleod.clara.co.uk...

> >>
> >>Respect for the Police within the group of my 'law abiding' friends
> >>has fallen dramatically as more notice more and more Police tax
> >>collection points on our major roads.
> >
> >If they are law abiding what is the problem?
>
> No problem for the law abiding individual but it could be a problem for
> law enforcement if respect for the Police no longer exists.
>
> >This 'tax'is easily avoided by dint of not breaking the relevant law.
>
> The tax can be avoided by paying more attention to the roadside rather
> than paying attention to what is in front of you. I'm sure this aids
> road safety.
>
> The Police can only operate if the population at large agrees to what
> they are doing.
>
> IMO, a large number people don't agree on how the yellow boxes and speed
> traps are being operated by the Police and believe they have little to
> do with road safety and more to do with generating cash.
>
> How long before the majority of the population are classified as
> criminals by these yellow boxes and who many of are going to have the
> attitude of 'f**k them' when it comes to dealing with the Police in the
> future.

We're long past that phase round here. Not only speed cameras but lots of
other nonsense where the police seem to set their own priorities
irrespective of the views of local councillors or members of the public.
What we need are locally elected sheriffs like in the US to replace chief
constables.


Bob Eager

unread,
Apr 24, 2005, 2:45:05 PM4/24/05
to
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 18:03:27 UTC, raden <ra...@kateda.org> wrote:

> Do you mean pseudo ?
>
> of not, what is sudo?

Dunno, but you can get cream for it at the chemist...!

--
Bob Eager
begin a new life...dump Windows!

Andrew McKay

unread,
Apr 24, 2005, 2:50:54 PM4/24/05
to
raden wrote:
>> Shhh! There might be terrorists reading this newsgroup....
>>
> Well, at least we know that Blunkett isn't

Don't be too surprised if he is aware of what goes on in newsgroups. I
recently discovered that you can get web browsers that read out the text
from web pages, so a usenet message would be a doddle for a similar utility.

> (he's trying to make a comeback you know)

And I predict that as soon as Labour are back in he will be too. Can't
quite predict which job he'll be given though. He's done education and
Home Secretary.

I always thought that Blundergit was a wasted talent in the Labour
party. How much more would his contribution be worth if he were made
minister for the disabled!

Stefek Zaba

unread,
Apr 24, 2005, 3:39:16 PM4/24/05
to
:::Jerry:::: wrote:

> If HMG want us to have compulsory ID cards then we will have
> compulsory ID cards, like it or not.
>

Pshaw. The democratic process in the UK isn't perfect, but if sufficient
people don't 'like it' it won't happen. Australia's experience with
their 'citizen card' is instructive: when initially planned, Publick
Opinion was sthg like 70% in support; as the debate progressed and the
proposals were scrutinised more carefully, the proportion swung the
other way, with 70% or so opposed. The plan was abandonulated.

Even the '80% of the population support the idea' survey (details at
http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews/2004/Reform%20-%20ID%20cards/reform-id-cards-dec-04.asp
) shows the public support, with very little detailed discussion in the
popular media yet, to be very soft. In that survey, the first question
was, roughly, 'ID cards: good or bad?', 81% replying in the 'v good' or
'good' categories. There's then a series of further questions: 'national
biometrics register: good or bad' (no mention of comprehensive audit
trail of presentation of these cards and/or scanning of a matching
biometric, mind) - 81% still in the 'yeah OK' categories; then a series
of polarised statements, covering many of the points we've sketched here
- e.g. 'do you agree more with "govt IT, brewery, great time, organise,
couldn't" or "govt IT, experienced, already run big systems, will do
fine with this one too", generally supporting the gummint arguments
still, though interestingly in a ratio of about 65:35 rather than 80:20.

Until we get to a non-abstract impact: that of personal cost. First qn
here is 'how much would you pay': 30% nowt, next 45% in the "up to 20
quid" boxes. That's 75% accounted for; another 23% cap their enthusiasm
at 50 quid, with none in the 60, 70, 80, 90 bands, but the last 2% in
the "affluent patriots" box of "up to 100 nicker". (They can't *all* be
IT consultants working on privatised gummint IT, can they? :-) Second qn
says "well, HMG figure 35quid, or 85quid combined with a passport. Now
waddya think?" Our 81% fades to 68% - most of the movement being from "v
good" to "good". So, present one new fact, on proposed cost, and support
drops by 13 percentage points out of 81 - that's one-sixth of the
project "supporters" faded away. The survey didn't go on to say, for
example, 'criminals currently gain access to centralised government
databases by slipping 100 quid to people whose low-paid jobs give them
access to those databases. Do you think the gummint will keep the
national identity register and the record of all the times and places
where the ID card's been shown secure against such access?', or similar
questions giving rates of 'hacker' (cracker, really, but we've lost that
linguistic battle!) access to DB systems.

