NationStates Jolt Archive

It seems our esteemed Mr Blunkett is not messing around. Sometimes a scheme like this is announced to detract attention from an issue of pressing public concern, and whilst this may the intention of the rest of the cabinet, Blunkett means business.

The scheme he is proposing would entail cards containing photographs and biometric data of some kind, be it fingerprints, facial scans or even DNA. It apparently will be a scheme that will save us from benefit fraud, money laundering, Terrorism and Illegal Immigration. Blunkett has yet to prove any of these claims.

The last two are of course the most pressing in the public mind. Illegal immigration has been an issue in Britain for many years and may become more of an issue as countries like Poland join the EU. Terrorism is the catch-all argument though. Will ID cards prevent it? "I accept that it is important that we do not pretend that an entitlement card would be an overwhelming factor in combating international terrorism" (http://www.privacyinternational.org/issues/idcard/uk/uk-idcard-faq.html) - David Blunkett in the House of Commons. It would seem that we can justify almost anything that the government does if it is claiming to prevent terrorism or protect us from it.

For instance, suspension of the right not to be detained without charge or trial. Blunkett was fuming last week when a man held for two years on suspicion of terrorism was released to a form of house arrest by the courts. Two years without charge, without hope, and trapped outside the British legal system. He appears to have been the lucky one, Blunkett intends to change the law to prevent the courts acting this way again.

Blunkett apparently has no respect for the law, he recently attempted to introduce legislation that would mean that the Government's immigration panel could not have their decision challenged in the courts. Yet that has always been the way British law has worked, putting aside the issue of whether or not Parliament is the sovereign body and beyond challenge or reproach.

Blunkett also intends to make non-compliance with the ID card system a civil matter rather than a legal matter. He explicity stated that this would stop '"clever people" becoming martyrs.' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3659355.stm) Blunkett does not intend the issue to be heard before the courts. Yet that has always been the way things have been done, if I feel that my civil liberties are under threat from this scheme I should be able to not comply and have my day in court.

Civil liberties issues aside - what will ID cards do? There would only be a limited effect on crime. Terrorism would not be prevented - the 9/11 hijackers had to show some ID to get on board those planes. We are told of the wonders of the biometric data - yet there is no system, no card, no currency on earth that has never been passably forged. Besides that, the data on the card has only to comply with the person stood in front of you or the database - and who says that information is accurate? It is estimated that 10% of all ID cards in the US are phony. When you buy goods with your credit card how often does the cashier fail to even look at your signature? If all ID (drivers license, passport etc) is unified on to one card - then that is just one thing that the identity thieves have to forge. In 1999, a former accountant was charged in London with obtaining up to 500 passports under false identities. The scam was merely a manipulation of the primary documentation procedure. (http://www.privacyinternational.org/issues/idcard/uk/uk-idcard-faq.html)

On to civil liberties. No database has never been abused, access to databases have been sold by employees, people in the Revenue Services have been caught looking at the tax returns of celebrities. The database would have to include information on every adult in the country - something that even twenty years ago would have been strongly resisted by the majority. We have no privacy. The common agreement with Blunkett runs along the lines of - 'I have nothing to hide, only people with something to hide should be afraid.' The people with something to hide will hide it still - you may suffer because we cannot ever take back this power, should the government abuse it, once we have granted it

The costs of the scheme are being hidden from us. Blunkett is talking about costs of £3bn, many estimate that it will be higher. This is taxpayers money. Taxpayers that will be further stung by the projected £40 charge per card - a lot of money for a family of four or five. Expect the costs to the taxpayer to spiral - the controversy of the ineptness of the new passport system could well be eclipsed.

What is it all about? If Mr Blunkett is honest with us, and himself, this scheme is like many other Government schemes - it is all about control.

Even the Lib Dems are on top of this one:

10 reasons to oppose ID cards

1. It will cost a fortune. The Home Office expects the cost to be at least £3bn over 10 years. Individual cards will cost £35, or £77 for a combined passport and ID card. Costs are likely to be much higher depending on which public services insist on inspecting our ID cards before we access them - putting biometric card reading equipment in every post office, for example, would be hugely expensive.

