johnnyboy - Property of Her Majesty's Government (ID Cards)
True, however I can understand the need for biometric passports themselves - it'll make things easier with the draconian measures thrown up by the US and whoever else chooses it. I'll be honest, when I went over during the summer i barely noticed doin the fingerprint and face on file for x million years thing. True, it COULD have been because it was 2am to me.
Knight knight
I still stand by my original viewpoint on the matter - being required to have national government-issued ID I have no problem with in principal - anyone who holds a passport or a driving licence allready does. I cannot see any reason why a law-abiding person would have a problem with it. Where I disagree with the scheme is the level of data they intend to hold, and the prices intended to be charged for it.
As before, I maintain that the template for the ID card should be the photocard driving licence - a current name, a current address, a date of birth and a picture. In addition to the driving licence I'd also through in nationality (and original nationality too if different), ethnic origin and place of birth.
As well as that, these should be cards for people who presently have no national ID. Anyone who holds a passport or photocard driving licence should be exempt.
But above all - if the government want us to have these things, the government can find the money for it through general taxation. I cannot believe that money is being found for our hosting of the olympics - something which in 7 years time will be all but forgotton about (how much do the Olympics impact on Sydney today?), but that there apparently isn't sufficient money to fund a major project to improve national security.
The system as it stands, the data they intend to collect, and the people who will have access to it, along with the exhorborant fees which will doubtless be charged for having the card is not something I can ever support.
Fortunately, the compulsary requirement to hold an ID card will now not come into being until after the next election, which means that Labour must win a fourth term in order for this to happen, as the Conservatives will scrap this legislation
As before, I maintain that the template for the ID card should be the photocard driving licence - a current name, a current address, a date of birth and a picture. In addition to the driving licence I'd also through in nationality (and original nationality too if different), ethnic origin and place of birth.
As well as that, these should be cards for people who presently have no national ID. Anyone who holds a passport or photocard driving licence should be exempt.
But above all - if the government want us to have these things, the government can find the money for it through general taxation. I cannot believe that money is being found for our hosting of the olympics - something which in 7 years time will be all but forgotton about (how much do the Olympics impact on Sydney today?), but that there apparently isn't sufficient money to fund a major project to improve national security.
The system as it stands, the data they intend to collect, and the people who will have access to it, along with the exhorborant fees which will doubtless be charged for having the card is not something I can ever support.
Fortunately, the compulsary requirement to hold an ID card will now not come into being until after the next election, which means that Labour must win a fourth term in order for this to happen, as the Conservatives will scrap this legislation
So the Lords haven't really accepted a "deal", they've just delayed it. And this suits the government perfectly, as they can now let the ID card scheme creep in by stealth by tying it in with things we associate with our freedom.
When all the elements are in place with the passports, driving licences, etc, they simply use the inevitability argument - "we've come this far, and it would now make more sense to finish the job".
Phasing the scheme in by stealth prevents the public from ever really having a chance to protest like they did with the poll tax.
When all the elements are in place with the passports, driving licences, etc, they simply use the inevitability argument - "we've come this far, and it would now make more sense to finish the job".
Phasing the scheme in by stealth prevents the public from ever really having a chance to protest like they did with the poll tax.
Ah. That old chestnut.cwathen wrote:I cannot see any reason why a law-abiding person would have a problem with it.
a.k.a. "Those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear."
That's the mantra of every totalitarian state:
Hand over unlimited power to the government and police, and they'll be very good about it and won't abuse their power. Because they're nice people. We should just shut up and trust them.
-
martindtanderson
- Posts: 527
- Joined: Tue 23 Dec, 2003 04.03
- Location: London, UK
- Contact:
Unless the government pays for mine, I will not be handing out that kind of money for something I don't want. If that means going to prison, then I think I may go to prison...
Not so, cwathen. A driving licence entitles you to drive, a passport entitles you to visit an overseas county and enjoy the protection of the British state. In other words, it *entitles* you to some right or privelege.cwathen wrote:I still stand by my original viewpoint on the matter - being required to have national government-issued ID I have no problem with in principal - anyone who holds a passport or a driving licence allready does.
An ID card, especially with the draconian fines that go along for non-compliance in Tony's brave new world, is a licence to live. It is not entitling at all.
cwathen wrote:I cannot see any reason why a law-abiding person would have a problem with it.
I can not see why a law-abiding person would have a problem with being tracked by satellite 24 hours a day. Or to having compulsory drink and drugs tests every 3 months to see they haven't been taking any illicit substances.
The list goes on. The problem with your argument is that it is an open door for Tony and Cronies to invade every area of your life and point the finger of guilt at you if you object.
Every government minister on the subject has stated that it will not prevent any "terrorist" attacks. The Spanish people have ID cards, remember?cwathen wrote:I cannot believe that money is being found for our hosting of the olympics - something which in 7 years time will be all but forgotton about (how much do the Olympics impact on Sydney today?), but that there apparently isn't sufficient money to fund a major project to improve national security.
It's a big con, cwathen, and I am frankly shocked that someone of your undoubted intelligence has fallen for it, matie.
The system is intellectually, morally, financially and technically flawed and disasterous.cwathen wrote:The system as it stands, the data they intend to collect, and the people who will have access to it, along with the exhorborant fees which will doubtless be charged for having the card is not something I can ever support.
Fortunately, the compulsary requirement to hold an ID card will now not come into being until after the next election, which means that Labour must win a fourth term in order for this to happen, as the Conservatives will scrap this legislation
Therefore, I can't see the Tories scrapping it either.
I agree: I was always led to believe that in a democracy like Britain, the state was accountable to the people, and not vice-versa. The introduction of this scheme will change this relationship irrevocably.johnnyboy wrote:Not so, cwathen. A driving licence entitles you to drive, a passport entitles you to visit an overseas county and enjoy the protection of the British state. In other words, it *entitles* you to some right or privelege.
Edit: Some interesting links:
http://www.blairwatch.co.uk/node/945
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/31 ... migration/