OT: Here We Go Again Then...
Nigel Eaton
"There is no longer a civil liberties objection to that in the vast
majority of quarters."
I wonder who he talks to? I don't expect that any serving Prime Minister
can stay closely in touch with the street, but Blair and Blunkett do
show distinct signs of being on another planet sometimes.
<sigh> I think I'm going to have to vote for Charlie the pisshead next
time.
--
Nigel - No longer worse than Platypus
WS* GHPOTHUF#24 APOSTLE#14 DLC#1 COFF#20 BOTAFOT#150 HYPO#0(KoTL)
ZZR1100, Enfield 500 Curry House Racer "The Basmati Rice Burner",
Honda GL1000K2
wessie
> I see that nice Mr Blair has decided we all need identity cards:
>
> "There is no longer a civil liberties objection to that in the vast
> majority of quarters."
>
> I wonder who he talks to? I don't expect that any serving Prime Minister
> can stay closely in touch with the street, but Blair and Blunkett do
> show distinct signs of being on another planet sometimes.
>
they comply to the centurys' old paradigm then
> <sigh> I think I'm going to have to vote for Charlie the pisshead next
> time.
you rebel
--
BMW R1150GS
muddycat
Nigel Eaton <nig...@rcav8r.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I see that nice Mr Blair has decided we all need identity cards:
Probably won't be long before that cunt Bush wants to do the same here.
--
muddy
Testing the limits of gravity since 1947.
icq - 219328929
Lozzo
> I see that nice Mr Blair has decided we all need identity cards:
They can issue them, but I'm fucked if I'll ever carry mine.
--
Lozzo : The anti-Timo
YZF1000R, GPZ500S, CB250RS x3
BOTAFOT#57/70a, BOTAFOF#57, MIB#22, TCP#7,
ANORAK#9, DIAABTCOD#14, UKRMT5BB, IBW#013, MIRTTH#15a/16,
BotToS#8, GP#2, SBS#10, SH#3, DFV#14, BONY#9.
Url for ukrm newbies : http://www.ukrm.net/faq/ukrmscbt.html
http://www.glfuk.com/ for MJK Leathers in the UK.
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.
Nigel Eaton
<lo...@speedyspic.co.uk> typed
>Nigel Eaton says...
>> I see that nice Mr Blair has decided we all need identity cards:
>
>They can issue them, but I'm fucked if I'll ever carry mine.
>
"Issue them"? Dear boy, you're going to have to *buy* the fucking thing!
Or not, as the case may be.
Lozzo
> Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Lozzo
> <lo...@speedyspic.co.uk> typed
> >Nigel Eaton says...
> >> I see that nice Mr Blair has decided we all need identity cards:
> >
> >They can issue them, but I'm fucked if I'll ever carry mine.
> >
>
> "Issue them"? Dear boy, you're going to have to *buy* the fucking thing!
> Or not, as the case may be.
He can get fucked, I'm not buying anything I don't want, law or no law.
Pip
wrote:
[ID cards]
>He can get fucked, I'm not buying anything I don't want, law or no law.
Really?
*clink* *clink*
*SLAM*
"It's just another Leftie protester, George - throw away the key, eh?"
*tink*
*tinkle*
*splosh*
That'll be you fucked then Loz.
--
Pip, Hairy Gfedcker. RF 900RR, Ruff and Rattly.
WS* DFWAG#0 IbW#27* DIAABTCOD#15 GP#0 EKP FUB#4 MKA+E#3
ANORAK#8 MIRTTH#15 BOTAFOT/F#47/34a BONY#13 KotMIB# <space>
UKRMRM#14 TWA#2
harry
"Pip" <p...@ukrm.net> wrote in message
news:hucp60t83fseprl56...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 00:43:46 +0100, Lozzo <lo...@speedyspic.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> [ID cards]
>
> >He can get fucked, I'm not buying anything I don't want, law or no law.
>
>
> Really?
>
>
> *clink* *clink*
>
> *SLAM*
>
> "It's just another Leftie protester, George - throw away the key, eh?"
>
>
>
> *tink*
>
> *tinkle*
>
> *splosh*
>
>
>
> That'll be you fucked then Loz.
Oh shit.
Me too then.
--
Harry.
Team Top Banana Racing. www.topbananaracing.co.uk
Putting the trees back in the country.
dwb
"Nigel Eaton" <nig...@rcav8r.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:DLoAxswI...@rcav8r.demon.co.uk...
> I wonder who he talks to? I don't expect that any serving Prime Minister
> can stay closely in touch with the street, but Blair and Blunkett do
> show distinct signs of being on another planet sometimes.
It seems to be the way Blunkett and Blair do things - they make the
suggestion, the public goes nuts - they withdraw it.
Only to slip it when there is other stuff dominating the headlines.
Strange also how the immigration minister resigned on a day where a rather
damning report on the UK
railway industry (which certainly affects me more then any asylum seekers
do) which puts a fair chunk of the
blame on poor government management was released - effectively putting it on
page 4 of the papers.
geoff
<lo...@speedyspic.co.uk> writes
>Nigel Eaton says...
>> I see that nice Mr Blair has decided we all need identity cards:
>
>They can issue them, but I'm fucked if I'll ever carry mine.
>
--
geoff
petrolcan
Lozzo's from Bedford.
--
Michael
r1100rs|pc50|mk2 16v|
'fot#125 | twa#5 | flo#10 | cosoc#1
geoff
<lo...@speedyspic.co.uk> writes
>Nigel Eaton says...
>> Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Lozzo
>> <lo...@speedyspic.co.uk> typed
>> >Nigel Eaton says...
>> >> I see that nice Mr Blair has decided we all need identity cards:
>> >
>> >They can issue them, but I'm fucked if I'll ever carry mine.
>> >
>>
>> "Issue them"? Dear boy, you're going to have to *buy* the fucking thing!
>> Or not, as the case may be.
>
>He can get fucked, I'm not buying anything I don't want, law or no law.
>
--
geoff
geoff
<colmREMO...@hotmail.com> writes
>In article <fexxwHmV...@ntlworld.com>, geoff says...
>> In message <MPG.1ad6b6b16...@news.individual.net>, Lozzo
>> <lo...@speedyspic.co.uk> writes
>> >Nigel Eaton says...
>> >> I see that nice Mr Blair has decided we all need identity cards:
>> >
>> >They can issue them, but I'm fucked if I'll ever carry mine.
>> >
>> Spoken like a true Italian
>
>Lozzo's from Bedford.
And ?
--
geoff
Lozzo
Cunt, I'm no wop, I'm a spic.
Lozzo
He aint Italian
geoff
<lo...@speedyspic.co.uk> writes
>geoff says...
>> In message <MPG.1ad7f9256...@news.individual.net>, petrolcan
>> <colmREMO...@hotmail.com> writes
>> >In article <fexxwHmV...@ntlworld.com>, geoff says...
>> >> In message <MPG.1ad6b6b16...@news.individual.net>, Lozzo
>> >> <lo...@speedyspic.co.uk> writes
>> >> >Nigel Eaton says...
>> >> >> I see that nice Mr Blair has decided we all need identity cards:
>> >> >
>> >> >They can issue them, but I'm fucked if I'll ever carry mine.
>> >> >
>> >> Spoken like a true Italian
>> >
>> >Lozzo's from Bedford.
>>
>> And ?
>
>He aint Italian
>
I might have hinted
--
geoff
geoff
<lo...@speedyspic.co.uk> writes
>geoff says...
>> In message <MPG.1ad6b6b16...@news.individual.net>, Lozzo
>> <lo...@speedyspic.co.uk> writes
>> >Nigel Eaton says...
>> >> I see that nice Mr Blair has decided we all need identity cards:
>> >
>> >They can issue them, but I'm fucked if I'll ever carry mine.
>> >
>> Spoken like a true Italian
>
>Cunt, I'm no wop, I'm a spic.
>
--
geoff
Spete
>
> "There is no longer a civil liberties objection to that in the vast
> majority of quarters."
>
> I wonder who he talks to? I don't expect that any serving Prime Minister
> can stay closely in touch with the street, but Blair and Blunkett do
> show distinct signs of being on another planet sometimes.
>
> <sigh> I think I'm going to have to vote for Charlie the pisshead next
> time.
Right, time to stir in the shitpot for a little while.
Maybe I'm used to giving civil liberties away, altough Holland is quite
liberal, but I really can't see what's wrong with identity cards. What
exactly are you giving away. Personal info? What personal info. If the
police are suspecting you of anything and you give them false info, they
have the right to arrest you as far as I know until they find out who and
what you are. Why not have a card on you with that info so the chances of
you getting arrested is that little more slim.
Anybody on here has given their info away at some point, when applying for a
bankcard, transaction on the net, shopping at a supermarket. Why is it
suddenly a bad thing to give this info to the government? It's not as if
they can't get to that info anyway. When they have your name, they can get
to all manner of info anyway. The only people I can imagine not wanting to
give out this info, are criminals. I can't see law-abiding citizens having
any trouble.
So basically: what more info is being put on this ID-card that the
government can't get anyway...
--
Spete
www.gimmemoney.mine.nu
www.spete.homeip.net
Occasionally, I'll be consistent
Ben Blaney
>Maybe I'm used to giving civil liberties away, altough Holland is quite
>liberal, but I really can't see what's wrong with identity cards. What
>exactly are you giving away. Personal info? What personal info
That's the point. They don't *do* anything. So let's not have them.
--
Ben Blaney
Spete
"Ben Blaney" <benb...@ukrm.net> wrote in message
news:pklv601i3m3a7d8ab...@4ax.com...
Well, sort of I think. There are still people who don't drive/ride or go
abroad. What form of ID do they have.
If they don't *do* anything I can see your point, but I think they do, if
only for the example above. I still fail to see what all of this has got to
do with the loss of civil liberties....
Paul Corfield
wrote:
[ID Cards]
>Right, time to stir in the shitpot for a little while.
>
>Maybe I'm used to giving civil liberties away, altough Holland is quite
>liberal, but I really can't see what's wrong with identity cards. What
>exactly are you giving away. Personal info? What personal info. If the
>police are suspecting you of anything and you give them false info, they
>have the right to arrest you as far as I know until they find out who and
>what you are. Why not have a card on you with that info so the chances of
>you getting arrested is that little more slim.
Why is it right for me to *have* to carry a card in order to prove who I
am? Why is the burden of proof being moved to me and not those who may
believe I have done something wrong? Why am I at risk of additional
criminal penalty?
>Anybody on here has given their info away at some point, when applying for a
>bankcard, transaction on the net, shopping at a supermarket.
Err you are *asked* to provide such information by the service provider.
You have a choice as to whether you wish to take up the service relative
to the conditions the supplier imposes. You are not forced to have a
bankcard or to make net transactions or to hand over any personal
details at a supermarket if you pay cash.
I would also add that providing personal details for some of your
examples is potentially valuable to the consumer because the supplier
may wish to send you information or else use the information for anti
fraud purposes.
I do not have any supermarket loyalty cards because I do not want their
crap posted through my letter box and I don't really want them to track
what I buy at their stores. Oh and I'm not remotely interested in the
"discounts" these cards provide.
>Why is it
>suddenly a bad thing to give this info to the government? It's not as if
>they can't get to that info anyway. When they have your name, they can get
>to all manner of info anyway. The only people I can imagine not wanting to
>give out this info, are criminals. I can't see law-abiding citizens having
>any trouble.
So if the government has all the info anyway and it's so simple for them
to access it they don't need to impose an ID Card do they?
Why should we have to pay for such a card?
What extra benefits to society or personal benefit will it bring ?
Why should a policeman have the right to stop me and demand to see an ID
card? I understand this is not the initial proposal but it will only
take one "terrorist outrage" here or in some other country to provide
the opening for such a rule to be added overnight.
I consider myself to be a law abiding person. I see no reason whatsoever
for me to have to carry an ID card. I see no reason for the government
to have any additional means to pry into my private life. It is also
utter hypocrisy on their part as they have completely failed to allow
proper freedom of information provisions or to adopt more accountable
forms of central or local government.
>So basically: what more info is being put on this ID-card that the
>government can't get anyway...
See above - if they have it all already they don't need an ID card.
--
Paul C - "the big camp bastard" (tm d.a.r.s.y)
VFR800 | ZX6R | R1150GS
BOD#5, two#4, BOTAFOT#23, BOTAFOF#4, URMSBC#09, COFF#09
Admits to working for London Underground!
Nigel Eaton
<benb...@ukrm.net> typed
*Ding*
There's also the issue that it'll take about 30 seconds before passable
forgeries are available to the bad lads.
"It *must* have been Mr Spete officer, he showed me his ID card."
<SLAM>
Spete
"Paul Corfield" <aoo...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:vhlv601ktl5q4vm8o...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 10:20:32 +0100, "Spete" <clogg...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> [ID Cards]
> >Right, time to stir in the shitpot for a little while.
> >
> >Maybe I'm used to giving civil liberties away, altough Holland is quite
> >liberal, but I really can't see what's wrong with identity cards. What
> >exactly are you giving away. Personal info? What personal info. If the
> >police are suspecting you of anything and you give them false info, they
> >have the right to arrest you as far as I know until they find out who and
> >what you are. Why not have a card on you with that info so the chances of
> >you getting arrested is that little more slim.
>
> Why is it right for me to *have* to carry a card in order to prove who I
> am? Why is the burden of proof being moved to me and not those who may
> believe I have done something wrong? Why am I at risk of additional
> criminal penalty?
>
The burden of proof is moved to you, because when you don't have any form of
ID on you, there is no way to prove to them that you are who you say you
are.
> >Anybody on here has given their info away at some point, when applying
for a
> >bankcard, transaction on the net, shopping at a supermarket.
>
> Err you are *asked* to provide such information by the service provider.
> You have a choice as to whether you wish to take up the service relative
> to the conditions the supplier imposes. You are not forced to have a
> bankcard or to make net transactions or to hand over any personal
> details at a supermarket if you pay cash.
Hardly for instance: no bank-card/form of ID = no money from your account.
So they are imposing a form of ID on you. Same with driving licenses. There
is a database of people who have licenses, so why do they want us to carry a
driving-license, or a tax disc for that matter.
>
> I would also add that providing personal details for some of your
> examples is potentially valuable to the consumer because the supplier
> may wish to send you information or else use the information for anti
> fraud purposes.
>
> I do not have any supermarket loyalty cards because I do not want their
> crap posted through my letter box and I don't really want them to track
> what I buy at their stores. Oh and I'm not remotely interested in the
> "discounts" these cards provide.
True
> >Why is it
> >suddenly a bad thing to give this info to the government? It's not as if
> >they can't get to that info anyway. When they have your name, they can
get
> >to all manner of info anyway. The only people I can imagine not wanting
to
> >give out this info, are criminals. I can't see law-abiding citizens
having
> >any trouble.
>
> So if the government has all the info anyway and it's so simple for them
> to access it they don't need to impose an ID Card do they?
This will make it a lot easier for them as they can put the info in one
place, instead of several.
> Why should we have to pay for such a card?
> What extra benefits to society or personal benefit will it bring ?
> Why should a policeman have the right to stop me and demand to see an ID
> card? I understand this is not the initial proposal but it will only
> take one "terrorist outrage" here or in some other country to provide
> the opening for such a rule to be added overnight.
I don't think you have to pay (yet), although I do realise this will be
coming in the future and that I don't agree with. On the other hand, if you
don't pay for them directly, you pay for it indirectly through taxes.
> I consider myself to be a law abiding person. I see no reason whatsoever
> for me to have to carry an ID card. I see no reason for the government
> to have any additional means to pry into my private life. It is also
> utter hypocrisy on their part as they have completely failed to allow
> proper freedom of information provisions or to adopt more accountable
> forms of central or local government.
You are law-abiding, but there are quite a few people who are not. Why is it
so hard to carry a card and be safe in the knowledge that 'they' can ask for
a form of ID and be free to go. It's a fact that we don't live in a society
that is safe. We may have brought this upon ourselves with the 21st century
version of the Crusades.