2. It will turn into another expensive IT fiasco. The government in general, and the Home Office in particular, has an appalling track record when it comes to large-scale IT projects. New systems at the Post Office, Passport Office, Probation Service, Police Service, Courts Service and Child Support Agency have all run massively over budget. The ID cards scheme would be the most ambitious and expensive public sector IT project ever undertaken. It has all the hallmarks of a disaster waiting to happen: no-one has spelt out what the cards are for and how they will achieve their objectives; it has been proposed in response to political events (notably 9/11) rather than a sober assessment of costs and benefits; building the system is complex and massively expensive; the cost estimates are vague and incomplete; and the project is reliant on new and untested technology.

3. It will lead to discrimination and harassment. ID cards will undermine the contract between the police and the public, with many more people being stopped and required to identify themselves, or present their card at a police station at a later date. Given that the government wants the police to use the cards to detect more illegal immigrants and suspected al-Qaida terrorists, we can expect most of these stops to target black and Asian people. People seeking GP and hospital treatment will have to present their card. Again, the government's concern is to prevent so-called 'health tourism', so black and Asian people will have to run the gauntlet of identity checks while white people will not. Alternatively, everyone will have to prove their identity whenever they visit the GP (i.e. moving from a system based on trust to one based on distrust), which will quickly alienate the majority. People who refuse to carry an identity card will be discriminated against - they will be denied access to public services like hospital treatment and benefits and also private services like banking and credit.

4. It will create a bureaucratic nightmare. In order to make the ID card system work, there will be a new national database of everyone in the UK. This will contain everyone's name, address, age and gender. Hundreds of thousands of people in London alone change their address at least once a year. Many change their name through marriage or by deed poll. Even if an accurate database can be constructed, the errors will quickly mount up. Errors will result in people's cards being rejected and access to services being denied. Similarly, people who forget to take their card (e.g. when collecting their pension) will be inconvenienced. Centralising the many existing methods of proving identity sounds like a good idea, but in practice breakdowns in the system will have serious consequences for both convenience and security. A successful attack on the system (e.g. over the internet) could paralyse the UKeconomy.

5. Our personal data will be shared without our consent. Everyone will be given a unique number to identify them which will be encoded on the card. Other databases (for example store loyalty cards or medical records) will start to identify people using their unique number. Knowing the number could therefore allow someone to retrieve sensitive information about that individual from any number of other sources. The potential for cross-referencing databases will be of great value to private companies in profiling consumers.

6. It will encourage fraud. Some benefit fraud may be prevented by requiring people to produce their card to claim benefits. However, most benefit fraud involves claimants misrepresenting their circumstances rather then their identity. In practice, the value of the card as a strong guarantee of someone's identity across a range of valuable services will mean it will become a target for forgery by fraudsters, criminals and terrorists seeking to disguise their true identities. The government is taking the 'Titanic' approach to the technology by claiming that it is unforgeable - history suggests they will be proved wrong.

7. It will not prevent illegal working. The Home Office wants to make it compulsory for people to present their card when applying for a job in the UK, and claims that this will prevent illegal working. But employers in industries with high levels of illegal labour are already required to check identity documents. The problem is that the Home Office doesn't inspect them to make sure they are following the rules. There were only 2 prosecutions for employing an illegal worker in 2002. The fact that illegal immigrants will not be able to get ID cards will not change anything as long as there are unscrupulous employers and lax Home Office enforcement.

8. It will not help to fight crime or terrorism. The police do not generally have a problem identifying people they arrest: the problem is in catching the criminals in the first place. The Metropolitan police have stated that with the exception of identity fraud, they know of no evidence to show that ID cards will reduce crime. ID cards would not present an obstacle to most terrorists either. The terrorists who attacked New York on September 11th 2001 and Madrid on March 11th 2004carried valid identity cards. Knowing someone's identity does not necessarily help you to predict how they are going to behave.