> [1] talk has already started about converting passports into pseudo ID


> cards, whilst holding the same sort of info as the proposed ID card,

The manouver they've used only allows them to tweak the passport format;
to set up the really significant part of this proposal - the linked
databases of card and biometric usages, and the links to other databases
- needs the primary legislation which was timed out in the last session,
but which will back in the new Parliament.

Unashamedly biased followup info at
< http://www.no2id.org.uk > and
< http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/comrace/identitycards/ >

Owain

unread,
Apr 24, 2005, 2:31:30 PM4/24/05
to
:::Jerry:::: wrote:
> The point is, if HMG want to introduce an ID card then they will, if
> they have a majority and use the whip they will be able to make
> carrying it compulsory, once introduced I can't see any future HMG
> giving them up. QED...

The govt don't have to make them overtly compulsory - they will become
the standard for all occasions where identity is desired (even if not
neeed), whether de facto or de jure. Sign up with a doctor or dentist,
sign up for evening classes, open a bank account, rent a flat /
television / car, start a new job, buy a new consumer unit ....

Owain

:::Jerry::::

unread,
Apr 24, 2005, 4:02:24 PM4/24/05
to

"raden" <ra...@kateda.org> wrote in message
news:KNQ5$tKw59...@ntlworld.com...
<snip>

>
> Do you mean pseudo ?
>

Yes ! Duh...


:::Jerry::::

unread,
Apr 24, 2005, 4:01:36 PM4/24/05
to

"Mike" <mi...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:d4gp4c$9m7$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...

AIUI that was due to the reason they were introduced having past, this
time it looks like an open ended reason....


Dave

unread,
Apr 24, 2005, 4:47:10 PM4/24/05
to
:::Jerry:::: wrote:


> [2] yes it would be possible not to have any type of ID card but will
> people really want to give up the 'right' to either go out of the
> country or drive ?...

I have not had a passport for about 30 years and I very much doubt that
I will get one in the next 30 years.

I have a paper driving licence and I doubt that I will continue to drive
if my doctor tells me not to.

Where does that leave me?

Dave

Stefek Zaba

unread,
Apr 24, 2005, 4:56:02 PM4/24/05
to
Owain wrote:

>
> The govt don't have to make them overtly compulsory - they will become
> the standard for all occasions where identity is desired (even if not
> neeed), whether de facto or de jure. Sign up with a doctor or dentist,
> sign up for evening classes, open a bank account, rent a flat /
> television / car, start a new job, buy a new consumer unit ....
>

Indeed. But I can't see most of these simpler "ID checks" being done by
Fully Authorised Users with biometric readers and links to the Central
DB. (To be specific: enrol at NHS provider: yes, but emergency treatment
won't need an ID card; evg classes - no; open back acct - yes-ish; rent
a flat - no; rent a teli - unlikely unless TVLRO enforce and/or
subsidise readers at point-of-rental, and in any case the TV rental
market's almost dead now that cheapie TVs are, wot, 40 quid at Tesco;
rent a car - not at most sites, *expecially* airports (short-stay
overseas visitors won't carry a UK-issued ID card); start new job - no,
most employers won't have on-line readers; buy a new CU - yes of course ;-)

All of which suggests to me that there will be a great deal of purely
visual ID-card "checking" - "yup, that looks like your photo on that bit
of laminated plastic". Which will make trivial forgery well worth while:
and because the majority, law-abiding population would (if the
legislation came to pass) carry genuine Govt-issue ID, the aura of
Officially Issued ID would make using non-reader-checked use of
forgeries *more*, not less, attractive to fraudsters.

If you want to think those example through some more - the 'start a new
job' is one where there's a whole variety of cases depending on the
'officialness' of the employer. At one end of the scale is applying for
a permanent job for a large private- or public-sector body: there the
personnel dept will prolly have an on-line reader. The big range in the
middle will be at smaller private companies, where they'll copy down
details manually from the card you show them, but if the NIRN (National
Identity Registration Number) on the card turns out (when they pass
details on to the tax-n-benefit authorities) not to match the name you
gave, expect uncomfortable questions from your new employer. At the
purely casual end, 'employers' will look at ID cards and write down
details for the valid-looking ones, so that they can vaguely plausibly
claim to have checked; many will push responsibility for such checking
on to agency intermediaries anyway.

Stefek, appearing to drift from uk.d-i-y topics - but what's more d-i-y
than forging plausible-looking State ID cards? Oh, silly me, it'll be
*illegal*; so that'll stop everyone, expecially criminals, from doing it...

Message has been deleted

Ed Sirett

unread,
Apr 24, 2005, 5:48:23 PM4/24/05
to

That would be the one that lets you bypass security wouldn't it.
But only for those of us with grown up operating systems on our computers.

--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html


jim_in_sussex

unread,
Apr 24, 2005, 5:55:06 PM4/24/05