NationStates Jolt Archive

The British government is trying to introduce compulsory ID cards by 2013 [see the other thread]. These cards, which will be compulsory, will cost £35 and if you don't pay you will be fined £2,500 (then be made to pay for the card). It won't benefit us in any considerable way, and will only help the government keep tabs on us, but we have to pay for the priveledge of having a useless piece of plactic with some technology on it.

It has a ring of the Mafia about in my ears. Buy this [which you don't need] or we'll exort a stupid amount of money out of you.

Although I neither disagree or agree with this, i wouldn't call it unfair for the citizens to pay for it. It happens all the time. You pay for license, license plates..

ya, but you know this is going to turn into some sort of "Minority Report" thing where machines scan your hand and the adds introduce themselves to you in your first name.

Although I neither disagree or agree with this, i wouldn't call it unfair for the citizens to pay for it. It happens all the time. You pay for license, license plates..

But they are not compulsory (unless you are forced to buy cars), also they have some utility, these cards don't.

Will it have hidden info in them that could be detected by a GPS system?

Whatever, sounds very underhanded.

Big Brother is watching....

This is the MARK of the BEAST!

Don't take it!! Protest NOW while you still can!!

REVALATION is coming to pass: There are unmaned flying machines called "Predators" that shoot "Hellfire" The "Swarm" is in development right now! http://www.raidersnewsupdate.com/manufacturing_armageddon.htm

*bump*

Not necessarily blackmail, though I can see why it's constured that way. Oh well, we'll all just numbers anyway.

Their argument--and I imagine it will make its way across the Atlantic sooner rather than later--is that the issue of international terrorism makes it necessary for security reasons for the UK (and the US eventually) to be able to identify its own citizens with absolute certainty. (They'll be going for a little piece of DNA eventually.) It won't do anything to address internal acts of terrorism, a la McVeigh, and it won't stop people who come into the country legally, like Mohammed Atta, but we can take hope in the fact that it will make us easier to keep track of, especially if we don't know how to keep our mouths shut when it comes to criticizing the party in power, whichever one it is at the time.

Their argument--and I imagine it will make its way across the Atlantic sooner rather than later--is that the issue of international terrorism makes it necessary for security reasons for the UK (and the US eventually) to be able to identify its own citizens with absolute certainty. (They'll be going for a little piece of DNA eventually.) It won't do anything to address internal acts of terrorism, a la McVeigh, and it won't stop people who come into the country legally, like Mohammed Atta, but we can take hope in the fact that it will make us easier to keep track of, especially if we don't know how to keep our mouths shut when it comes to criticizing the party in power, whichever one it is at the time.

In this (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=142134&highlight=)thread many examples are given how it cannot work.

The main one, in my opinion, is that it will not be fully implemented until 2013. Which gives the terrorist plenty of time to plan and carry out attacks.

Also, this scheme is not like the one implemented in WWII, it is far more reaching in its scope and it is here to stay. We [the British public] will be treated as suspects with all our details easily available to the government whilst it remains completely opaque.

Your points are valid, but I also think it won't stop terrorist entering illegally to commint acts of violence. If we have to produce documentation then Tex will begin to seem rational, with little distinguishing society from the dystopia in Revolations.

I hate the idea and think that it should resisted everywhere and in everyway.

Their argument--and I imagine it will make its way across the Atlantic sooner rather than later--is that the issue of international terrorism makes it necessary for security reasons for the UK (and the US eventually) to be able to identify its own citizens with absolute certainty. (They'll be going for a little piece of DNA eventually.) It won't do anything to address internal acts of terrorism, a la McVeigh, and it won't stop people who come into the country legally, like Mohammed Atta, but we can take hope in the fact that it will make us easier to keep track of, especially if we don't know how to keep our mouths shut when it comes to criticizing the party in power, whichever one it is at the time.

In this (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=142134&highlight=)thread many examples are given how it cannot work.

The main one, in my opinion, is that it will not be fully implemented until 2013. Which gives the terrorist plenty of time to plan and carry out attacks.

Also, this scheme is not like the one implemented in WWII, it is far more reaching in its scope and it is here to stay. We [the British public] will be treated as suspects with all our details easily available to the government whilst it remains completely opaque.

Your points are valid, but I also think it won't stop terrorist entering illegally to commint acts of violence. If we have to produce documentation then Tex will begin to seem rational, with little distinguishing society from the dystopia in Revolations.

I hate the idea and think that it should resisted everywhere and in everyway.I think it should be too--I was trying to couch my explanation in sarcastic terms so as to show that it wouldn't have stopped the most recent terrorist attacks against the US, but I guess I wasn't quite clear enough.

I think it should be too--I was trying to couch my explanation in sarcastic terms so as to show that it wouldn't have stopped the most recent terrorist attacks against the US, but I guess I wasn't quite clear enough.

No, I did get you. But I got a bit carried away, and forgot why I originaly quoted you, it is quite an emotive issue for me. And I usually try and stay away from these issues as I get carried away and forget what I'm meant to be answering.

London is also the most video-taped city on Earth. You're being watched like no place else. Of course, a socialist government always loves its people, naturally, so pay no attention.

London is also the most video-taped city on Earth. You're being watched like no place else. Of course, a socialist government always loves its people, naturally, so pay no attention.

Another good reason why I'll never live in London.