9. We do not have a written constitution. This means the government can get away with expanding the uses of the card and lowering the safeguards on data sharing. The relationship between the state and the citizen is not properly defined in law. Every other country that has a system of compulsory identity cards also has a written constitution. We will be passing a law on the understanding that this government will not use the system to spy on its citizens or restrict civil liberties - even if that were is true, can we be so trusting of future governments?

10. The money would be better spent on other things. If the government really wants to make an impact on crime, terrorism and illegal immigration, the £3bn it has earmarked for this scheme would be far better spent on more police and more intelligence officers for MI5 and the new Serious Organised Crime Agency. £3bn could, for example, pay for 10,000 extra police officers for the next 6 years.


http://www.libdems.org.uk/index.cfm/page.homepage/section.home/article.6599

They've got my vote.

(Now I'm finally on the electoral register)

Who, Lib Dems? Good on you if that's the case! Give 'em a chance, they have some good policies and certainly can't do worse than the other two parties have done so far.

Who, Lib Dems? Good on you if that's the case! Give 'em a chance, they have some good policies and certainly can't do worse than the other two parties have done so far.

Plus they are the only vialble option in my area after Labour (however it is hardly a margin seat (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/vote2001/results_constituencies/constituencies/396.stm)). Our MP is a complete Blairite, and no body (I know) seems to likes him.

My MP: http://www.labour.org.uk/maps/photos/cand_2329.jpgIs this someone you can trust?

If this becomes a major issue at the next election I may have to vote for them.

Course they may not run a candidate in my constituency, they didn't last time.

Anyway - advocates of ID cards, where are you?

(And is it wrong to call a blind man names?)

He brings it apon himself, even the liberals in my seminars don't my 'un-pc' jokes about him.


PS. what constituency are you in?

are lib dems against id cards? ive heard nothing from them probably waiting for political opportunitywhen the government slips up.

Now all you have to do is persuade people that if every one voted for the party closest to their political opinion a libdem vote is not wasted. Too much they are not going to get in ruins there chances

are lib dems against id cards? ive heard nothing from them probably waiting for political opportunitywhen the government slips up.

St. Johns' second post

Now all you have to do is persuade people that if every one voted for the party closest to their political opinion a libdem vote is not wasted. Too much they are not going to get in ruins there chances

I think I might help the Lib-Dems this election. They are the only ones who come close to being trustworthy.

Are they the lib dem reasons you have quoted i thought you were being clever! anyway thank you for posting them

Sorry, forgot to include the link (and I am clever -ish)

The Australian government tried the "Australia Card" and that got shot down due to privacy concerns. We have a "Tax File Number" which damn close to a personal ID.

I.D cards were a good idea during World War Two. Now, during a time of global terroism, they are just as nessessary!

We have a system that lets thousands of legal and illegal immigrants into this country and anyone of them could be terrorists. I'm not one for cultural intolerance, but we have extreamists living here like the so-called muslim 'cleric' Abu Hamza who has repeatedly spouted anti-britsh hate speeches. Yet, he continues to live off the state, receiving handouts from the government, police protection and benefits which apparently cost the tax payer £1 million a year!

I could go on forever about the state of our justice system, but suffice to say, there are too many 'do-gooder' lefties whose heads are filled with equal rights, and beurocratic crap!

Until we find a better way, and/or the terrorism threats dies or fades down, we need a system that will reduce the risk of a 9/11 style attack.

I.D cards were a good idea during World War Two. Now, during a time of global terroism, they are just as nessessary!

We have a system that lets thousands of legal and illegal immigrants into this country and anyone of them could be terrorists. I'm not one for cultural intolerance, but we have extreamists living here like the so-called muslim 'cleric' Abu Hamza who has repeatedly spouted anti-britsh hate speeches. Yet, he continues to live off the state, receiving handouts from the government, police protection and benefits which apparently cost the tax payer £1 million a year!

I could go on forever about the state of our justice system, but suffice to say, there are too many 'do-gooder' lefties whose heads are filled with equal rights, and beurocratic crap!