Not saying that you will, but if 'they' catch someone by using this card,
the majority of people are going to hail the card.
> >So basically: what more info is being put on this ID-card that the
> >government can't get anyway...
>
> See above - if they have it all already they don't need an ID card.
Also see above: a one-stop-ID-card.
Ben Blaney
>It's quite nice that we're a nation of subjects close to removing the
>monarchy (in all but name) and moving to replacing the monarchy with an
>elected sovereign...
I think it's time had a coup.
--
Ben Blaney
Ben Blaney
>Why is it right for me to *have* to carry a card in order to prove who I
>am?
Exactly.
ID cards will achieve absolutely fuck-all, and any cunt that pulls out
the old "if you've nothing to hide you've nothing to fear" bullshit is
part of the problem because they just haven't understood the
implications.
--
Ben Blaney
Paul Corfield
wrote:
>"Paul Corfield" <aoo...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
>news:vhlv601ktl5q4vm8o...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 10:20:32 +0100, "Spete" <clogg...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> [ID Cards]
>> Why is it right for me to *have* to carry a card in order to prove who I
>> am? Why is the burden of proof being moved to me and not those who may
>> believe I have done something wrong? Why am I at risk of additional
>> criminal penalty?
>
>The burden of proof is moved to you, because when you don't have any form of
>ID on you, there is no way to prove to them that you are who you say you
>are.
Oh FFS - the nice police officer could believe what I tell him. Most of
them do this today - you know, ask some questions, listen to the
answers, use their powers of deduction to work out whether you are
telling the truth relative to the other facts that they possess. They
could also pop all of my info into their super dooper computer you tell
me they already possess and then the lovely computer system will, in a
ukrm stylee, go "ding" that is / was Mr Corfield.
If push came to absolute shove they could pop round to my house and I
could show them my birth certificate or passport. However that should be
a last resort not the first one.
[accounts etc]
>Hardly for instance: no bank-card/form of ID = no money from your account.
>So they are imposing a form of ID on you. Same with driving licenses. There
>is a database of people who have licenses, so why do they want us to carry a
>driving-license, or a tax disc for that matter.
No one forces you to have a bank account so why does a bank need your
personal details? Also there are very good reasons enshrined in the
criminal law as to why a licence is required for driving. The addition
of photos was / is an anti-fraud measure. I have no real issue with
that. There is no compulsion on anyone to have a driving licence - if I
hadn't learnt to ride a bike I wouldn't have one as I can't drive a car
and don't really need one.
>> So if the government has all the info anyway and it's so simple for them
>> to access it they don't need to impose an ID Card do they?
>
>This will make it a lot easier for them as they can put the info in one
>place, instead of several.
For them? Sorry but I don't give a toss if it makes it easier for
*them*.
>I don't think you have to pay (yet), although I do realise this will be
>coming in the future and that I don't agree with. On the other hand, if you
>don't pay for them directly, you pay for it indirectly through taxes.
You could just not have them and then avoid all the expense in the first
place.
>You are law-abiding, but there are quite a few people who are not. Why is it
>so hard to carry a card and be safe in the knowledge that 'they' can ask for
>a form of ID and be free to go. It's a fact that we don't live in a society
>that is safe. We may have brought this upon ourselves with the 21st century
>version of the Crusades.
>Not saying that you will, but if 'they' catch someone by using this card,
>the majority of people are going to hail the card.
Because the majority are brain washed clueless prats who believe what
the Sun and the Mail tell them. The level of intellectual rigour in this
country is so low as to be undetectable.
Just because some mad terrorists wish to kill everyone in the West and
also because Bushy Baby wanted to kick Saddam's ass you think I should
surrender what small pieces of privacy I still possess. I think people
need to work out that the mass surrender of our rights and liberty is
actually playing into the hands of the terrorists. They wish to create
fear and restrictions in the relatively free countries of the west. The
believes of Mr Bin Laden are not those of democracy and the introduction
of ID cards will make difference.
If terrorists wish to blow up the Tube they will. If they wish to drop a
plane on the Houses of Parliament they will. If they want to blow up
Tottenham Retail Park on a Saturday morning when hundreds of people are
doing their shopping they will. ID Cards will make no difference to
that.
>> >So basically: what more info is being put on this ID-card that the
>> >government can't get anyway...
>>
>> See above - if they have it all already they don't need an ID card.
>
>Also see above: a one-stop-ID-card.
You have made no argument apart from making life easier for the
authorities and more restrictive for individuals. That is not an
equitable answer. Go and think again.
Spete
Call me thick, but what exactly are the implications. Apart from being asked
to show you are who you say you are, I can't see any. As far as I can tell,
we are not being restricted in our movements and if we were, the government
wouldn't need cards to do this.
Alan
They will achieve something - just not what we want. They will create a
black market in fake ID cards and cause an increase in identity theft.
--
Alan
ZX9R E2 (Green of course) '03 Tiger 955i (A pleasing shade of green)
Spete
> >>
> >> [ID Cards]
<snip>
> Oh FFS - the nice police officer could believe what I tell him. Most of
> them do this today - you know, ask some questions, listen to the
> answers, use their powers of deduction to work out whether you are
> telling the truth relative to the other facts that they possess. They
> could also pop all of my info into their super dooper computer you tell
> me they already possess and then the lovely computer system will, in a
> ukrm stylee, go "ding" that is / was Mr Corfield.
True, but without a card there is no proof. I still don't see the trouble,
honestly.
<snip>
> No one forces you to have a bank account so why does a bank need your
> personal details? Also there are very good reasons enshrined in the
> criminal law as to why a licence is required for driving. The addition
> of photos was / is an anti-fraud measure. I have no real issue with
> that. There is no compulsion on anyone to have a driving licence - if I
> hadn't learnt to ride a bike I wouldn't have one as I can't drive a car
> and don't really need one.
Well, my employer forces me to have a bank account, otherwise I wouldn't be
able to get paid and buy this very nice yellow bike I've got now. What are
the reasons enshrined in criminal law to have a bit of paper? I can see why
you need a license, but if I go with your mindset, I shouldn't need a piece
of paper.
> >> So if the government has all the info anyway and it's so simple for
them
> >> to access it they don't need to impose an ID Card do they?
> >
> >This will make it a lot easier for them as they can put the info in one
> >place, instead of several.
>
> For them? Sorry but I don't give a toss if it makes it easier for
> *them*.
Why is it so hard to make it easier for them. All this 'I hate the
government and will make it as hard as possible to do anything' is a bit
strange to me.
> >I don't think you have to pay (yet), although I do realise this will be
> >coming in the future and that I don't agree with. On the other hand, if
you
> >don't pay for them directly, you pay for it indirectly through taxes.
>
> You could just not have them and then avoid all the expense in the first
> place.
True, I'm not saying I want those cards, My wallet is heavy enough as it is.
I just don't see what the trouble is in having them.
> >You are law-abiding, but there are quite a few people who are not. Why is
it
> >so hard to carry a card and be safe in the knowledge that 'they' can ask
for
> >a form of ID and be free to go. It's a fact that we don't live in a
society
> >that is safe. We may have brought this upon ourselves with the 21st
century
> >version of the Crusades.
> >Not saying that you will, but if 'they' catch someone by using this card,
> >the majority of people are going to hail the card.
>
> Because the majority are brain washed clueless prats who believe what
> the Sun and the Mail tell them. The level of intellectual rigour in this
> country is so low as to be undetectable.
I don't read those papers, so couldn't comment.
> Just because some mad terrorists wish to kill everyone in the West and
> also because Bushy Baby wanted to kick Saddam's ass you think I should
> surrender what small pieces of privacy I still possess. I think people
> need to work out that the mass surrender of our rights and liberty is
> actually playing into the hands of the terrorists. They wish to create
> fear and restrictions in the relatively free countries of the west. The
> believes of Mr Bin Laden are not those of democracy and the introduction
> of ID cards will make difference.
>
> If terrorists wish to blow up the Tube they will. If they wish to drop a
> plane on the Houses of Parliament they will. If they want to blow up
> Tottenham Retail Park on a Saturday morning when hundreds of people are
> doing their shopping they will. ID Cards will make no difference to
> that.
I do realise this, but why not make it that little bit more difficult for
them, you never know, you may catch the odd one.
> >> >So basically: what more info is being put on this ID-card that the
> >> >government can't get anyway...
> >>
> >> See above - if they have it all already they don't need an ID card.
> >
> >Also see above: a one-stop-ID-card.
>
> You have made no argument apart from making life easier for the
> authorities and more restrictive for individuals. That is not an
> equitable answer. Go and think again.
How is a card making it more restrictive. You're not giving up civil
liberties as the information is available anyway. If 'they' want to stop
you, they will anyway, a card just speeds up the process.
Where do you get the idea I didn't think about this? I don't think we will
see eye to eye on this matter, but this shouldn't stop a healthy
debate/discussion.
Paul Corfield
wrote:
>Paul Corfield said:
>
>>On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 10:20:32 +0100, "Spete" <clogg...@hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>[ID Cards]
>>>Right, time to stir in the shitpot for a little while.
><snip>
>
><Standing Ovation>
>
>Vote BCB... YKIMS.
right - now I know it's time to quit.
Salad Dodger
wrote:
>Right, time to stir in the shitpot for a little while.
>
>Maybe I'm used to giving civil liberties away, altough Holland is quite
>liberal, but I really can't see what's wrong with identity cards. What
>exactly are you giving away.
Holland is quite liberal precisely because of people who weren't
prepared to give civil liberties quite so easily.
I'm not sure if there was compulsory carrying of ID in 1939 in the
Netherlands, but there sure as fuck was in 1940.
--
| ___ Salad Dodger
|/ \
_/_____\_ GL1500SEV/CBR1100XXX/KH500A8/TS250C
|_\_____/_| ..63043../..15107.../..3157./.19406
(>|_|_|<) TPPFATUICG#7 DIAABTCOD#9 YTC#4 PM#5
|__|_|__| BOTAFOT #70 BOTAFOF #09 two#11 WG*
\ |^| / IbW#0 & KotIbW# BotTOS#6 GP#4
\|^|/ ANORAK#17
'^'
ogden
>
> I'm not sure if there was compulsory carrying of ID in 1939 in the
> Netherlands, but there sure as fuck was in 1940.
I Godwin!
--
ogden
gsf1200, chi#0, tppfatuicg#20, botafot#132
"bear baiting - a bygone sport"
PeterT
> Couple of points and questions to think on then.
>
> It'll be easier for identity thieves, since they only have to steal
> one card.
Identitiy theft is already an ongoing problem as far as I know.
Currently I could open a bank account under your name etc. The
card is not likely to make it easier, actually the opposite.
> What information is going to be on the card?
Usual thing is name, dob, height, colour of eyes, address and place of
residence. At least that's what you have on the German ones. All
information already held on you if you have a passport or were born.
> How are they
> going to prove that Mr. A. N. Other is who he says he is so that they
> can *issue* the ID card?
How do you get a passport?
> Who looks after it? How are they going to
> read it? Who has access? Who *needs* the info, e.g. are shops going to
> insist on seeing ID before we can buy goods, and if so why? What
> guarantee do we have that the stored info is accurate? What can we do
> if it isn't?
Your list of 'frightening' questions would be answered in the same
way as with a passport.
> What difference will ID cards make to terrorism, in fact
> what difference will they make to crime as a whole?
Do you think that the introduction of a an ID card will create criminals
and terrorists?
> Will we all have
> to carry them and what happens if we don't?
Obviously you will be shot on the spot.
> Who do you think is going
> to be stopped most often and asked for ID? Won't be the white middle
> class Daily Wail reader, that's for sure.
Well follow your argument through, this unproportional stopping
is already existent, but an ID will at least help to clear up matters
quicker, which would mean less hassle.
> And as I mentioned before,
> anyone who currently has false ID can get is legitimised by the
> introduction of this ID card and its register.
How that?
> To sum up: What's the point?
How's about fraud benefit, just to mention one point.
Btw, how do you breathe with your head in the sand?
--
ts350 xl600v
petert
Nigel Eaton
<kr...@ukrmdotnet.cut> typed
(Snip)
>Do you think that the introduction of a an ID card will create criminals
Yes, of course it will. Anyone who doesn't carry one will become a
criminal. And if you think that Blunkett won't make carrying the card at
all times compulsory, you're dreaming.
(Snip)
Catman
wrote:
>
>"Paul Corfield" <aoo...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
>news:vhlv601ktl5q4vm8o...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 10:20:32 +0100, "Spete" <clogg...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> [ID Cards]
>> >Right, time to stir in the shitpot for a little while.
>> >
>> >Maybe I'm used to giving civil liberties away, altough Holland is quite
>> >liberal, but I really can't see what's wrong with identity cards. What
>> >exactly are you giving away. Personal info? What personal info. If the
>> >police are suspecting you of anything and you give them false info, they
>> >have the right to arrest you as far as I know until they find out who and
>> >what you are. Why not have a card on you with that info so the chances of
>> >you getting arrested is that little more slim.
>>
>> Why is it right for me to *have* to carry a card in order to prove who I
>> am? Why is the burden of proof being moved to me and not those who may
>> believe I have done something wrong? Why am I at risk of additional
>> criminal penalty?
>>
>
>The burden of proof is moved to you, because when you don't have any form of
>ID on you, there is no way to prove to them that you are who you say you
>are.
But look at it like this. If they really think I've done something
wrong, they are going to arrest me anyway, right.
If they are not really sure that *I've* done something wrong, they
shouldn't really be arresting me.
>> >Anybody on here has given their info away at some point, when applying
>for a
>> >bankcard, transaction on the net, shopping at a supermarket.
>>
>> Err you are *asked* to provide such information by the service provider.
>> You have a choice as to whether you wish to take up the service relative
>> to the conditions the supplier imposes. You are not forced to have a
>> bankcard or to make net transactions or to hand over any personal
>> details at a supermarket if you pay cash.
>
>Hardly for instance: no bank-card/form of ID = no money from your account.
>So they are imposing a form of ID on you.
No, that is an entitlement card. It shows that you are entitled to
the funds in the account, not who you are.
> Same with driving licenses.
Another entitlement card.
<snip>
>
>You are law-abiding, but there are quite a few people who are not. Why is it
>so hard to carry a card and be safe in the knowledge that 'they' can ask for
>a form of ID and be free to go. It's a fact that we don't live in a society
>that is safe. We may have brought this upon ourselves with the 21st century
>version of the Crusades.
1) How long will it be before forgeries are available?
2) Until someone can come up with a cast iron situation where I
should be forced to identify myself at a moments notice, then I'll
refuse to carry one.
>Not saying that you will, but if 'they' catch someone by using this card,
>the majority of people are going to hail the card.
How are they going to catch anyone with it?
--
Catman MIB#14 SKoGA#6 TEAR#4 BOTAFOF#38 Apostle#21
Tyger, Tyger Burning Bright (Remove rust to reply)
Alfa 116 Giulietta 3.0l (Really) Sprint 1.7
Triumph Speed Triple: Black with extra black bits
www.cuore-sportivo.co.uk
PeterT
> Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, PeterT
> <kr...@ukrmdotnet.cut> typed
> (Snip)
>
> >Do you think that the introduction of a an ID card will create criminals
>
> Yes, of course it will. Anyone who doesn't carry one will become a
> criminal. And if you think that Blunkett won't make carrying the card at
> all times compulsory, you're dreaming.
Am I? Cause we got IDs in the Fatherland since whenever and although
you're supposed to carry it, it certainly isn't a criminal offence
if you don't. Everybody is up in arms about their civil liberty
on the subject of IDs, but can't give a toss to argue or complain
about other, considerably more dangerous, erosion of these.
--
ts350 xl600v
petert
Ace
<nig...@rcav8r.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, PeterT
><kr...@ukrmdotnet.cut> typed
>(Snip)
>
>>Do you think that the introduction of a an ID card will create criminals
>
>Yes, of course it will. Anyone who doesn't carry one will become a
>criminal. And if you think that Blunkett won't make carrying the card at
>all times compulsory, you're dreaming.