Until we find a better way, and/or the terrorism threats dies or fades down, we need a system that will reduce the risk of a 9/11 style attack.

...and a compulsory ID system will do jack shit about any of that. At present, we already have a distributed system of identification, with many redundant backups. If the law wants to know who you are, they can and will find out. Our beloved home secretary, however, wants to destroy civil liberties and personal freedoms in order to introduce a centralised system that will be the only target any fraudster needs to attack if they want to defeat it. Add that together with the amount of detail in the UK's last census, and you have a recipe for a corrupt police state, where law abiding citizens are tagged like cattle and scared into obediance, and the real criminals run loops around the law.

Four words. Learn them well: "Single point of failure."

I could go on forever about the state of our justice system, but suffice to say, there are too many 'do-gooder' lefties whose heads are filled with equal rights, and beurocratic crap!


Also, have you any idea how much "beurocratic crap" (sic) would be needed in order to implement, enforce and maintain a central ID database and compulsory card system?

I.D cards were a good idea during World War Two. Now, during a time of global terroism, they are just as nessessary!

It envisages that in the first stage a national identity register will be set up, with combined passport/ID cards and driving licence/ID cards issued from 2007-08 to those who renew their passports and to foreign nationals.

These cards will not be ready soon, they are not quick fixes. To use your example, if the WWII sceam was similar, the war would be over before they were used. Note: It will only be for those renewing passports and drivers licenses and foreign nationals. It will take even longer to become universal.

We have a system that lets thousands of legal and illegal immigrants into this country and anyone of them could be terrorists. I'm not one for cultural intolerance, but we have extreamists living here like the so-called muslim 'cleric' Abu Hamza who has repeatedly spouted anti-britsh hate speeches. Yet, he continues to live off the state, receiving handouts from the government, police protection and benefits which apparently cost the tax payer £1 million a year!

Care to back up this statement?

I could go on forever about the state of our justice system, but suffice to say, there are too many 'do-gooder' lefties whose heads are filled with equal rights, and beurocratic crap!

Moonshine has dealt with this. But this paragraph seems to be standard, so standard that it hasn't been edited

Until we find a better way, and/or the terrorism threats dies or fades down, we need a system that will reduce the risk of a 9/11 style attack.

As I said before, if the ID card will stop terrorism (which it probably won't), the terrorists will have plenty of time to attack before they want to renew their drivers licenses or passports.

Some interesting things I have found for you who support this scheme out of fear of a terrorist attack:

First, he [Blunkett] acknowledged that compulsory ID cards could not foil terrorist attacks


he conceded that compulsory ID cards had not prevented the recent Madrid bombs

concerns the criteria against which a decision to make the cards compulsory, expected in 2013, will be taken.

Because the terrorists won't attack in the 9 preceding it :roll:

"The prime reason for having ID cards is not to stop terrorists. It will help the overall task of prevention, but it will not stop us from being hit."

Also, here's another couple of articles that you should read carefully before placing your support blindly in Blunkett's favour, somehow believing an ID card will make it all go away. Bear in mind that, while like every other publication The Register has an opinion, they are a technical publication, more concerned with the mechanics and logistics of how things will happen and what's going on in the IT sector, than any kind of political wrangling. Basically, they're a newspaper for geeks.

Here's a very nice article on the penalties Mr Blunkett wants, and how we already have measures in place that can work.
http://www.theregister.com/2004/04/25/blunkett_id_fraud_penalties/

And here's a nice review of the infamous MORI survey that said 80% of people support an ID card plan. Picks it to pieces and exposes the contradictions quite admirably, really. It includes interviews with the people who conducted the survey, so it does have some authority.
http://www.theregister.com/2004/04/22/id_cards/

And a guide on how ID card systems work and how they can be (and usually are) compromised, just in case the PM happens to be reading:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/04/05/uk_id_cards/

And another article, not from the Register this time:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1202742,00.html

You can't make this kind of stuff up. Really, someone needs to take Blunkett and the rest of the tag 'em and bag 'em movement and kick their collective arses off the end of the nearest pier. ID faceprints compulsory, unless it's against your religion? Well then, I am religiously opposed to any and all forms of compulsory identification. I think I have the necessary fanaticism and zeal on this matter to make my case. So can I be exempt as well, Mr Blunkett?