I'm astonished that otherwise rational people can get themselves into
such a tizzy over such a little thing. Go and live on the continent
and see just how much having to carry ID affects you.
--
Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
GSX-R1000K3, CB400F2
BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, UKRMSPC#1, DFV#8, BOTCdV#1
Nigel Eaton
<kr...@ukrmdotnet.cut> typed
>Nigel Eaton
>> Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, PeterT
>> <kr...@ukrmdotnet.cut> typed
>> (Snip)
>>
>> >Do you think that the introduction of a an ID card will create criminals
>>
>> Yes, of course it will. Anyone who doesn't carry one will become a
>> criminal. And if you think that Blunkett won't make carrying the card at
>> all times compulsory, you're dreaming.
>
>Am I?
"In order to further the fight against terrorism, and since no-one has
any meaningful objections we will be introducing a bill to make the
carrying of the totally successful new ID cards compulsory. The only
people who have anything to fear from this entirely reasonable measure
are criminals and terrorists."
- D. Blunkett 10/1/2006
You mark my words. That man is fucking dangerous. I *bitterly* regret
voting for the party that made him Home Secretary.
>Everybody is up in arms about their civil liberty
>on the subject of IDs, but can't give a toss to argue or complain
>about other, considerably more dangerous, erosion of these.
Such as? (Genuine question, BTW).
PeterT
> PeterT
> >Nigel Eaton
> >> Yes, of course it will. Anyone who doesn't carry one will become a
> >> criminal. And if you think that Blunkett won't make carrying the card
at
> >> all times compulsory, you're dreaming.
> >
> >Am I?
>
> "In order to further the fight against terrorism, and since no-one has
> any meaningful objections we will be introducing a bill to make the
> carrying of the totally successful new ID cards compulsory. The only
> people who have anything to fear from this entirely reasonable measure
> are criminals and terrorists."
> - D. Blunkett 10/1/2006
>
> You mark my words. That man is fucking dangerous. I *bitterly* regret
> voting for the party that made him Home Secretary.
>
> >Everybody is up in arms about their civil liberty
> >on the subject of IDs, but can't give a toss to argue or complain
> >about other, considerably more dangerous, erosion of these.
>
> Such as? (Genuine question, BTW).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,3605,1137463,00.html
Secret trial proposed by Blunkett, with convictions based on intelligence
information not evidence.
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Politics/documents/2001/11/20/Full_text.pdf
The relevant bill amendments
http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/issues/internment.shtml
The there is internment without trial.
Just to name a few.
--
ts350 xl600v
petert
steve auvache
>>ID on you, there is no way to prove to them that you are who you say you
>>are.
>
>But look at it like this. If they really think I've done something
>wrong, they are going to arrest me anyway, right.
My problem with it is, that as I understand it; according to English law
you are who you say you are, it is what you do that should or should not
be the issue. I see no good reason to change this.
--
steve auvache
steve auvache
> Blunkett
I doubt he is going to be seen around the corridors of power much
longer.
--
steve auvache
Grimly Curmudgeon
drugs began to take hold. I remember Ace <b.ro...@virgin.net> saying
something like:
>I'm astonished that otherwise rational people can get themselves into
>such a tizzy over such a little thing. Go and live on the continent
>and see just how much having to carry ID affects you.
It's the 'having to carry it' bit that would piss me off. Thoroughly
un-British, you see, and the kind of thing those foreign johnnies do.
Even though I don't live there (UK), I can see the same shit happening
here (Ireland) eventually. I will take pleasure in NOT carrying one.
--
Dave
GS 850 x2 / SE 6a
SbS#6 DIAABTCOD#16 APOSTLE#6 FUB#3
FUB KotL OSOS#12? UKRMMA#19 COSOC#10
Catman
I agree 100%. Perhaps I failed to make that clear. If the powers tha be
believe I am guilty of some offence, then they are welcome to arrest me.
Who I am seems hardly relevant.
--
Catman MIB#14 SKoGA#6 TEAR#4 BOTAFOF#38 Apostle#21 COSOC#3
Catman
> Halla
>
>> Couple of points and questions to think on then.
>>
>> It'll be easier for identity thieves, since they only have to steal
>> one card.
>
> Identitiy theft is already an ongoing problem as far as I know.
> Currently I could open a bank account under your name etc. The
> card is not likely to make it easier, actually the opposite.
How so? If I've stolen your identity, then it's game over whatever method,
innit?
>> What information is going to be on the card?
>
> Usual thing is name, dob, height, colour of eyes, address and place of
> residence. At least that's what you have on the German ones. All
> information already held on you if you have a passport or were born.
>
>> How are they
>> going to prove that Mr. A. N. Other is who he says he is so that they
>> can *issue* the ID card?
>
> How do you get a passport?
By getting a random 'responsible' person to sign a declaration that you are
who you say. AIUI even *I* can do this, by virtue of being a company
director. Not exaclty 100% secure.
>> Who looks after it? How are they going to
>> read it? Who has access? Who *needs* the info, e.g. are shops going to
>> insist on seeing ID before we can buy goods, and if so why? What
>> guarantee do we have that the stored info is accurate? What can we do
>> if it isn't?
>
> Your list of 'frightening' questions would be answered in the same
> way as with a passport.
Not at all. There is no requirement to have a passport. One is not
required to carry a passport, or to produce a passport except in
circumstances of one's own choosing. The only people that *need* access to
the information on a passport are the officials at whatever port I am
travelling through (again, *my* choice). So in, not at all the same
answers.
>> What difference will ID cards make to terrorism, in fact
>> what difference will they make to crime as a whole?
>
> Do you think that the introduction of a an ID card will create criminals
> and terrorists?
How about answering the question?
>> Will we all have
>> to carry them and what happens if we don't?
>
> Obviously you will be shot on the spot.
Well, of course :)
>> Who do you think is going
>> to be stopped most often and asked for ID? Won't be the white middle
>> class Daily Wail reader, that's for sure.
>
> Well follow your argument through, this unproportional stopping
> is already existent, but an ID will at least help to clear up matters
> quicker, which would mean less hassle.
But again, this is my choice. If any group are being stopped in a
dis-proprtionate manner, then that should be adressed at root, not by
'clearing it up quicker'
>> And as I mentioned before,
>> anyone who currently has false ID can get is legitimised by the
>> introduction of this ID card and its register.
>
> How that?
How are they going to verify one's ID when issuing the card? Think about
it for a second.
>> To sum up: What's the point?
>
> How's about fraud benefit, just to mention one point.
How *exactly* will it reduce fraud benefit? Or more explicity, how will
*me* having a valid, accurate ID card prevent someone else, with a fake,
defrauding the benefit system?
> Btw, how do you breathe with your head in the sand?
Same way you do, I suspect.
steve auvache
>
>How *exactly* will it reduce fraud benefit? Or more explicity, how will
>*me* having a valid, accurate ID card prevent someone else, with a fake,
>defrauding the benefit system?
I suspect that the argument goes much along the same lines as car and
household alarms are sold to us. It is designed to prevent the
opportunist but does fuck all to deter the committed.
However, regardless of the rights and wrongs of the issue if it should
happen to be the one which is responsible for putting Blunkett back on
some training scheme for the disabled, where he belongs, I will be
cheering for it.
--
steve auvache
Ginge
says...
> Nigel Eaton wrote
> > Blunkett
>
> I doubt he is going to be seen around the corridors of power much
> longer.
They should put in more staircases, and get his guide dog pissed.
Catman
I think the proce would be too high. Not *much* too high you
understand........
Lady Nina
<nig...@rcav8r.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>"In order to further the fight against terrorism, and since no-one has
>any meaningful objections we will be introducing a bill to make the
>carrying of the totally successful new ID cards compulsory. The only
>people who have anything to fear from this entirely reasonable measure
>are criminals and terrorists."
> - D. Blunkett 10/1/2006
<shudder>
>
>You mark my words. That man is fucking dangerous.
Completely barking it would appear.
According to my step father he was a conniving little shit at school
as well
> I *bitterly* regret
>voting for the party that made him Home Secretary.
<nods sadly>
--
Lady Nina
You've got to love what you do.
steve auvache
cunt
That was the first cup of perked coffee I have had in months and the
last of me cream.
I wonder where I put the straws.
--
steve auvache
Ben Blaney
>I'm astonished that otherwise rational people can get themselves into
>such a tizzy over such a little thing. Go and live on the continent
>and see just how much having to carry ID affects you.
It's the principle, mate. Remember those?
--
Ben Blaney
Ace
wrote:
Lost me there mate. What principle is that?
Ben Blaney
>On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 07:12:11 +0300, Ben Blaney <benb...@ukrm.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Ace wrote:
>>
>>>I'm astonished that otherwise rational people can get themselves into
>>>such a tizzy over such a little thing. Go and live on the continent
>>>and see just how much having to carry ID affects you.
>>
>>It's the principle, mate. Remember those?
>
>Lost me there mate. What principle is that?
The principle that government should intervene in our personal lives
as little as possible.
And the principle that as it's going to be a pointless law, it's
bloody silly, and we should oppose it.
--
Ben Blaney
Ace
wrote:
>Ace wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 07:12:11 +0300, Ben Blaney <benb...@ukrm.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Ace wrote:
>>>
>>>>I'm astonished that otherwise rational people can get themselves into
>>>>such a tizzy over such a little thing. Go and live on the continent
>>>>and see just how much having to carry ID affects you.
>>>
>>>It's the principle, mate. Remember those?
>>
>>Lost me there mate. What principle is that?
>
>The principle that government should intervene in our personal lives
>as little as possible.
I can't see how having an ID card is 'interfering'.
>And the principle that as it's going to be a pointless law, it's
>bloody silly, and we should oppose it.
What, just for the sake of it, regardless on whether it's actually
going to be a bad thing? Sensible policies for a happier Britain?
Ben Blaney
>On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 11:17:25 +0300, Ben Blaney <benb...@ukrm.net>
>wrote:
>
>>The principle that government should intervene in our personal lives
>>as little as possible.
>
>I can't see how having an ID card is 'interfering'.
It's interfering if it's illegal for us *not* to carry it.
And it's interfering if there's personal data kept in "the system" to
be accessed by the filth.
Because if you've got to carry it, then they can ask for it, and if
they can ask for it, they can find out stuff about me - with no good
reason to.
The present situation is - and I was told this by my parents at a very
early age - that you don't have to tell them anything unless they
suspect you of a crime, or going to commit a crime.
>>And the principle that as it's going to be a pointless law, it's
>>bloody silly, and we should oppose it.
>
>What, just for the sake of it, regardless on whether it's actually
>going to be a bad thing? Sensible policies for a happier Britain?
A pointless is a bad thing. A silly law is a bad thing. And
encroaching on all of our personal freedoms is a bad thing.
--
Ben Blaney
Ace
wrote:
>A pointless is a bad thing. A silly law is a bad thing. And
>encroaching on all of our personal freedoms is a bad thing.
I can't see that it merits fighting just because it's pointless and
silly , and I _still_ can't see how it impinges ones personal freedom.
But hey, <shrug>, what ever.
darsy
>On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 11:51:51 +0300, Ben Blaney <benb...@ukrm.net>
>wrote:
>
>>A pointless is a bad thing. A silly law is a bad thing. And
>>encroaching on all of our personal freedoms is a bad thing.
>
>I can't see that it merits fighting just because it's pointless and
>silly , and I _still_ can't see how it impinges ones personal freedom.
ok then - it will be a *tremendous* waste of tax-payer's money, and
further erode the general public's respect for the police.
Better reasons?
--
d.
Ace
wrote:
Well the first one is, yes, not sure I agree about police respect,
TBH. In any event they're the sort of reasons you could use to further
a rational argument against its introduction.
As opposed to the knee-jerk, 'infringement of civil liberties',
'shouldn't be allowed' sort of stuff I see people on here whingeing
about.
And oh, I don't think the
PeterT
> PeterT
> >Nigel Eaton
> >> Such as? (Genuine question, BTW).
> >Just to name a few.
> What makes you think we're not concerned about those too? It's just
> ttat, y'know, we're kinda talking about ID cards here...
The fact that in threads, when these issues came up, not half
as many posters put their two cents in. But on ID everybody
screams and you see a lot of people promising to act out a
little rebellion by 'not going to carry them'. A form of rebellion
which will, most likely, have no repercussions at all for these
people and is pretty meaningless anyway.
--
ts350 xl600v
petert
Nigel Eaton
<kr...@ukrmdotnet.cut> typed
>screams and you see a lot of people promising to act out a
>little rebellion by 'not going to carry them'. A form of rebellion
>which will, most likely, have no repercussions at all for these
>people and is pretty meaningless anyway.
If that's really true, then the ID card is a totally meaningless waste
of money.
PeterT
> PeterT
> > Halla
> >
> >> Couple of points and questions to think on then.
> >>
> >> It'll be easier for identity thieves, since they only have to steal
> >> one card.
> >
> > Identitiy theft is already an ongoing problem as far as I know.
> > Currently I could open a bank account under your name etc. The
> > card is not likely to make it easier, actually the opposite.
>
> How so? If I've stolen your identity, then it's game over whatever
method,
> innit?
You lost me there.
> >> What information is going to be on the card?
> >
> > Usual thing is name, dob, height, colour of eyes, address and place of
> > residence. At least that's what you have on the German ones. All
> > information already held on you if you have a passport or were born.
> >
> >> How are they
> >> going to prove that Mr. A. N. Other is who he says he is so that they
> >> can *issue* the ID card?
> >
> > How do you get a passport?
>
> By getting a random 'responsible' person to sign a declaration that you
are
> who you say. AIUI even *I* can do this, by virtue of being a company
> director. Not exaclty 100% secure.
So you would never trust a passport somebody shows you?
> >> Who looks after it? How are they going to
> >> read it? Who has access? Who *needs* the info, e.g. are shops going to
> >> insist on seeing ID before we can buy goods, and if so why? What
> >> guarantee do we have that the stored info is accurate? What can we do
> >> if it isn't?
> >
> > Your list of 'frightening' questions would be answered in the same
> > way as with a passport.
>
> Not at all. There is no requirement to have a passport. One is not
> required to carry a passport, or to produce a passport except in
> circumstances of one's own choosing. The only people that *need* access
to
> the information on a passport are the officials at whatever port I am
> travelling through (again, *my* choice). So in, not at all the same
> answers.
>
> >> What difference will ID cards make to terrorism, in fact
> >> what difference will they make to crime as a whole?
> >
> > Do you think that the introduction of a an ID card will create criminals
> > and terrorists?
>
> How about answering the question?
I think IDs will help to identify people faster, thus a potential
terrorist will have a tougher time disappearing, same applies
to criminals. How come that England is such a preferred place
for people who want to disappear for some time?
> >> Will we all have
> >> to carry them and what happens if we don't?
> >
> > Obviously you will be shot on the spot.
>
> Well, of course :)
>
> >> Who do you think is going
> >> to be stopped most often and asked for ID? Won't be the white middle
> >> class Daily Wail reader, that's for sure.
> >
> > Well follow your argument through, this unproportional stopping
> > is already existent, but an ID will at least help to clear up matters
> > quicker, which would mean less hassle.
>
> But again, this is my choice. If any group are being stopped in a
> dis-proprtionate manner, then that should be adressed at root, not by
> 'clearing it up quicker'
I think it's a two pronged issue. As I'm sure you are aware of
addressing it at root won't be happening for quite some time. So
yes, helping to clear it up quickly will make a difference for the
people concerned.
> >> And as I mentioned before,
> >> anyone who currently has false ID can get is legitimised by the
> >> introduction of this ID card and its register.
> >
> > How that?
>
> How are they going to verify one's ID when issuing the card? Think about
> it for a second.
As I said before, same as with a passport.
> >> To sum up: What's the point?
> >
> > How's about fraud benefit, just to mention one point.
>
> How *exactly* will it reduce fraud benefit? Or more explicity, how will
> *me* having a valid, accurate ID card prevent someone else, with a fake,
> defrauding the benefit system?
Becasue it ain't so easy to get hold of a fake ID as you make it out
to be.