Does anyone know if people with non-UK passports will have to have one is they want to renew their passports?

I ask this because I hold a Dutch passport, but I think I am a British National.

Does anyone know if people with non-UK passports will have to have one is they want to renew their passports?

I ask this because I hold a Dutch passport, but I think I am a British National.

If you're a British national, then you're British (as well as Dutch/whatever). I think under Blunkett's plans, passports and driving licenses will be the first to have biometric data stored on them, with "voluntary" ID cards paving the way for a compulsory system by 2013.

Foreign nationals, asylum seekers and such, already have to go through checks, but as far as I am aware, if you hold British citizenship, then you are as good as British. I would of course urge that you check somewhere more authorative than this web site though.

...and while we have a Dutch guy here - perhaps you would care to explain to the IDaholics exactly why the Netherlands haven't had an extensively detailed census database since WW2 and the nazi occupation?

Does anyone know if people with non-UK passports will have to have one is they want to renew their passports?

I ask this because I hold a Dutch passport, but I think I am a British National.

If you're a British national, then you're British (as well as Dutch/whatever). I think under Blunkett's plans, passports and driving licenses will be the first to have biometric data stored on them, with "voluntary" ID cards paving the way for a compulsory system by 2013.

Foreign nationals, asylum seekers and such, already have to go through checks, but as far as I am aware, if you hold British citizenship, then you are as good as British. I would of course urge that you check somewhere more authorative than this web site though.

...and while we have a Dutch guy here - perhaps you would care to explain to the IDaholics exactly why the Netherlands haven't had an extensively detailed census database since WW2 and the nazi occupation?

I am only Dutch by convenience and chance. My father's South African Dutch and I got a Dutch passport because at the time I got it, it was a hell of a lot easier to get than a British one. Maybe you should ask one of the posters on the Het derde nederlandse topic! (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=103934).

Anyway, I plan to use every wheeze I can to not get one. Feign ignorance, claim I have been bankrupted/pickpocketed etc

First they take away your guns and civil liberties, then they make national ID cards compulsory. Sound familiar?

First they take away your guns and civil liberties, then they make national ID cards compulsory. Sound familiar?

Civil liberties in Britian are a myth, we can be held without being charged indefinately for merely being a suspect of doing something wrong. The ID cards make everyone a suspect.

First they take away your guns and civil liberties, then they make national ID cards compulsory. Sound familiar?

Sounds like you're on my team. Welcome aboard.

I find it strange how both righties and lefties (if we must use those terms) are against ID cards but all those who are pro-ID card seem to assume that the anti's are lefties (and probably unwashed ones at that)

Telegraph article on ID cards (http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/29/wfor229.xml)

I have yet to hear good arguments. And thanks to other posters for dealing so comprehensively with the bad ones.

We have a system that lets thousands of legal and illegal immigrants into this country and anyone of them could be terrorists. I'm not one for cultural intolerance, but we have extreamists living here like the so-called muslim 'cleric' Abu Hamza who has repeatedly spouted anti-britsh hate speeches. Yet, he continues to live off the state, receiving handouts from the government, police protection and benefits which apparently cost the tax payer £1 million a year!

Care to back up this statement?

Check the newspapers and the news. In case you may be thinking, the media are not allowed to tell complete and utter lies. They report REAL issues through their own perspective. In any case, it is true.

We have a system that lets thousands of legal and illegal immigrants into this country and anyone of them could be terrorists. I'm not one for cultural intolerance, but we have extreamists living here like the so-called muslim 'cleric' Abu Hamza who has repeatedly spouted anti-britsh hate speeches. Yet, he continues to live off the state, receiving handouts from the government, police protection and benefits which apparently cost the tax payer £1 million a year!

Care to back up this statement?

Check the newspapers and the news. In case you may be thinking, the media are not allowed to tell complete and utter lies. They report REAL issues through their own perspective. In any case, it is true.

I have, but have never come across anything about Abu Hamza recieving £1million from the State.

:oops:

dp

We have a system that lets thousands of legal and illegal immigrants into this country and anyone of them could be terrorists. I'm not one for cultural intolerance, but we have extreamists living here like the so-called muslim 'cleric' Abu Hamza who has repeatedly spouted anti-britsh hate speeches. Yet, he continues to live off the state, receiving handouts from the government, police protection and benefits which apparently cost the tax payer £1 million a year!

Care to back up this statement?

Check the newspapers and the news. In case you may be thinking, the media are not allowed to tell complete and utter lies. They report REAL issues through their own perspective. In any case, it is true.

I have, but have never come across anything about Abu Hamza recieving £1million from the State.

It has been in various tabloids and broadsheets. Despite the way they report the issue, there ultimately HAS to be some truth to is, otherwise Abu Hamza would've sued them for slander.

In any case, the basic point is that a muslim extreamist is claiming benefits whilst preaching hate fueled, anti british sermons.

I doubt anyone would tolerate it if a british person stood on a box and started being anti-muslim.

It has been in various tabloids and broadsheets. Despite the way they report the issue, there ultimately HAS to be some truth to is, otherwise Abu Hamza would've sued them for slander.

In any case, the basic point is that a muslim extreamist is claiming benefits whilst preaching hate fueled, anti british sermons.

I doubt anyone would tolerate it if a british person stood on a box and started being anti-muslim.

Question: How would a compulsory ID card prevent Abu Hamza from preaching? How would it prevent others from doing what he did to get here? He got British citizenship by marrying someone and moving over here with her - then divorcing. A marriage of convenience. It's those laws that need to be looked at if you want to solve that problem, not a card that tells you that Abu Hamza is Abu Hamza. We know who he is.

At the same time though, any change in those laws would have to take into account people like The Great Leveller - British in all but passport details. It would be a human rights cock-up of monumental proportions if people like him/her were being deported over a technicality, after a knee-jerk law being passed to get rid of one cleric.

Question: How would a compulsory ID card prevent Abu Hamza from preaching? How would it prevent others from doing what he did to get here? He got British citizenship by marrying someone and moving over here with her - then divorcing. A marriage of convenience. It's those laws that need to be looked at if you want to solve that problem, not a card that tells you that Abu Hamza is Abu Hamza. We know who he is.

At the same time though, any change in those laws would have to take into account people like The Great Leveller - British in all but passport details. It would be a human rights cock-up of monumental proportions if people like him/her were being deported over a technicality, after a knee-jerk law being passed to get rid of one cleric.

You are right in that I.D cards won't help us get rid of him. I was using him as an example of the most extreme muslim fanatic, (albeit a rather detailed example).
I am of the opinion that if I.D cards were needed to get benefits, NHS access, employment as well as other things, the government, police or whoever might well find it easier to trace down benefit fraudsters or other public service abusers.

Of course there is always going to be the risk of fake I.D cards being sold on the black market. But if they have proposed a way of putting fingerprint and retina data on the card, then it would greatly reduce the chances of people using stolen ones.

Although having said that, I doubt all the benefit offices will have retina scanners anytime soon. But I believe it could work. We won't know until we try

I am of the opinion that if I.D cards were needed to get benefits, NHS access, employment as well as other things, the government, police or whoever might well find it easier to trace down benefit fraudsters or other public service abusers.

Of course there is always going to be the risk of fake I.D cards being sold on the black market. But if they have proposed a way of putting fingerprint and retina data on the card, then it would greatly reduce the chances of people using stolen ones.

Although having said that, I doubt all the benefit offices will have retina scanners anytime soon. But I believe it could work. We won't know until we try

It would only be worth doing -- economically speaking -- if the scheme would save more money than it cost. Given that the current pulled-out-of-David-Blunkett's-arse costs are hovering around £3bn, with the actual cost likely to be many times higher even before we start putting retina scanners in dole offices, it starts to make less and less sense as a scheme to catch benefit cheats. It would be using an ICBM to crack a pretty insignificant nut.