> > Btw, how do you breathe with your head in the sand?
>
> Same way you do, I suspect.
No, I speak from experience.
--
ts350 xl600v
petert
PeterT
> PeterT
> >
> >> Couple of points and questions to think on then.
> >>
> >> It'll be easier for identity thieves, since they only have to steal
> >> one card.
> >
> >Identitiy theft is already an ongoing problem as far as I know.
> >Currently I could open a bank account under your name etc. The
> >card is not likely to make it easier, actually the opposite.
> >
>
> How do you figure that one out?
>
> >> What information is going to be on the card?
> >
> >Usual thing is name, dob, height, colour of eyes, address and place of
> >residence. At least that's what you have on the German ones. All
> >information already held on you if you have a passport or were born.
>
> Um no, my birth certificate does not contain any of that bar the name
> and dob. Place of birth, yes, place of residence no. And I'm not
> expected to produce my birth certificate instantly for any person who
> just wants me to identify myself.
Are you on the electoral roll? So you trying to say that the information
required for an ID is not already readily available for officials?
> >> How are they
> >> going to prove that Mr. A. N. Other is who he says he is so that they
> >> can *issue* the ID card?
> >
> >How do you get a passport?
>
> IIRC (which I may not be since I don't have a passport) you get
> someone from a list of approved occupations to say your picture really
> is you. That's about it really.
Is it? So do you mistrust every passport produced this way?
> >> Who looks after it? How are they going to
> >> read it? Who has access? Who *needs* the info, e.g. are shops going to
> >> insist on seeing ID before we can buy goods, and if so why? What
> >> guarantee do we have that the stored info is accurate? What can we do
> >> if it isn't?
> >
> >Your list of 'frightening' questions would be answered in the same
> >way as with a passport.
>
> So go on then. And I'm *still* not expected to carry a passport or
> birth certificate around all the time to prove I am who I say I am.
No, but as I said above, the information they contain is already
available, an ID just makes it easier for YOU to ascertain it if
required and don't come along again that a copper will stop you
on the street just to see if you got your ID. It ain't happening.
> >> Who do you think is going
> >> to be stopped most often and asked for ID? Won't be the white middle
> >> class Daily Wail reader, that's for sure.
> >
> >Well follow your argument through, this unproportional stopping
> >is already existent, but an ID will at least help to clear up matters
> >quicker, which would mean less hassle.
>
> Hmm. I don't know about that...
Really? Well think it through then.
> >> And as I mentioned before,
> >> anyone who currently has false ID can get is legitimised by the
> >> introduction of this ID card and its register.
> >
> >How that?
>
> If you currently have a (faked somehow) birth certificate or passport
> that says you are Joe Bloggs, when this card comes into force the most
> likely way they will gather info on who is who is from existing lists
> of information - so your fake passport becomes a genuine ID card.
So there are uncountable amounts of fake passports out and about?
> >> To sum up: What's the point?
> >
> >How's about fraud benefit, just to mention one point.
>
> Ha. How's it going to help? And what level *is* yer real actual
> benefit fraud at anyway?
Well, it's high enough at approx. £2 billion a year [1], but I assume
you disbelieve that statement as it is official.
> >Btw, how do you breathe with your head in the sand?
>
> Explain that last comment then.
I have the impression that most people, which are against IDs
haven't looked around and realised the reality of the situation.
You have claimed that you don't have a passport, thus I assume
you haven't been to other countries, except NI I suppose.
So you haven't seen the reality of what it means to have an ID,
how useful it is and that it doesn't provide anybody with more
knowledge of you than they already have. that it doesn't infringe
your civil liberties more than could already be done under current
legislation.
[1] http://www.targetingfraud.gov.uk/cost.html
--
ts350 xl600v
petert
Catman
wrote:
>Catman
>> PeterT
>> > Halla
>> >
>> >> Couple of points and questions to think on then.
>> >>
>> >> It'll be easier for identity thieves, since they only have to steal
>> >> one card.
>> >
>> > Identitiy theft is already an ongoing problem as far as I know.
>> > Currently I could open a bank account under your name etc. The
>> > card is not likely to make it easier, actually the opposite.
>>
>> How so? If I've stolen your identity, then it's game over whatever
>method,
>> innit?
>
>You lost me there.
The theft of an idenity is not related to the methodology to prove
that ID. Even if we have ID cards and I successfully steal your
identiy, then the card will not prevent me opening a bank account.
>
>> >> What information is going to be on the card?
>> >
>> > Usual thing is name, dob, height, colour of eyes, address and place of
>> > residence. At least that's what you have on the German ones. All
>> > information already held on you if you have a passport or were born.
>> >
>> >> How are they
>> >> going to prove that Mr. A. N. Other is who he says he is so that they
>> >> can *issue* the ID card?
>> >
>> > How do you get a passport?
>>
>> By getting a random 'responsible' person to sign a declaration that you
>are
>> who you say. AIUI even *I* can do this, by virtue of being a company
>> director. Not exaclty 100% secure.
>
>So you would never trust a passport somebody shows you?
That would depend entirely on where the passport was issued and
whether I thought it looked real. Would you always trust a passport?
>
>> >> Who looks after it? How are they going to
>> >> read it? Who has access? Who *needs* the info, e.g. are shops going to
>> >> insist on seeing ID before we can buy goods, and if so why? What
>> >> guarantee do we have that the stored info is accurate? What can we do
>> >> if it isn't?
>> >
>> > Your list of 'frightening' questions would be answered in the same
>> > way as with a passport.
>>
>> Not at all. There is no requirement to have a passport. One is not
>> required to carry a passport, or to produce a passport except in
>> circumstances of one's own choosing. The only people that *need* access
>to
>> the information on a passport are the officials at whatever port I am
>> travelling through (again, *my* choice). So in, not at all the same
>> answers.
>>
>> >> What difference will ID cards make to terrorism, in fact
>> >> what difference will they make to crime as a whole?
>> >
>> > Do you think that the introduction of a an ID card will create criminals
>> > and terrorists?
>>
>> How about answering the question?
>
>I think IDs will help to identify people faster,
On this we agree. However, under what circumstances should I be
required to prove my idenity on the spot. This is a serious question.
>thus a potential
>terrorist will have a tougher time disappearing, same applies
>to criminals
OK That's what you think. Can you explain to me, using examples
(please) scenarios where this will actually happen). If anyone can,
I'll almost cretainly stand behind ID cards immediately.
>. How come that England is such a preferred place
>for people who want to disappear for some time?
>
>> >> Will we all have
>> >> to carry them and what happens if we don't?
>> >
>> > Obviously you will be shot on the spot.
>>
>> Well, of course :)
>>
>> >> Who do you think is going
>> >> to be stopped most often and asked for ID? Won't be the white middle
>> >> class Daily Wail reader, that's for sure.
>> >
>> > Well follow your argument through, this unproportional stopping
>> > is already existent, but an ID will at least help to clear up matters
>> > quicker, which would mean less hassle.
>>
>> But again, this is my choice. If any group are being stopped in a
>> dis-proprtionate manner, then that should be adressed at root, not by
>> 'clearing it up quicker'
>
>I think it's a two pronged issue. As I'm sure you are aware of
>addressing it at root won't be happening for quite some time. So
>yes, helping to clear it up quickly will make a difference for the
>people concerned.
Too high a price to pay IMHO
>
>> >> And as I mentioned before,
>> >> anyone who currently has false ID can get is legitimised by the
>> >> introduction of this ID card and its register.
>> >
>> > How that?
>>
>> How are they going to verify one's ID when issuing the card? Think about
>> it for a second.
>
>As I said before, same as with a passport.
See above.
>
>> >> To sum up: What's the point?
>> >
>> > How's about fraud benefit, just to mention one point.
>>
>> How *exactly* will it reduce fraud benefit? Or more explicity, how will
>> *me* having a valid, accurate ID card prevent someone else, with a fake,
>> defrauding the benefit system?
>
>Becasue it ain't so easy to get hold of a fake ID as you make it out
>to be.
That does not acutally answer the question. I mean, please, give a
scenario where having an ID card actually makes a difference.
--
Catman MIB#14 SKoGA#6 TEAR#4 BOTAFOF#38 Apostle#21
Catman
wrote:
>Halla
>> PeterT
<snip>
>>
>> Um no, my birth certificate does not contain any of that bar the name
>> and dob. Place of birth, yes, place of residence no. And I'm not
>> expected to produce my birth certificate instantly for any person who
>> just wants me to identify myself.
>
>Are you on the electoral roll? So you trying to say that the information
>required for an ID is not already readily available for officials?
One would hope not, at least not on an 'I feel like checking this guy
out' basis/
<snip>
>No, but as I said above, the information they contain is already
>available, an ID just makes it easier for YOU to ascertain it if
>required and don't come along again that a copper will stop you
>on the street just to see if you got your ID. It ain't happening.
>
More pertinently, why would I be stopped and required to prove my ID?
>> >> Who do you think is going
>> >> to be stopped most often and asked for ID? Won't be the white middle
>> >> class Daily Wail reader, that's for sure.
>> >
>> >Well follow your argument through, this unproportional stopping
>> >is already existent, but an ID will at least help to clear up matters
>> >quicker, which would mean less hassle.
>>
>> Hmm. I don't know about that...
>
>Really? Well think it through then.
>
>
>> >> And as I mentioned before,
>> >> anyone who currently has false ID can get is legitimised by the
>> >> introduction of this ID card and its register.
>> >
>> >How that?
>>
>> If you currently have a (faked somehow) birth certificate or passport
>> that says you are Joe Bloggs, when this card comes into force the most
>> likely way they will gather info on who is who is from existing lists
>> of information - so your fake passport becomes a genuine ID card.
>
>So there are uncountable amounts of fake passports out and about?
>
>
>> >> To sum up: What's the point?
>> >
>> >How's about fraud benefit, just to mention one point.
>>
>> Ha. How's it going to help? And what level *is* yer real actual
>> benefit fraud at anyway?
>
>Well, it's high enough at approx. £2 billion a year [1], but I assume
>you disbelieve that statement as it is official.
You've still not explained how ID cards will reduce that figure.
>
>> >Btw, how do you breathe with your head in the sand?
>>
>> Explain that last comment then.
>
>I have the impression that most people, which are against IDs
>haven't looked around and realised the reality of the situation.
Curiously we are in absolute agreement, apart form the word 'against'
Ace
wrote:
>Halla
>> PeterT
>> >How do you get a passport?
>>
>> IIRC (which I may not be since I don't have a passport) you get
>> someone from a list of approved occupations to say your picture really
>> is you. That's about it really.
Well, a copy of your birth (or adoption) certificate is also required,
but that's just a technicality, obviously.
>> >> And as I mentioned before,
>> >> anyone who currently has false ID can get is legitimised by the
>> >> introduction of this ID card and its register.
>> >
>> >How that?
>>
>> If you currently have a (faked somehow) birth certificate or passport
>> that says you are Joe Bloggs, when this card comes into force the most
>> likely way they will gather info on who is who is from existing lists
>> of information - so your fake passport becomes a genuine ID card.
>
>So there are uncountable amounts of fake passports out and about?
More to the point, if it's a fake passport, how can it be used to get
a genuine ID card? If it's genuine, but obtained under false
pretences, then it's nodifferent from obtaining the ID card falsely to
start with.
>I have the impression that most people, which are against IDs
>haven't looked around and realised the reality of the situation.
>You have claimed that you don't have a passport, thus I assume
>you haven't been to other countries, except NI I suppose.
>So you haven't seen the reality of what it means to have an ID,
>how useful it is and that it doesn't provide anybody with more
>knowledge of you than they already have. that it doesn't infringe
>your civil liberties more than could already be done under current
>legislation.
I couldn't agree more.
Catman
>On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 12:21:03 +0100, "PeterT" <kr...@ukrmdotnet.cut>
>wrote:
>
>>Halla
>>> PeterT
>
>>> >How do you get a passport?
>>>
>>> IIRC (which I may not be since I don't have a passport) you get
>>> someone from a list of approved occupations to say your picture really
>>> is you. That's about it really.
>
>Well, a copy of your birth (or adoption) certificate is also required,
>but that's just a technicality, obviously.
Indeed you do need to send that. If that is a valid form of ID, why
do we need another one?
>>> >> And as I mentioned before,
>>> >> anyone who currently has false ID can get is legitimised by the
>>> >> introduction of this ID card and its register.
>>> >
>>> >How that?
>>>
>>> If you currently have a (faked somehow) birth certificate or passport
>>> that says you are Joe Bloggs, when this card comes into force the most
>>> likely way they will gather info on who is who is from existing lists
>>> of information - so your fake passport becomes a genuine ID card.
>>
>>So there are uncountable amounts of fake passports out and about?
>
>More to the point, if it's a fake passport, how can it be used to get
>a genuine ID card?
Well, it boils down to the issue of how are ID cards going to be
issued? If you arrive at the Home Office and request an ID card, how
exactly are they to verify that you are entitled to it, and that you
are the person that you claim to be? It's kind of important to get
this right since (apparently) everything else will depend on it.
>If it's genuine, but obtained under false
>pretences, then it's nodifferent from obtaining the ID card falsely to
>start with.
Indeed.Except it will be a genuine ID card, accepted at more places
than your flexible friend :)
>>I have the impression that most people, which are against IDs
>>haven't looked around and realised the reality of the situation.
>>You have claimed that you don't have a passport, thus I assume
>>you haven't been to other countries, except NI I suppose.
>>So you haven't seen the reality of what it means to have an ID,
>>how useful it is and that it doesn't provide anybody with more
>>knowledge of you than they already have. that it doesn't infringe
>>your civil liberties more than could already be done under current
>>legislation.
>
>I couldn't agree more.
I have several issues with the whole idea
In order
1) I can not envisage any situation where I should be required to
prove my identity on the spot, or in which the current forms of ID are
not sufficient (and noone in favour of cards has been able to either)
2) I have not been able to envisage any situations where the putative
benefits of ID cards actually happen. I have tried. Again noone in
favour ahs been able to either. It's always the same 'It will reduce
this' but never with a concrete example.
Should those two conditions be satisfied, I'd prolly feel I have to
support cards since some of the supposed benefits are rather good.
PeterT
> Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, PeterT
> <kr...@ukrmdotnet.cut> typed
> >But on ID everybody
> >screams and you see a lot of people promising to act out a
> >little rebellion by 'not going to carry them'. A form of rebellion
> >which will, most likely, have no repercussions at all for these
> >people and is pretty meaningless anyway.
>
> If that's really true, then the ID card is a totally meaningless waste
> of money.
Eh? I was talking about having to carry one, not the usefulness
of it do prove who you are.
--
ts350 xl600v
petert
PeterT
> PeterT
> >Catman
> >> PeterT
> >> > Identitiy theft is already an ongoing problem as far as I know.
> >> > Currently I could open a bank account under your name etc. The
> >> > card is not likely to make it easier, actually the opposite.
> >>
> >> How so? If I've stolen your identity, then it's game over whatever
> >method,
> >> innit?
> >
> >You lost me there.
>
> The theft of an idenity is not related to the methodology to prove
> that ID. Even if we have ID cards and I successfully steal your
> identiy, then the card will not prevent me opening a bank account.
I beg to differ on your first statement. If there would be
unquestionable prove of ID then that method would help to
prevent ID theft. And no, I'm not saying that current IDs
can't be faked etc. But that's a different question and was
somewhat addressed by Steve Auvache somewhere above.
> >So you would never trust a passport somebody shows you?
>
> That would depend entirely on where the passport was issued and
> whether I thought it looked real. Would you always trust a passport?
never != always
> >> How about answering the question?
> >
> >I think IDs will help to identify people faster,
>
> On this we agree. However, under what circumstances should I be
> required to prove my idenity on the spot. This is a serious question.
>
> >thus a potential
> >terrorist will have a tougher time disappearing, same applies
> >to criminals
>
>
> OK That's what you think. Can you explain to me, using examples
> (please) scenarios where this will actually happen). If anyone can,
> I'll almost cretainly stand behind ID cards immediately.
The simple fact that Britain is thought of harbouring far more
terrorist cells than any other European country. And the fact that
it's high on the wishlist of many illegal immegrants even tough
it's much more difficult to get to than, let's say France or Germany.
> >> But again, this is my choice. If any group are being stopped in a
> >> dis-proprtionate manner, then that should be adressed at root, not by
> >> 'clearing it up quicker'
> >
> >I think it's a two pronged issue. As I'm sure you are aware of
> >addressing it at root won't be happening for quite some time. So
> >yes, helping to clear it up quickly will make a difference for the
> >people concerned.
>
> Too high a price to pay IMHO
Don't know. Are _you_ on the recieving end of this diproportionate
behaviour?
> >> >> And as I mentioned before,
> >> >> anyone who currently has false ID can get is legitimised by the
> >> >> introduction of this ID card and its register.
> >> >
> >> > How that?
> >>
> >> How are they going to verify one's ID when issuing the card? Think
about
> >> it for a second.
> >
> >As I said before, same as with a passport.
>
> See above.
>
> >
> >> >> To sum up: What's the point?
> >> >
> >> > How's about fraud benefit, just to mention one point.
> >>
> >> How *exactly* will it reduce fraud benefit? Or more explicity, how will
> >> *me* having a valid, accurate ID card prevent someone else, with a
fake,
> >> defrauding the benefit system?
> >
> >Becasue it ain't so easy to get hold of a fake ID as you make it out
> >to be.
>
>
> That does not acutally answer the question. I mean, please, give a
> scenario where having an ID card actually makes a difference.
For example, the inability to sign up for four or more different
benefits in different cities under different names.
--
ts350 xl600v
petert
Ace
<cat...@cuore-rustsportivo.co.uk> wrote:
<ID Cards>
>I have several issues with the whole idea
>
>In order
>
>1) I can not envisage any situation where I should be required to
>prove my identity on the spot, or in which the current forms of ID are
>not sufficient (and noone in favour of cards has been able to either)
So, that's not really an 'Issue' - just you saying they're pointless.
I'm not sure there are many on here who are in 'favour' of them as
such, just can't see why people are so up in arms about the idea.
>2) I have not been able to envisage any situations where the putative
>benefits of ID cards actually happen. I have tried. Again noone in
>favour ahs been able to either. It's always the same 'It will reduce
>this' but never with a concrete example.
Similarly, that's more of a lack of reason to have them than any
actual objection. I'm sure you can do better than that.
>Should those two conditions be satisfied, I'd prolly feel I have to
>support cards since some of the supposed benefits are rather good.
*thud*
So you _are_ in favour then?
PeterT
> PeterT
> >Halla
> >> Um no, my birth certificate does not contain any of that bar the name
> >> and dob. Place of birth, yes, place of residence no. And I'm not
> >> expected to produce my birth certificate instantly for any person who
> >> just wants me to identify myself.
> >
> >Are you on the electoral roll? So you trying to say that the information
> >required for an ID is not already readily available for officials?
>
> One would hope not, at least not on an 'I feel like checking this guy
> out' basis/
But that falls under abuse of power, which doesn't need an ID to happen.
> <snip>
> >No, but as I said above, the information they contain is already
> >available, an ID just makes it easier for YOU to ascertain it if
> >required and don't come along again that a copper will stop you
> >on the street just to see if you got your ID. It ain't happening.
> >
>
> More pertinently, why would I be stopped and required to prove my ID?
Exactly, I just said it ain't happening.
> >Well, it's high enough at approx. £2 billion a year [1], but I assume
> >you disbelieve that statement as it is official.
>
> You've still not explained how ID cards will reduce that figure.
other post
> >> >Btw, how do you breathe with your head in the sand?
> >>
> >> Explain that last comment then.
> >
> >I have the impression that most people, which are against IDs
> >haven't looked around and realised the reality of the situation.
>
> Curiously we are in absolute agreement, apart form the word 'against'
Well, have you looked around in countries where they have IDs?
Put it to the test and see the response. How many people here on
ukrm live abroad where IDs are used and experience any of the
infringement of civil liberties projected by you.
--
ts350 xl600v
petert
Catman
wrote:
>Catman
>> PeterT
>> >Catman
>> >> PeterT
>
>> >> > Identitiy theft is already an ongoing problem as far as I know.
>> >> > Currently I could open a bank account under your name etc. The
>> >> > card is not likely to make it easier, actually the opposite.
>> >>
>> >> How so? If I've stolen your identity, then it's game over whatever
>> >method,
>> >> innit?
>> >
>> >You lost me there.
>>
>> The theft of an idenity is not related to the methodology to prove
>> that ID. Even if we have ID cards and I successfully steal your
>> identiy, then the card will not prevent me opening a bank account.
>
>I beg to differ on your first statement. If there would be
>unquestionable prove of ID then that method would help to
>prevent ID theft.
Ahhhh. So now it has to be unquestionable? How to you propose to
make that work?
>And no, I'm not saying that current IDs
>can't be faked etc. But that's a different question and was
>somewhat addressed by Steve Auvache somewhere above
>
>> >So you would never trust a passport somebody shows you?
>>
>> That would depend entirely on where the passport was issued and
>> whether I thought it looked real. Would you always trust a passport?
>
>never != always
Sorry, I have no idea what you are trying to say.
>
>> >> How about answering the question?
>> >
>> >I think IDs will help to identify people faster,
>>
>> On this we agree. However, under what circumstances should I be
>> required to prove my idenity on the spot. This is a serious question.
>>
>> >thus a potential
>> >terrorist will have a tougher time disappearing, same applies
>> >to criminals
>>
>>
>> OK That's what you think. Can you explain to me, using examples
>> (please) scenarios where this will actually happen). If anyone can,
>> I'll almost cretainly stand behind ID cards immediately.
>
>The simple fact that Britain is thought of harbouring far more
>terrorist cells than any other European country. And the fact that
>it's high on the wishlist of many illegal immegrants even tough
>it's much more difficult to get to than, let's say France or Germany.
So that would be a 'no' in answer to my question then?
>
>> >> But again, this is my choice. If any group are being stopped in a
>> >> dis-proprtionate manner, then that should be adressed at root, not by
>> >> 'clearing it up quicker'
>> >
>> >I think it's a two pronged issue. As I'm sure you are aware of
>> >addressing it at root won't be happening for quite some time. So
>> >yes, helping to clear it up quickly will make a difference for the
>> >people concerned.
>>
>> Too high a price to pay IMHO
>
>Don't know. Are _you_ on the recieving end of this diproportionate
>behaviour?
Not that I am aware of. Do you know a proportionate smaple of such a
population to which we can ask the question?
<snip>
>> >
>> >Becasue it ain't so easy to get hold of a fake ID as you make it out
>> >to be.
Do you mean getting a fake ID now, or getting one after the
introduction of ID cards? If the former, you are either wrong, or
your exampple bleow is invalid.
>>
>> That does not acutally answer the question. I mean, please, give a
>> scenario where having an ID card actually makes a difference.
>
>For example, the inability to sign up for four or more different
>benefits in different cities under different names.
OK, let's try again.
Given our current situation: How can a fraudster sign up in different
citeis with different names?
Repeat the exercise using a scneario of ID being held by everyone
What *exaclty* is the difference?
Catman
wrote:
>Catman
>> PeterT
>> >Halla
>
>> >> Um no, my birth certificate does not contain any of that bar the name
>> >> and dob. Place of birth, yes, place of residence no. And I'm not
>> >> expected to produce my birth certificate instantly for any person who
>> >> just wants me to identify myself.
>> >
>> >Are you on the electoral roll? So you trying to say that the information
>> >required for an ID is not already readily available for officials?
>>
>> One would hope not, at least not on an 'I feel like checking this guy
>> out' basis/
>
>But that falls under abuse of power, which doesn't need an ID to happen.
And isn't prevented by one either. Made much easier though
>
>> <snip>
>> >No, but as I said above, the information they contain is already
>> >available, an ID just makes it easier for YOU to ascertain it if
>> >required and don't come along again that a copper will stop you
>> >on the street just to see if you got your ID. It ain't happening.
>> >
>>
>> More pertinently, why would I be stopped and required to prove my ID?
>
>Exactly, I just said it ain't happening.
So if we continue, why do I need to have one?
>
>> >Well, it's high enough at approx. £2 billion a year [1], but I assume
>> >you disbelieve that statement as it is official.
>>
>> You've still not explained how ID cards will reduce that figure.
>
>other post
other reply ;)
>
>> >> >Btw, how do you breathe with your head in the sand?
>> >>
>> >> Explain that last comment then.
>> >
>> >I have the impression that most people, which are against IDs
>> >haven't looked around and realised the reality of the situation.
>>
>> Curiously we are in absolute agreement, apart form the word 'against'
>
>Well, have you looked around in countries where they have IDs?
>Put it to the test and see the response. How many people here on
>ukrm live abroad where IDs are used and experience any of the
>infringement of civil liberties projected by you.
Where did I say *I* was expecting infringement of civili liberties? I
just can't see there is any point, use or reason to have the cards.
Noone has yet managed to explain how all these miraculous reudctions
in crime will ocurr.
There is a large potential for abuse, though.
Catman
>On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 12:07:20 GMT, Catman
><cat...@cuore-rustsportivo.co.uk> wrote:
>
><ID Cards>
>
>>I have several issues with the whole idea
>>
>>In order
>>
>>1) I can not envisage any situation where I should be required to
>>prove my identity on the spot, or in which the current forms of ID are
>>not sufficient (and noone in favour of cards has been able to either)
>
>So, that's not really an 'Issue' - just you saying they're pointless.
>I'm not sure there are many on here who are in 'favour' of them as
>such, just can't see why people are so up in arms about the idea.
Because (in my case) we are continually being told that they are a
panacea agains all crimes, but never explained why. I have, also to
confess, a distinct mistrust of any organisation trying to issue them
when they are, apparently, pointless.
>>2) I have not been able to envisage any situations where the putative
>>benefits of ID cards actually happen. I have tried. Again noone in
>>favour ahs been able to either. It's always the same 'It will reduce
>>this' but never with a concrete example.
>
>Similarly, that's more of a lack of reason to have them than any
>actual objection. I'm sure you can do better than that.
Not sure why I should have to. At the end of the day, the government
is trying to issue us with these cards. There has been (to my mind)
no explanation of what benefits there will be and thus there seem to
be no good reasons to introduce them. Conversely there are plenty of
(apparently) bad effects of having them. Not least in terms of cost.
>>Should those two conditions be satisfied, I'd prolly feel I have to
>>support cards since some of the supposed benefits are rather good.
>
>*thud*
>
>So you _are_ in favour then?
No, becuase no-one has shown me specific examples of where ID cards
will give the benefits so frequently touted. I am, however, prepared
to admit that I can be swayed.
Lady Nina
wrote:
>Well, have you looked around in countries where they have IDs?
>Put it to the test and see the response. How many people here on
>ukrm live abroad where IDs are used and experience any of the
>infringement of civil liberties projected by you.
But they don't have Blunkett and Co in charge.
PeterT
> PeterT
> >Catman
> >> PeterT
> >> >Catman
> >> >> PeterT
> >
> >> >> > Identitiy theft is already an ongoing problem as far as I know.
> >> >> > Currently I could open a bank account under your name etc. The
> >> >> > card is not likely to make it easier, actually the opposite.
> >> >>
> >> >> How so? If I've stolen your identity, then it's game over whatever
> >> >method,
> >> >> innit?
> >> >
> >> >You lost me there.
> >>
> >> The theft of an idenity is not related to the methodology to prove
> >> that ID. Even if we have ID cards and I successfully steal your
> >> identiy, then the card will not prevent me opening a bank account.
> >
> >I beg to differ on your first statement. If there would be
> >unquestionable prove of ID then that method would help to
> >prevent ID theft.
>
> Ahhhh. So now it has to be unquestionable? How to you propose to
> make that work?
I don't, but follow the argument please. If it stops fraud when
unquestionable, then it reduces it if generally sufficient.
The later will deter the opportunist as pointed out by Steve Auvache.
And, most likely, will make it more difficult for the die-hard
fraudster.
> >> >So you would never trust a passport somebody shows you?
> >>
> >> That would depend entirely on where the passport was issued and
> >> whether I thought it looked real. Would you always trust a passport?
> >
> >never != always
>
> Sorry, I have no idea what you are trying to say.
I said "you would never trust a passport somebody shows you?"
You said "Would you always trust a passport?"
Now look at it and disentangle the contradiction in the statments.
> >> >> How about answering the question?
> >> >
> >> >I think IDs will help to identify people faster,
> >>
> >> On this we agree. However, under what circumstances should I be
> >> required to prove my idenity on the spot. This is a serious question.
> >>
> >> >thus a potential
> >> >terrorist will have a tougher time disappearing, same applies
> >> >to criminals
> >>
> >>
> >> OK That's what you think. Can you explain to me, using examples
> >> (please) scenarios where this will actually happen). If anyone can,
> >> I'll almost cretainly stand behind ID cards immediately.
> >
> >The simple fact that Britain is thought of harbouring far more
> >terrorist cells than any other European country. And the fact that
> >it's high on the wishlist of many illegal immegrants even tough
> >it's much more difficult to get to than, let's say France or Germany.
>
> So that would be a 'no' in answer to my question then?
Is it? Do I have to create a little story to explain it, or can you
muster the necessary ability yourself?
> >> >> But again, this is my choice. If any group are being stopped in a
> >> >> dis-proprtionate manner, then that should be adressed at root, not
by
> >> >> 'clearing it up quicker'
> >> >
> >> >I think it's a two pronged issue. As I'm sure you are aware of
> >> >addressing it at root won't be happening for quite some time. So
> >> >yes, helping to clear it up quickly will make a difference for the
> >> >people concerned.
> >>
> >> Too high a price to pay IMHO
> >
> >Don't know. Are _you_ on the recieving end of this diproportionate
> >behaviour?
>
> Not that I am aware of. Do you know a proportionate smaple of such a
> population to which we can ask the question?
So what happens to a minority is irrelevant, but we're shooting off on
a tangent here.
> >> >Becasue it ain't so easy to get hold of a fake ID as you make it out
> >> >to be.
>
> Do you mean getting a fake ID now, or getting one after the
> introduction of ID cards? If the former, you are either wrong, or
> your exampple bleow is invalid.
Obviously after the introduction.
> >> That does not acutally answer the question. I mean, please, give a
> >> scenario where having an ID card actually makes a difference.
> >
> >For example, the inability to sign up for four or more different
> >benefits in different cities under different names.
>
> OK, let's try again.
>
> Given our current situation: How can a fraudster sign up in different
> citeis with different names?
I'm in Leeds and call my self Joe Bloggs, go to Bradford
call myself Johnny Vegas and then take a bus to Huddersfield
where I'm Michael Bolton etc. Don't believe me?
Check http://www.ssani.gov.uk/fraud/commontypes.htm
It's called multiple identity fraud.
> Repeat the exercise using a scneario of ID being held by everyone
>
> What *exaclty* is the difference?
That's it's more difficult to assume a fake identity as you won't
have official IDs for them.
--
ts350 xl600v
petert
PeterT
> PeterT
> >Catman
> >> PeterT
> >> >Halla
> >
> >> >> Um no, my birth certificate does not contain any of that bar the
name
> >> >> and dob. Place of birth, yes, place of residence no. And I'm not
> >> >> expected to produce my birth certificate instantly for any person
who
> >> >> just wants me to identify myself.
> >> >
> >> >Are you on the electoral roll? So you trying to say that the
information
> >> >required for an ID is not already readily available for officials?
> >>
> >> One would hope not, at least not on an 'I feel like checking this guy
> >> out' basis/
> >
> >But that falls under abuse of power, which doesn't need an ID to happen.
>
> And isn't prevented by one either. Made much easier though
Well, since you like stories:
There is Mr Blue who's a upstanding member of the community, yadda
yadda yadda. Walking along his street at night after some drinks with
his fellow lodge members. The police stop him and claim that he has
similarity to a Mr Green, who was seen robbing a nursing home and
stealing OAP's monies and handbags. He claims he isn't Mr Green, but
the police take him into custody and back to the station as they don't
believe him.