I am of the opinion that if I.D cards were needed to get benefits, NHS access, employment as well as other things, the government, police or whoever might well find it easier to trace down benefit fraudsters or other public service abusers.

Of course there is always going to be the risk of fake I.D cards being sold on the black market. But if they have proposed a way of putting fingerprint and retina data on the card, then it would greatly reduce the chances of people using stolen ones.

Although having said that, I doubt all the benefit offices will have retina scanners anytime soon. But I believe it could work. We won't know until we try

It would only be worth doing -- economically speaking -- if the scheme would save more money than it cost. Given that the current pulled-out-of-David-Blunkett's-arse costs are hovering around £3bn, with the actual cost likely to be many times higher even before we start putting retina scanners in dole offices, it starts to make less and less sense as a scheme to catch benefit cheats. It would be using an ICBM to crack a pretty insignificant nut.


Also it'll be heavily IT dependent, and the Government doesn't have a brilliant track record on anything to do IT. They prefer value to quality.

I am of the opinion that if I.D cards were needed to get benefits, NHS access, employment as well as other things, the government, police or whoever might well find it easier to trace down benefit fraudsters or other public service abusers.

Of course there is always going to be the risk of fake I.D cards being sold on the black market. But if they have proposed a way of putting fingerprint and retina data on the card, then it would greatly reduce the chances of people using stolen ones.

Although having said that, I doubt all the benefit offices will have retina scanners anytime soon. But I believe it could work. We won't know until we try

It would only be worth doing -- economically speaking -- if the scheme would save more money than it cost. Given that the current pulled-out-of-David-Blunkett's-arse costs are hovering around £3bn, with the actual cost likely to be many times higher even before we start putting retina scanners in dole offices, it starts to make less and less sense as a scheme to catch benefit cheats. It would be using an ICBM to crack a pretty insignificant nut.


Also it'll be heavily IT dependent, and the Government doesn't have a brilliant track record on anything to do IT. They prefer value to quality.

That is certainly very true.

It isn't without its flaws I think its a good idea in theory, the problem is of course implementing it due to high cost and all sorts of red tape

I am of the opinion that if I.D cards were needed to get benefits, NHS access, employment as well as other things, the government, police or whoever might well find it easier to trace down benefit fraudsters or other public service abusers.

Of course there is always going to be the risk of fake I.D cards being sold on the black market. But if they have proposed a way of putting fingerprint and retina data on the card, then it would greatly reduce the chances of people using stolen ones.

Although having said that, I doubt all the benefit offices will have retina scanners anytime soon. But I believe it could work. We won't know until we try

It would only be worth doing -- economically speaking -- if the scheme would save more money than it cost. Given that the current pulled-out-of-David-Blunkett's-arse costs are hovering around £3bn, with the actual cost likely to be many times higher even before we start putting retina scanners in dole offices, it starts to make less and less sense as a scheme to catch benefit cheats. It would be using an ICBM to crack a pretty insignificant nut.


Also it'll be heavily IT dependent, and the Government doesn't have a brilliant track record on anything to do IT. They prefer value to quality.

That is certainly very true.

It isn't without its flaws I think its a good idea in theory, the problem is of course implementing it due to high cost and all sorts of red tape

Also another small problem. We already have an ID system in place for benefits. It's called your National Insurance number. Obviously the benefits system can be cheated even with an ID system in place, or this argument wouldn't be happening.

And when people start talking about ID cards as "benefit entitlement" cards, I shudder. As anyone who knows how such systems have been used to abuse in the past would.

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m2267/2_68/77187772/p1/article.jhtml?term=

Enjoy.

Yet more news. People who want compulsory ID/entitlement cards, you really aren't going to like this:

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2868433

Of course you could like the idea of this. I suppose it fits right along with making political dissidents wear black triangles.

--
Moonshine
CrystalDragon on Espernet IRC

So how many steps is that from making Jewish people wear the Star of David?