Now Mr Yellow, a close friend of Mr Blue is walking home the same evening.
He's stopped by the police as he looks like Mr Red, who just robbed
a pregnant woman. He pulls out his ID and proofs that he's Mr Yellow.
Sgt Pink taps his hat and wishes him a pleasent evening, while they
carry on looking for Mr Red.
And they lived on happily ever after, except Mr Blue who happened
to fall down the station steps as every granny robbing criminal
should do.
> >> <snip>
> >> >No, but as I said above, the information they contain is already
> >> >available, an ID just makes it easier for YOU to ascertain it if
> >> >required and don't come along again that a copper will stop you
> >> >on the street just to see if you got your ID. It ain't happening.
> >> >
> >>
> >> More pertinently, why would I be stopped and required to prove my ID?
> >
> >Exactly, I just said it ain't happening.
>
> So if we continue, why do I need to have one?
Continue what?
> >> >Well, it's high enough at approx. £2 billion a year [1], but I assume
> >> >you disbelieve that statement as it is official.
> >>
> >> You've still not explained how ID cards will reduce that figure.
> >
> >other post
>
> other reply ;)
>
> >
> >> >> >Btw, how do you breathe with your head in the sand?
> >> >>
> >> >> Explain that last comment then.
> >> >
> >> >I have the impression that most people, which are against IDs
> >> >haven't looked around and realised the reality of the situation.
> >>
> >> Curiously we are in absolute agreement, apart form the word 'against'
> >
> >Well, have you looked around in countries where they have IDs?
> >Put it to the test and see the response. How many people here on
> >ukrm live abroad where IDs are used and experience any of the
> >infringement of civil liberties projected by you.
>
> Where did I say *I* was expecting infringement of civili liberties?
When you said there are plenty of reasons not to have them.
> I
> just can't see there is any point, use or reason to have the cards.
> Noone has yet managed to explain how all these miraculous reudctions
> in crime will ocurr.
>
> There is a large potential for abuse, though.
Please give me some precise example where this potential is?
--
ts350 xl600v
petert
PeterT
> PeterT
> >Well, have you looked around in countries where they have IDs?
> >Put it to the test and see the response. How many people here on
> >ukrm live abroad where IDs are used and experience any of the
> >infringement of civil liberties projected by you.
>
> But they don't have Blunkett and Co in charge.
I'm sure they have equivalent able people.
--
ts350 xl600v
petert
steve auvache
>
>I can't see how having an ID card is 'interfering'.
Spoils the lines of my strides.
--
steve auvache
steve auvache
>As opposed to the knee-jerk, 'infringement of civil liberties',
>'shouldn't be allowed' sort of stuff I see people on here whingeing
>about.
Or the knee jerk "an innocent man has nothing to fear from them". IMHO
an innocent man has no need to carry one.
--
steve auvache
steve auvache
Of course my point was rather simplistic in that in only deters the
opportunist from that particular crime. It is the very nature of
opportunist scrotes to go elsewhere and seek better opportunities. In
this instance ones where ID cards are not a part of the tool kit.
--
steve auvache
steve auvache
>Well, have you looked around in countries where they have IDs?
>Put it to the test and see the response. How many people here on
>ukrm live abroad where IDs are used and experience any of the
>infringement of civil liberties projected by you.
How many of them have a megalomaniac for a Home Secretary?
--
steve auvache
Catman
wrote:
>Catman
>> PeterT
>> >Catman
>> >> PeterT
>> >> >Catman
>> >> >> PeterT
>> >
>> >> >> > Identitiy theft is already an ongoing problem as far as I know.
>> >> >> > Currently I could open a bank account under your name etc. The
>> >> >> > card is not likely to make it easier, actually the opposite.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> How so? If I've stolen your identity, then it's game over whatever
>> >> >method,
>> >> >> innit?
>> >> >
>> >> >You lost me there.
>> >>
>> >> The theft of an idenity is not related to the methodology to prove
>> >> that ID. Even if we have ID cards and I successfully steal your
>> >> identiy, then the card will not prevent me opening a bank account.
>> >
>> >I beg to differ on your first statement. If there would be
>> >unquestionable prove of ID then that method would help to
>> >prevent ID theft.
>>
>> Ahhhh. So now it has to be unquestionable? How to you propose to
>> make that work?
>
>I don't, but follow the argument please.
Oh sorry
> If it stops fraud when
>unquestionable, then it reduces it if generally sufficient.
Again, not entirely sure what you are trying to say. It seems that
you are accepting that an new ID card system is not infallible? How
less fallible will it be than current methods of identification?
>The later will deter the opportunist as pointed out by Steve Auvache.
See above
>And, most likely, will make it more difficult for the die-hard
>fraudster.
Why? Why will these new cards be so much more secure than any
existing method. This is a serious question.
>
>> >> >So you would never trust a passport somebody shows you?
>> >>
>> >> That would depend entirely on where the passport was issued and
>> >> whether I thought it looked real. Would you always trust a passport?
>> >
>> >never != always
>>
>> Sorry, I have no idea what you are trying to say.
>
>I said "you would never trust a passport somebody shows you?"
>You said "Would you always trust a passport?"
>
>Now look at it and disentangle the contradiction in the statments.
I was actually trying to point out how pointless I felt your response
was.
>
>> >> >> How about answering the question?
>> >> >
>> >> >I think IDs will help to identify people faster,
>> >>
>> >> On this we agree. However, under what circumstances should I be
>> >> required to prove my idenity on the spot. This is a serious question.
>> >>
>> >> >thus a potential
>> >> >terrorist will have a tougher time disappearing, same applies
>> >> >to criminals
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> OK That's what you think. Can you explain to me, using examples
>> >> (please) scenarios where this will actually happen). If anyone can,
>> >> I'll almost cretainly stand behind ID cards immediately.
>> >
>> >The simple fact that Britain is thought of harbouring far more
>> >terrorist cells than any other European country. And the fact that
>> >it's high on the wishlist of many illegal immegrants even tough
>> >it's much more difficult to get to than, let's say France or Germany.
>>
>> So that would be a 'no' in answer to my question then?
>
>Is it? Do I have to create a little story to explain it, or can you
>muster the necessary ability yourself?
No. I can't. In all seriousness. Please show. Golden opportunity
to make a convert here. And after all, if it really is so simple, you
shouldn't find it hard.
>
>> >> >> But again, this is my choice. If any group are being stopped in a
>> >> >> dis-proprtionate manner, then that should be adressed at root, not
>by
>> >> >> 'clearing it up quicker'
>> >> >
>> >> >I think it's a two pronged issue. As I'm sure you are aware of
>> >> >addressing it at root won't be happening for quite some time. So
>> >> >yes, helping to clear it up quickly will make a difference for the
>> >> >people concerned.
>> >>
>> >> Too high a price to pay IMHO
>> >
>> >Don't know. Are _you_ on the recieving end of this diproportionate
>> >behaviour?
>>
>> Not that I am aware of. Do you know a proportionate smaple of such a
>> population to which we can ask the question?
>
>So what happens to a minority is irrelevant, but we're shooting off on
>a tangent here.
That is not what I said at all. I was mererly wondering if we could
ask a minority. It is a tangent though.
>
>> >> >Becasue it ain't so easy to get hold of a fake ID as you make it out
>> >> >to be.
>>
>> Do you mean getting a fake ID now, or getting one after the
>> introduction of ID cards? If the former, you are either wrong, or
>> your exampple bleow is invalid.
>
>Obviously after the introduction.
And how would it be harder to get hold of a fake? What process do you
envisage to ensure that only those who qualify are issued, and to
check that the information is correct?
>
>> >> That does not acutally answer the question. I mean, please, give a
>> >> scenario where having an ID card actually makes a difference.
>> >
>> >For example, the inability to sign up for four or more different
>> >benefits in different cities under different names.
>>
>> OK, let's try again.
>>
>> Given our current situation: How can a fraudster sign up in different
>> citeis with different names?
>
>I'm in Leeds and call my self Joe Bloggs, go to Bradford
>call myself Johnny Vegas and then take a bus to Huddersfield
>where I'm Michael Bolton etc. Don't believe me?
>Check http://www.ssani.gov.uk/fraud/commontypes.htm
>It's called multiple identity fraud.
And what ID do you use to convince people that you are these
(multiple) people.
>
>> Repeat the exercise using a scneario of ID being held by everyone
>>
>> What *exaclty* is the difference?
>
>That's it's more difficult to assume a fake identity as you won't
>have official IDs for them.
Why on earth not? It can be managed it in the first scenario.
Catman
wrote:
>Catman
>> PeterT
>
>> >Catman
>> >> PeterT
>> >> >Halla
>> >
>> >> >> Um no, my birth certificate does not contain any of that bar the
>name
>> >> >> and dob. Place of birth, yes, place of residence no. And I'm not
>> >> >> expected to produce my birth certificate instantly for any person
>who
>> >> >> just wants me to identify myself.
>> >> >
>> >> >Are you on the electoral roll? So you trying to say that the
>information
>> >> >required for an ID is not already readily available for officials?
>> >>
>> >> One would hope not, at least not on an 'I feel like checking this guy
>> >> out' basis/
>> >
>> >But that falls under abuse of power, which doesn't need an ID to happen.
>>
>> And isn't prevented by one either. Made much easier though
>
>Well, since you like stories:
Oh I do.
>There is Mr Blue who's a upstanding member of the community, yadda
>yadda yadda. Walking along his street at night after some drinks with
>his fellow lodge members. The police stop him and claim that he has
>similarity to a Mr Green, who was seen robbing a nursing home and
>stealing OAP's monies and handbags. He claims he isn't Mr Green, but
>the police take him into custody and back to the station as they don't
>believe him.
Fine. You may find tis really hard to stomach but I would rather be
taken into custody under this situation than be forced to carry an ID
card. After all, proving my ID while in custody is not exactly going
to be tough.
Oh and another small point. You earlier mentioned that compusory
carrying was not an issue. What do you think would happen if Mr Blue
happened to be not carrying his card? That's right *exactly* the same
thing as would happen now. He'd be taken into custody until his
identity was verified.
>Now Mr Yellow, a close friend of Mr Blue is walking home the same evening.
>He's stopped by the police as he looks like Mr Red, who just robbed
>a pregnant woman. He pulls out his ID and proofs that he's Mr Yellow.
>Sgt Pink taps his hat and wishes him a pleasent evening, while they
>carry on looking for Mr Red.
This is total rubbish. How would pregnant victim *know* her assialant
was Mr Red? Cases where the victim knows the assialant are (I *think*
pretty rare). If she didn't know him, she'd provide a description.
The police would then do the normal practice of stopping people
matching that description. Do you think they'd let someone go becuase
he could identify himself? How does that show he wasn't the assailant?
>And they lived on happily ever after, except Mr Blue who happened
>to fall down the station steps as every granny robbing criminal
>should do.
What point are you trying to answer with these two stories? We seem
to have got our posts muddled.
>
>> >> <snip>
>> >> >No, but as I said above, the information they contain is already
>> >> >available, an ID just makes it easier for YOU to ascertain it if
>> >> >required and don't come along again that a copper will stop you
>> >> >on the street just to see if you got your ID. It ain't happening.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> More pertinently, why would I be stopped and required to prove my ID?
>> >
>> >Exactly, I just said it ain't happening.
>>
>> So if we continue, why do I need to have one?
>
>Continue what?
If we continue from the basis that one wouldn't be stopped and
required to prove one's ID, the next logical step is that ID cards are
not required.
>> >> >Well, it's high enough at approx. £2 billion a year [1], but I assume
>> >> >you disbelieve that statement as it is official.
>> >>
>> >> You've still not explained how ID cards will reduce that figure.
>> >
>> >other post
>>
>> other reply ;)
>>
>> >
>> >> >> >Btw, how do you breathe with your head in the sand?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Explain that last comment then.
>> >> >
>> >> >I have the impression that most people, which are against IDs
>> >> >haven't looked around and realised the reality of the situation.
>> >>
>> >> Curiously we are in absolute agreement, apart form the word 'against'
>> >
>> >Well, have you looked around in countries where they have IDs?
>> >Put it to the test and see the response. How many people here on
>> >ukrm live abroad where IDs are used and experience any of the
>> >infringement of civil liberties projected by you.
>>
>> Where did I say *I* was expecting infringement of civili liberties?
>
>When you said there are plenty of reasons not to have them.
Quote please?
>> I
>> just can't see there is any point, use or reason to have the cards.
>> Noone has yet managed to explain how all these miraculous reudctions
>> in crime will ocurr.
>>
>> There is a large potential for abuse, though.
>
>Please give me some precise example where this potential is?
Well that's the thing about potential, by it's very nature it's
imprecise.
Imagine a home secretary that suddenly decides that all members of
public with a certain hair colour should be criminalise. Currently,
that segment of society could shave their heads. Put all that *kind*
of information in a central location and make it accessible to those
wishing to enforce it, rounding that segment of the publci up would be
rahter simpler than it is now.
That is an extreme example by the way, and not entirely serious.
Catman
Except to rpove his innoncence. Oh, hang on ;)
Lady Nina
wrote:
>Lady Nina
my that's smelly bait. Anyhow we can debate the issue all we like
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3607115.stm
The process is starting.
PeterT
> PeterT
> >> Ahhhh. So now it has to be unquestionable? How to you propose to
> >> make that work?
> >
> >I don't, but follow the argument please.
>
> Oh sorry
>
> > If it stops fraud when
> >unquestionable, then it reduces it if generally sufficient.
>
> Again, not entirely sure what you are trying to say. It seems that
> you are accepting that an new ID card system is not infallible? How
> less fallible will it be than current methods of identification?
Well, if the crux of the argument is the question how to make IDs
less fallible than current forms of ID, which I believe they are
in the countries where they're used, then it shows that you're not
against the principle, but believe the execution will be flawed.
> >And, most likely, will make it more difficult for the die-hard
> >fraudster.
>
> Why? Why will these new cards be so much more secure than any
> existing method. This is a serious question.
Because the intention is to set up a system were the verification
of the data on the ID is deemed accurate. Again I will refer to
passports, where a system is applied, which appears to be working
to the degree that people accept passports as proof of ID.
Notwithstanding any improvements this system could undergo.
> >> >> >So you would never trust a passport somebody shows you?
> >> >>
> >> >> That would depend entirely on where the passport was issued and
> >> >> whether I thought it looked real. Would you always trust a
passport?
> >> >
> >> >never != always
> >>
> >> Sorry, I have no idea what you are trying to say.
> >
> >I said "you would never trust a passport somebody shows you?"
>
>
> >You said "Would you always trust a passport?"
> >
> >Now look at it and disentangle the contradiction in the statments.
>
> I was actually trying to point out how pointless I felt your response
> was.
Really? I can only assume you didn't get the point rather than it being
pointless.
> No. I can't. In all seriousness. Please show. Golden opportunity
> to make a convert here. And after all, if it really is so simple, you
> shouldn't find it hard.
Done
> >> >Don't know. Are _you_ on the recieving end of this diproportionate
> >> >behaviour?
> >>
> >> Not that I am aware of. Do you know a proportionate smaple of such a
> >> population to which we can ask the question?
> >
> >So what happens to a minority is irrelevant, but we're shooting off on
> >a tangent here.
>
> That is not what I said at all. I was mererly wondering if we could
> ask a minority. It is a tangent though.
Aye.
> >> >> >Becasue it ain't so easy to get hold of a fake ID as you make it
out
> >> >> >to be.
> >>
> >> Do you mean getting a fake ID now, or getting one after the
> >> introduction of ID cards? If the former, you are either wrong, or
> >> your exampple bleow is invalid.
> >
> >Obviously after the introduction.
>
> And how would it be harder to get hold of a fake? What process do you
> envisage to ensure that only those who qualify are issued, and to
> check that the information is correct?
We are running round in circles here, as you start to question
the procedure to ascertain the information. This differs from
the impression I got of you, that you had a principle issue with
IDs and believing that there are no benefits an accurate and pretty
trustworthy form of ID would have. Now you saying that since the
information couldn't be trusted they are useless.
> >> Given our current situation: How can a fraudster sign up in different
> >> citeis with different names?
> >
> >I'm in Leeds and call my self Joe Bloggs, go to Bradford
> >call myself Johnny Vegas and then take a bus to Huddersfield
> >where I'm Michael Bolton etc. Don't believe me?
> >Check http://www.ssani.gov.uk/fraud/commontypes.htm
> >It's called multiple identity fraud.
>
> And what ID do you use to convince people that you are these
> (multiple) people.
Any letter send to you showing you as living at that address.
Which are fairly easy to fake, or falsely gain.
> >> Repeat the exercise using a scneario of ID being held by everyone
> >>
> >> What *exaclty* is the difference?
> >
> >That's it's more difficult to assume a fake identity as you won't
> >have official IDs for them.
>
> Why on earth not? It can be managed it in the first scenario.
But, the person has to use a different name each time.
--
ts350 xl600v
petert
steve auvache
>On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 15:03:28 +0100, steve auvache
><dont...@thecow.me.uk> wrote:
>
>>Ace wrote
>>>As opposed to the knee-jerk, 'infringement of civil liberties',
>>>'shouldn't be allowed' sort of stuff I see people on here whingeing
>>>about.
>>
>>Or the knee jerk "an innocent man has nothing to fear from them". IMHO
>>an innocent man has no need to carry one.
>
>Except to rpove his innoncence. Oh, hang on ;)
This is the big matter as far as English civil rights go isn't it. It
was once a matter of great national pride in the country I was born in,
in that it was presumed you were innocent until/unless proven guilty.
--
steve auvache
PeterT
> PeterT
> >Catman
> >Well, since you like stories:
>
> Oh I do.
>
> >There is Mr Blue who's a upstanding member of the community, yadda
> >yadda yadda. Walking along his street at night after some drinks with
> >his fellow lodge members. The police stop him and claim that he has
> >similarity to a Mr Green, who was seen robbing a nursing home and
> >stealing OAP's monies and handbags. He claims he isn't Mr Green, but
> >the police take him into custody and back to the station as they don't
> >believe him.
>
> Fine. You may find tis really hard to stomach but I would rather be
> taken into custody under this situation than be forced to carry an ID
> card. After all, proving my ID while in custody is not exactly going
> to be tough.
Really, how do you do it?
> Oh and another small point. You earlier mentioned that compusory
> carrying was not an issue. What do you think would happen if Mr Blue
> happened to be not carrying his card? That's right *exactly* the same
> thing as would happen now. He'd be taken into custody until his
> identity was verified.
But it was his choice not to carry the card, thus he couldn't benefit
from it.
> >Now Mr Yellow, a close friend of Mr Blue is walking home the same
evening.
> >He's stopped by the police as he looks like Mr Red, who just robbed
> >a pregnant woman. He pulls out his ID and proofs that he's Mr Yellow.
> >Sgt Pink taps his hat and wishes him a pleasent evening, while they
> >carry on looking for Mr Red.
>
> This is total rubbish. How would pregnant victim *know* her assialant
> was Mr Red? Cases where the victim knows the assialant are (I *think*
> pretty rare).
FFS it's an example, it works, within limitations admittedly, but
that's beside the fucking point. But let me expand. She doesn't know
it put picks Mr Red from the mug shot library at the cop-shop.
> If she didn't know him, she'd provide a description.
> The police would then do the normal practice of stopping people
> matching that description. Do you think they'd let someone go becuase
> he could identify himself? How does that show he wasn't the assailant?
>
> >And they lived on happily ever after, except Mr Blue who happened
> >to fall down the station steps as every granny robbing criminal
> >should do.
>
> What point are you trying to answer with these two stories?
Oi, you asked for a story. I told you one, with a reasonable
example how IDs could be greatly beneficial.
> We seem to have got our posts muddled.
Well, we certainly do, as we're keeping up two threads.
> >> >> <snip>
> >> >> >No, but as I said above, the information they contain is already
> >> >> >available, an ID just makes it easier for YOU to ascertain it if
> >> >> >required and don't come along again that a copper will stop you
> >> >> >on the street just to see if you got your ID. It ain't happening.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> More pertinently, why would I be stopped and required to prove my
ID?
> >> >
> >> >Exactly, I just said it ain't happening.
> >>
> >> So if we continue, why do I need to have one?
> >
> >Continue what?
>
> If we continue from the basis that one wouldn't be stopped and
> required to prove one's ID, the next logical step is that ID cards are
> not required.
But you may be stopped for a valid reason, as you said you'd be happy
to go to jail for a night in the case of mistaken identity. However,
I strongly believe we'd get a long post from you if that would ever happen,
and a not too friendly one either.
> >> >Well, have you looked around in countries where they have IDs?
> >> >Put it to the test and see the response. How many people here on
> >> >ukrm live abroad where IDs are used and experience any of the
> >> >infringement of civil liberties projected by you.
> >>
> >> Where did I say *I* was expecting infringement of civili liberties?
> >
> >When you said there are plenty of reasons not to have them.
>
> Quote please?
Look, I'm not getting into a Des argument here, with quoting and
re-interpretation of old posts. The gist of your initial arguments
were, as I understood it, that the price to pay for theintroduction
of IDs is too high for the benefits you see, and don't tell me you
meant the fiscal aspects.
> >Please give me some precise example where this potential is?
>
> Well that's the thing about potential, by it's very nature it's
> imprecise.
>
> Imagine a home secretary that suddenly decides that all members of
> public with a certain hair colour should be criminalise. Currently,
> that segment of society could shave their heads. Put all that *kind*
> of information in a central location and make it accessible to those
> wishing to enforce it, rounding that segment of the publci up would be
> rahter simpler than it is now.
I think I won the story contest! ;-P
--
ts350 xl600v
petert
Catman
wrote:
>Catman
>> PeterT
>
>> >> Ahhhh. So now it has to be unquestionable? How to you propose to
>> >> make that work?
>> >
>> >I don't, but follow the argument please.
>>
>> Oh sorry
>>
>> > If it stops fraud when
>> >unquestionable, then it reduces it if generally sufficient.
>>
>> Again, not entirely sure what you are trying to say. It seems that
>> you are accepting that an new ID card system is not infallible? How
>> less fallible will it be than current methods of identification?
>
>Well, if the crux of the argument is the question how to make IDs
>less fallible than current forms of ID, which I believe they are
>in the countries where they're used, then it shows that you're not
>against the principle, but believe the execution will be flawed.
Until someone convinces me otherwise, *one* of the reasons I am
against the principle is *becasue* the execution will be flawed.
>
>> >And, most likely, will make it more difficult for the die-hard
>> >fraudster.
>>
>> Why? Why will these new cards be so much more secure than any
>> existing method. This is a serious question.
>
>Because the intention is to set up a system were the verification
>of the data on the ID is deemed accurate. Again I will refer to
>passports, where a system is applied, which appears to be working
>to the degree that people accept passports as proof of ID.
But by your own admission they are still flawed. One of the questions
that need to be asked is how are they flawed, adn what would be done
differently for any type of ID system?
Either that, or we should carry on using passports as ID.
>Notwithstanding any improvements this system could undergo.
You;ve still not really exlpained it, sorry. Try to think about
*exactly* what would happen if I were to roll up to a benefit office
with (or without in fact) an ID card of any type.
Until you know what the process is, how can you see the problems that
(may) happen?
>
>> >> >> >So you would never trust a passport somebody shows you?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That would depend entirely on where the passport was issued and
>> >> >> whether I thought it looked real. Would you always trust a
>passport?
>> >> >
>> >> >never != always
>> >>
>> >> Sorry, I have no idea what you are trying to say.
>> >
>> >I said "you would never trust a passport somebody shows you?"
>>
>>
>> >You said "Would you always trust a passport?"
>> >
>> >Now look at it and disentangle the contradiction in the statments.
>>
>> I was actually trying to point out how pointless I felt your response
>> was.
>
>Really? I can only assume you didn't get the point rather than it being
>pointless.
Well, either then. Feel free to elaborate.
>
>> No. I can't. In all seriousness. Please show. Golden opportunity
>> to make a convert here. And after all, if it really is so simple, you
>> shouldn't find it hard.
>
>Done
erm, where?
>
>> >> >Don't know. Are _you_ on the recieving end of this diproportionate
>> >> >behaviour?
>> >>
>> >> Not that I am aware of. Do you know a proportionate smaple of such a
>> >> population to which we can ask the question?
>> >
>> >So what happens to a minority is irrelevant, but we're shooting off on
>> >a tangent here.
>>
>> That is not what I said at all. I was mererly wondering if we could
>> ask a minority. It is a tangent though.
>
>Aye.
>
>> >> >> >Becasue it ain't so easy to get hold of a fake ID as you make it
>out
>> >> >> >to be.
>> >>
>> >> Do you mean getting a fake ID now, or getting one after the
>> >> introduction of ID cards? If the former, you are either wrong, or
>> >> your exampple bleow is invalid.
>> >
>> >Obviously after the introduction.
>>
>> And how would it be harder to get hold of a fake? What process do you
>> envisage to ensure that only those who qualify are issued, and to
>> check that the information is correct?
>
>We are running round in circles here, as you start to question
>the procedure to ascertain the information. This differs from
>the impression I got of you, that you had a principle issue with
>IDs and believing that there are no benefits an accurate and pretty
>trustworthy form of ID would have.
I have more than one set of issues. I feel that they are pointless
because they won't have any of the benefits described, because the
technology to put them in place does not exist and that they are a
huge waste of cash.
>Now you saying that since the
>information couldn't be trusted they are useless.
The two are not exclusive. I am merely using this as a point to see
how strong your argument is. I am more than happy to be converted,
but I've not found anyone with a good argument yet.
>
>> >> Given our current situation: How can a fraudster sign up in different
>> >> citeis with different names?
>> >
>> >I'm in Leeds and call my self Joe Bloggs, go to Bradford
>> >call myself Johnny Vegas and then take a bus to Huddersfield
>> >where I'm Michael Bolton etc. Don't believe me?
>> >Check http://www.ssani.gov.uk/fraud/commontypes.htm
>> >It's called multiple identity fraud.
>>
>> And what ID do you use to convince people that you are these
>> (multiple) people.
>
>Any letter send to you showing you as living at that address.
>Which are fairly easy to fake, or falsely gain.
Which would imply that the checking of the ID is flawed, that is the
*process* by which the entitlement is 'proved' Replace the letter
with a requirement for a passport shown, or maybe even a voluntary ID.
>
>> >> Repeat the exercise using a scneario of ID being held by everyone
>> >>
>> >> What *exaclty* is the difference?
>> >
>> >That's it's more difficult to assume a fake identity as you won't
>> >have official IDs for them.
>>
>> Why on earth not? It can be managed it in the first scenario.
>
>But, the person has to use a different name each time.
And?
Catman
Same old shit
quote
His official spokesman later expanded on the comments saying Mr Blair
recognised there was an issue here "which we are addressing and do
need to address in the light of outrages such as Madrid and the threat
posed to this country".
/quote
How exaclty would ID cards have stopped Madrid?
Catman
<dont...@thecow.me.uk> wrote:
It did seem to be that way once
Ginge
says...
> my that's smelly bait. Anyhow we can debate the issue all we like
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3607115.stm
>
> The process is starting.
I've accepted the fact that I will have to get an official ID card, what
I'm now wondering is will I be able to get *more* than one ID card,
maybe under an assumed identity.
That'd be fun.
Catman
wrote:
>Catman
>> PeterT
>> >Catman
>
>> >Well, since you like stories:
>>
>> Oh I do.
>>
>> >There is Mr Blue who's a upstanding member of the community, yadda
>> >yadda yadda. Walking along his street at night after some drinks with
>> >his fellow lodge members. The police stop him and claim that he has
>> >similarity to a Mr Green, who was seen robbing a nursing home and
>> >stealing OAP's monies and handbags. He claims he isn't Mr Green, but
>> >the police take him into custody and back to the station as they don't
>> >believe him.
>>
>> Fine. You may find tis really hard to stomach but I would rather be
>> taken into custody under this situation than be forced to carry an ID
>> card. After all, proving my ID while in custody is not exactly going
>> to be tough.
>
>Really, how do you do it?
Well, when they say can you prove who you are, I say 'Yes, in my safe
is my passport. My address is...... and the combination is ......'
Not exactly hard. It must be done thousands of times per day at the
moment, with no ID cards involved.
.
>
>> Oh and another small point. You earlier mentioned that compusory
>> carrying was not an issue. What do you think would happen if Mr Blue
>> happened to be not carrying his card? That's right *exactly* the same
>> thing as would happen now. He'd be taken into custody until his
>> identity was verified.
>
>But it was his choice not to carry the card, thus he couldn't benefit
>from it.
So let me get this straight:
Compulsory carrying: He gets arrested
Free carrying: He gets arrested.
And he's still innocent don't forget.
>> >Now Mr Yellow, a close friend of Mr Blue is walking home the same
>evening.
>> >He's stopped by the police as he looks like Mr Red, who just robbed
>> >a pregnant woman. He pulls out his ID and proofs that he's Mr Yellow.
>> >Sgt Pink taps his hat and wishes him a pleasent evening, while they
>> >carry on looking for Mr Red.
>>
>> This is total rubbish. How would pregnant victim *know* her assialant
>> was Mr Red? Cases where the victim knows the assialant are (I *think*
>> pretty rare).
>
>FFS it's an example, it works, within limitations admittedly, but
>that's beside the fucking point. But let me expand. She doesn't know
>it put picks Mr Red from the mug shot library at the cop-shop.
No, It *doesn't* work any better than the current situation.
Even if she does pick him from the mug shot two things happen:
1) Copper *knows* Mr Red, and therefore won't arrest Mr Yellow
2) Copper doesn't know Mr Red, adn therefore relies on the description
and we're back to square one.
>
>> If she didn't know him, she'd provide a description.
>> The police would then do the normal practice of stopping people
>> matching that description. Do you think they'd let someone go becuase
>> he could identify himself? How does that show he wasn't the assailant?
>>
>> >And they lived on happily ever after, except Mr Blue who happened
>> >to fall down the station steps as every granny robbing criminal
>> >should do.
>>
>> What point are you trying to answer with these two stories?
>
>Oi, you asked for a story. I told you one, with a reasonable
>example how IDs could be greatly beneficial.
It *was* a request in a different post though :)
>> We seem to have got our posts muddled.
>
>Well, we certainly do, as we're keeping up two threads.
Good going for just the two of us
>
>> >> >> <snip>
>> >> >> >No, but as I said above, the information they contain is already
>> >> >> >available, an ID just makes it easier for YOU to ascertain it if
>> >> >> >required and don't come along again that a copper will stop you
>> >> >> >on the street just to see if you got your ID. It ain't happening.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> More pertinently, why would I be stopped and required to prove my
>ID?
>> >> >
>> >> >Exactly, I just said it ain't happening.
>> >>
>> >> So if we continue, why do I need to have one?
>> >
>> >Continue what?
>>
>> If we continue from the basis that one wouldn't be stopped and
>> required to prove one's ID, the next logical step is that ID cards are
>> not required.
>
>But you may be stopped for a valid reason, as you said you'd be happy
>to go to jail for a night in the case of mistaken identity. However,
>I strongly believe we'd get a long post from you if that would ever happen,
>and a not too friendly one either.
If it was a valid reason, then I should be arrested no matter who I
am. If it wasn't a valid reason, they shouldn't arrest me. Pretty
simple really.
>
>> >> >Well, have you looked around in countries where they have IDs?
>> >> >Put it to the test and see the response. How many people here on
>> >> >ukrm live abroad where IDs are used and experience any of the
>> >> >infringement of civil liberties projected by you.
>> >>
>> >> Where did I say *I* was expecting infringement of civili liberties?
>> >
>> >When you said there are plenty of reasons not to have them.
>>
>> Quote please?
>
>Look, I'm not getting into a Des argument here, with quoting and
>re-interpretation of old posts. The gist of your initial arguments
>were, as I understood it, that the price to pay for theintroduction
>of IDs is too high for the benefits you see, and don't tell me you
>meant the fiscal aspects.
I meant all aspects.
>
>> >Please give me some precise example where this potential is?
>>
>> Well that's the thing about potential, by it's very nature it's
>> imprecise.
>>
>> Imagine a home secretary that suddenly decides that all members of
>> public with a certain hair colour should be criminalise. Currently,
>> that segment of society could shave their heads. Put all that *kind*
>> of information in a central location and make it accessible to those
>> wishing to enforce it, rounding that segment of the publci up would be
>> rahter simpler than it is now.
>
>I think I won the story contest! ;-P
Really?
Simian
>
> Well, if the crux of the argument is the question how to make IDs
> less fallible than current forms of ID, which I believe they are
> in the countries where they're used, then it shows that you're not
> against the principle, but believe the execution will be flawed.
One: of course the execution will be flawed, how could it not be?
Two: even if the cards themselves are virtually impossible to
fake when brought out, it will take only a few years for criminals to
catch up.
Three: the system will be set up and run by people, some of whom
will accede to blackmail, or accept bribes, and as these cards will
be touted as "secure", once a criminal has got his hands on a supply,
ID theft will be easier.
Four: to provide for the biometric ID, everyone will have to have
their 'biome' tested. This will be a wonderfull oppertunity for
us to test exactly how well automated biometic fingerprinting /
eye scanning / DNA sampling works. For the slow of thought, by this
I mean it will be the first time any of these technologies has been
tested on a large scale.
Five: Suppose thumb-prints are used. What happens if a criminal gets
hold of "making fake thumb prints for dummies", and takes up stealing
pint glasses from pubs to start a collection of prints. Once my thumb
print has been compromised - that's it. Can't change it like I could a
compromised pass word. Instantly, one part of the security of the card
is redundant. Any biometric you care to mention can be compromised in the
same way.
Six: Most benifit fraud is committed by people who work cash in hand,
and also collect benifit. Proof of ID does nothing to stop that, however
it is done.
Seven: The identity of arrested terrorists is rarely an issue. All of
those arrested in this country would have been completely unnaffected
by ID cards. c.f. the twin towers terrorists - in the US with visas,
none known to be terorrists before their entry.
Eight: Illegal immigrants already exist outside of the system, they don't
have UK bank accounts, or NI numbers. They can't collect dole, or housing
benifit. If they work it's cash in hand; if they pay for goods, it's with
cash; if they are sick, they put up with it until they are an A&E case - I
can see doctors refusing to treat an ill person just because they have turned
up on a stretcher without their ID card, not.
Nine: To work, the card's contents has to be tested against something. Either
each testing station will have to talk back to a central database (in which
case it'll stop working when the phone lines go down), or each testing station
will have a copy of the data, in which case the data will be physically
insecure, or there will be some complex 'secure' checksumming taking place,
in which case the cards will be easily fake-able.
Ten: it's a government IT project. It will be many times more expensive
than thay say, and they're all ready talking 10 billion pounds.
Eleven: Once the cards become requestable, it will be a short hop to every
one of arab or eastern european appearance routinely being asked for it,
like an update of the old crime of "driving whilest black".
Twelve: Why the hell should I be forced to carry my 'papers' everywhere I
go?
--
ZX7RR.
PeterT
> PeterT
> >Catman
> >> PeterT
> >
> >> >> Ahhhh. So now it has to be unquestionable? How to you propose to
> >> >> make that work?
> >> >
> >> >I don't, but follow the argument please.
> >>
> >> Oh sorry
> >>
> >> > If it stops fraud when
> >> >unquestionable, then it reduces it if generally sufficient.
> >>
> >> Again, not entirely sure what you are trying to say. It seems that
> >> you are accepting that an new ID card system is not infallible? How
> >> less fallible will it be than current methods of identification?
> >
> >Well, if the crux of the argument is the question how to make IDs
> >less fallible than current forms of ID, which I believe they are
> >in the countries where they're used, then it shows that you're not
> >against the principle, but believe the execution will be flawed.
>
> Until someone convinces me otherwise, *one* of the reasons I am
> against the principle is *becasue* the execution will be flawed.
Fairy muff.
> >> >And, most likely, will make it more difficult for the die-hard
> >> >fraudster.
> >>
> >> Why? Why will these new cards be so much more secure than any
> >> existing method. This is a serious question.
> >
> >Because the intention is to set up a system were the verification
> >of the data on the ID is deemed accurate. Again I will refer to
> >passports, where a system is applied, which appears to be working
> >to the degree that people accept passports as proof of ID.
>
> But by your own admission they are still flawed. One of the questions
> that need to be asked is how are they flawed, adn what would be done
> differently for any type of ID system?
That is an apropriate question, but I didn't say the passport system
is completely flawed. Just because a system can be circumnavigated
by determined people.
> Either that, or we should carry on using passports as ID.
Would be fine, just a bit cumbersome considering the size.
> >Notwithstanding any improvements this system could undergo.
>
> You;ve still not really exlpained it, sorry. Try to think about
> *exactly* what would happen if I were to roll up to a benefit office
> with (or without in fact) an ID card of any type.
I'm not sure I'm getting what you want me to say. That there
are no cases where benefit fraud was comitted because identity
of a person had to be assumed from insufficient source and thus
couldn't be cross validated with the database?
> Until you know what the process is, how can you see the problems that
> (may) happen?
Have/Do happen/ed, is the point! It's about how to minimise these.
> >Really? I can only assume you didn't get the point rather than it being
> >pointless.
>
> Well, either then. Feel free to elaborate.
Nae, I leave it up to you to reread the two statments and see were
they differ.
> >> No. I can't. In all seriousness. Please show. Golden opportunity
> >> to make a convert here. And after all, if it really is so simple, you
> >> shouldn't find it hard.
> >
> >Done
>
> erm, where?
Mr Blue etc. or did you fell asleep again half way through?
> >We are running round in circles here, as you start to question
> >the procedure to ascertain the information. This differs from
> >the impression I got of you, that you had a principle issue with
> >IDs and believing that there are no benefits an accurate and pretty
> >trustworthy form of ID would have.
>
> I have more than one set of issues. I feel that they are pointless
> because they won't have any of the benefits described, because the
> technology to put them in place does not exist and that they are a
> huge waste of cash.
But have you actully looked at places where they are used and provide
most if not all the benefits described?
> >Now you saying that since the
> >information couldn't be trusted they are useless.
>
> The two are not exclusive. I am merely using this as a point to see
> how strong your argument is. I am more than happy to be converted,
> but I've not found anyone with a good argument yet.
There is another problem though, I think convincing arguments can be
brought forward and are not taken into account because a person does
fundamentally _believe_ it is wrong. Unfortunately believe has nothing
to do with a discussion. Now don't get me wrong, I'm actually not trying
to accuse you of that, but trying to highlight the complexity of
being convinced.
> >> And what ID do you use to convince people that you are these
> >> (multiple) people.
> >
> >Any letter send to you showing you as living at that address.
> >Which are fairly easy to fake, or falsely gain.
>
> Which would imply that the checking of the ID is flawed, that is the
> *process* by which the entitlement is 'proved' Replace the letter
> with a requirement for a passport shown, or maybe even a voluntary ID.
People don't have to have passports (which is a voluntary ID). So they
would need to get these first, but that contravenes the hope to deal
with a benefit application swiftly etc.
> >> >> Repeat the exercise using a scneario of ID being held by everyone
> >> >>
> >> >> What *exaclty* is the difference?
> >> >
> >> >That's it's more difficult to assume a fake identity as you won't
> >> >have official IDs for them.
> >>
> >> Why on earth not? It can be managed it in the first scenario.
> >
> >But, the person has to use a different name each time.
> And?
It would be considerably more difficult if not _practically_ impossible
to get IDs with the fake names.
--
ts350 xl600v
petert
PeterT
> Catman
> >>Ace
> >>>As opposed to the knee-jerk, 'infringement of civil liberties',
> >>>'shouldn't be allowed' sort of stuff I see people on here whingeing
> >>>about.
> >>
> >>Or the knee jerk "an innocent man has nothing to fear from them". IMHO
> >>an innocent man has no need to carry one.
> >
> >Except to rpove his innoncence. Oh, hang on ;)
>
> This is the big matter as far as English civil rights go isn't it. It
> was once a matter of great national pride in the country I was born in,
> in that it was presumed you were innocent until/unless proven guilty.
But that is besides the point. How could the police prove anybody guilty
if they wouldn't know who they are?
--
ts350 xl600v
petert
AndrewR
news:10788dv...@news.supernews.com...
<SNIP, ID cards>
> Ten: it's a government IT project. It will be many times more expensive
> than thay say, and they're all ready talking 10 billion pounds.
10a. In light of the above my employers will probably have their snouts in
the trough somewhere along the line, which means that it might come down to
me to get the damn things working. Man, are you fucked then.
--
AndrewR, D.Bot (Celeritas)
Kawasaki ZX-6R J1
BOTAFOT#2,ITJWTFO#6,UKRMRM#1/13a,MCT#1,DFV#2,SKoGA#0 (and KotL)
BotToS#5,SBS#25,IbW#34, TEAR#3 (and KotL), DS#5, COSOC#9, KotTFSTR#
The speccy Geordie twat.
steve auvache
I believe the old fashioned method was to show evidence to the courts.
I am not sure how they do it these days.
--
steve auvache
PeterT
> PeterT
> >Catman
> >> PeterT
> >> >Catman
> >
> >> >Well, since you like stories:
> >>
> >> Oh I do.
> >>
> >> >There is Mr Blue who's a upstanding member of the community, yadda
> >> >yadda yadda. Walking along his street at night after some drinks with
> >> >his fellow lodge members. The police stop him and claim that he has
> >> >similarity to a Mr Green, who was seen robbing a nursing home and
> >> >stealing OAP's monies and handbags. He claims he isn't Mr Green, but
> >> >the police take him into custody and back to the station as they don't
> >> >believe him.
> >>
> >> Fine. You may find tis really hard to stomach but I would rather be
> >> taken into custody under this situation than be forced to carry an ID
> >> card. After all, proving my ID while in custody is not exactly going
> >> to be tough.
> >
> >Really, how do you do it?
>
> Well, when they say can you prove who you are, I say 'Yes, in my safe
> is my passport. My address is...... and the combination is ......'
>
> Not exactly hard. It must be done thousands of times per day at the
> moment, with no ID cards involved.
Would be actually intersting to get the inside of one of our residential
janitors. And I could imagine that the times all this takes is fully
understood by anybody who get's arrested under mistaken identity.
> >> Oh and another small point. You earlier mentioned that compusory
> >> carrying was not an issue. What do you think would happen if Mr Blue
> >> happened to be not carrying his card? That's right *exactly* the same
> >> thing as would happen now. He'd be taken into custody until his
> >> identity was verified.
> >
> >But it was his choice not to carry the card, thus he couldn't benefit
> >from it.
>
> So let me get this straight:
>
> Compulsory carrying: He gets arrested
> Free carrying: He gets arrested.
Aye, but in both cases he can proof who he is before he's arrested.
Thus walks home.
> >> >Now Mr Yellow, a close friend of Mr Blue is walking home the same
> >evening.
> >> >He's stopped by the police as he looks like Mr Red, who just robbed
> >> >a pregnant woman. He pulls out his ID and proofs that he's Mr Yellow.
> >> >Sgt Pink taps his hat and wishes him a pleasent evening, while they
> >> >carry on looking for Mr Red.
> >>
> >> This is total rubbish. How would pregnant victim *know* her assialant
> >> was Mr Red? Cases where the victim knows the assialant are (I *think*
> >> pretty rare).
> >
> >FFS it's an example, it works, within limitations admittedly, but
> >that's beside the fucking point. But let me expand. She doesn't know
> >it put picks Mr Red from the mug shot library at the cop-shop.
>
> No, It *doesn't* work any better than the current situation.
Yes it does, and I can't be arsed to tailor it, as your attempt
to argue it to pieces shows that you could actually contrive
your own scenario.
> Even if she does pick him from the mug shot two things happen:
>
> 1) Copper *knows* Mr Red, and therefore won't arrest Mr Yellow
Well they do look similar, and copper most certainly doesn't know all
previous arrests by face and name.
> 2) Copper doesn't know Mr Red, adn therefore relies on the description
> and we're back to square one.
No, but he knows it's Mr Red!
> >Oi, you asked for a story. I told you one, with a reasonable
> >example how IDs could be greatly beneficial.
>
> It *was* a request in a different post though :)
Well, then do a post merger, will you!
> >> We seem to have got our posts muddled.
> >
> >Well, we certainly do, as we're keeping up two threads.
>
> Good going for just the two of us
Yeah, except everybody else has fallen asleep or shake
their head why we argue. I think we could drift of onto something
really interesting now and nobody would notice.
> >But you may be stopped for a valid reason, as you said you'd be happy
> >to go to jail for a night in the case of mistaken identity. However,
> >I strongly believe we'd get a long post from you if that would ever
happen,
> >and a not too friendly one either.
>
> If it was a valid reason, then I should be arrested no matter who I
> am. If it wasn't a valid reason, they shouldn't arrest me. Pretty
> simple really.
Eh? The reason may be valid, but it's a MISTAKEN IDENTITY. So you
get arrested/stopped or whatever because you appear, with good cause,
to be the person wanted and can't prove on the spot that you aren't.
> >> Quote please?
> >
> >Look, I'm not getting into a Des argument here, with quoting and
> >re-interpretation of old posts. The gist of your initial arguments
> >were, as I understood it, that the price to pay for theintroduction
> >of IDs is too high for the benefits you see, and don't tell me you
> >meant the fiscal aspects.
>
> I meant all aspects.
So that include civil liberties as well!
> >> >Please give me some precise example where this potential is?
> >>
> >> Well that's the thing about potential, by it's very nature it's
> >> imprecise.
> >>
> >> Imagine a home secretary that suddenly decides that all members of
> >> public with a certain hair colour should be criminalise. Currently,
> >> that segment of society could shave their heads. Put all that *kind*
> >> of information in a central location and make it accessible to those
> >> wishing to enforce it, rounding that segment of the publci up would be
> >> rahter simpler than it is now.
> >
> >I think I won the story contest! ;-P
>
> Really?
Yeah, I had four characters and real crime, such as robbing grannies and
pregnant women. And you're just having a go at Ginge.
--
ts350 xl600v
petert
Lady Nina
<Simian@in_valid.semi-evolved.org> wrote:
<Snip> lovely post saving me the trouble of having to articulate
similar concerns when nicotine deprived (and these non tobacco, non
nicotine herbal fags absolutely reek) and irritable
>Four: to provide for the biometric ID, everyone will have to have
>their 'biome' tested. This will be a wonderfull oppertunity for
>us to test exactly how well automated biometic fingerprinting /
>eye scanning
If anyone thinks they are sticking a laser anywhere near my eyes they
are sadly mistaken.
>/ DNA sampling works. For the slow of thought, by this
>I mean it will be the first time any of these technologies has been
>tested on a large scale.
And then we get the spectre of who has access to genetic info, all
those lovely friendly insurance companies for a start.
It isn't the ID cards themselves, I have a passport, driving licence,
bank card should my identity be required.
It is the compulsory nature, the way the reasons being given for their
introduction are spurious, the track record on civil liberties of the
politicians who want the introduction, the possibilities of them being
the start of a slippery slope. Country leaving time is drawing nearer
for me than originally planned if the current trend continues - Oi
Blaney any room in your gaff?
Old Fart at Play
> Because the intention is to set up a system were the verification
> of the data on the ID is deemed accurate. Again I will refer to
> passports, where a system is applied, which appears to be working
> to the degree that people accept passports as proof of ID.
Bloody Barclays Bank in Leicester didn't accept my passport
as proof of my identity when I wanted a small sum of money
in cash from my account.
I guess all us whiteys look the same to the cashiers.
--
Roger.