The British government is trying to introduce compulsory ID cards by 2013 [see the other thread]. These cards, which will be compulsory, will cost £35 and if you don't pay you will be fined £2,500 (then be made to pay for the card). It won't benefit us in any considerable way, and will only help the government keep tabs on us, but we have to pay for the priveledge of having a useless piece of plactic with some technology on it.

It has a ring of the Mafia about in my ears. Buy this [which you don't need] or we'll exort a stupid amount of money out of you.
I don't think Mafia is the correct word.

The British government is trying to introduce compulsory ID cards by 2013 [see the other thread]. These cards, which will be compulsory, will cost £35 and if you don't pay you will be fined £2,500 (then be made to pay for the card). It won't benefit us in any considerable way, and will only help the government keep tabs on us, but we have to pay for the priveledge of having a useless piece of plactic with some technology on it.

It has a ring of the Mafia about in my ears. Buy this [which you don't need] or we'll exort a stupid amount of money out of you.
I don't think Mafia is the correct word.

What would you sugest?

No problem. I get emotional on occasion as well.

The problem is that the government does have a legitimate security interest, up to a point, to know who their citizens are. That point is what's at debate. There are those who claim that the right to privacy is absolute--hate to break it to them, but no right is absolute. It's important, and it ought to be protected as much as is feasible, but it's far from absolute.

I don't fly often, but it does happen, and I have to admit that the libertarian in me bristles at the fact that I am forced to show a picture ID to board a plane. But I weigh that irritation against the convenience that the plane ride provides me versus driving or taking a bus to my destination and I pull the ID out.

Every step forward we make as a society toward complexity generally requires a diminishing of our personal independence. That's the trade-off. Each of us has to decide where we say "too much."

Every step forward we make as a society toward complexity generally requires a diminishing of our personal independence. That's the trade-off. Each of us has to decide where we say "too much."

But a compulsary ID card takes that decission away from us...

The card violates every aspect of privacy and will only result in the State knowing everywhere you go, everything you buy, and everything you do!

That's not FREEDOM!

No problem. I get emotional on occasion as well.

The problem is that the government does have a legitimate security interest, up to a point, to know who their citizens are. That point is what's at debate. There are those who claim that the right to privacy is absolute--hate to break it to them, but no right is absolute. It's important, and it ought to be protected as much as is feasible, but it's far from absolute.

Well not to go off on a tangent about another topic I find emotive. The British are subjects rather than citizens. We have no rights other than the basic ones in the European Convention of Human Rights, which I don't think gaurentee the right to privacy. But rights, IMHO, are a product of society, and society as such can take take them away (almost on a whim).

Also, the government recognises that it will not help security that much (see a post in the thread I mentioned above). ID cards will not help national security in anyway at all.

I don't fly often, but it does happen, and I have to admit that the libertarian in me bristles at the fact that I am forced to show a picture ID to board a plane. But I weigh that irritation against the convenience that the plane ride provides me versus driving or taking a bus to my destination and I pull the ID out.

There is a marked difference between proving you are who you say you are and the state having a database which stores the details of it's subjects/ctizens etc.

Every step forward we make as a society toward complexity generally requires a diminishing of our personal independence. That's the trade-off. Each of us has to decide where we say "too much."
Debatable. Which deserves another thread, and if such a thread is created you will probably whup my sorry little ass.

Every step forward we make as a society toward complexity generally requires a diminishing of our personal independence. That's the trade-off. Each of us has to decide where we say "too much."

But a compulsary ID card takes that decission away from us...

The card violates every aspect of privacy and will only result in the State knowing everywhere you go, everything you buy, and everything you do!

That's not FREEDOM!I agree completely, especially since it doesn't involve a trade off that significantly benefits the society.

Here's an example of a good tradeoff. In order to operate a car in any state in the US, a person must obtain a driver's license. In order to obtain a driver's license, one must provide certain personal information and pass a couple of tests. The benefits are that the money collected for the license provides in part for the infrastructure that the auto operates on, and that one knows that his or her fellow drivers are capable of operating an automobile safely. I consider that a fair trade. If I don't, I always have the option of walking or using some other manner of conveyance, or of breaking the law and taking my lumps if I get busted.

But the national ID card--unless it can be proven to measurably enhance the security of the nation and perhaps not even then--doesn't offer that kind of tradeoff. It offers only a reduction in individual independence; there is no resultant benefit.

Here's an example of a good tradeoff. In order to operate a car in any state in the US, a person must obtain a driver's license. In order to obtain a driver's license, one must provide certain personal information and pass a couple of tests. The benefits are that the money collected for the license provides in part for the infrastructure that the auto operates on, and that one knows that his or her fellow drivers are capable of operating an automobile safely. I consider that a fair trade. If I don't, I always have the option of walking or using some other manner of conveyance, or of breaking the law and taking my lumps if I get busted.


I would agree, but now people have to thumb scan to get a driver's license! If I'm a citizen -- and I can drive, why do they need my prints?

(what is this, Nazi Germany?)

Every step forward we make as a society toward complexity generally requires a diminishing of our personal independence. That's the trade-off. Each of us has to decide where we say "too much."
Debatable. Which deserves another thread, and if such a thread is created you will probably whup my sorry little ass.Rather than debate it, I'll just recommend a book that discusses it in greater detail than I could ever repeat--Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny by Robert Wright. You can get excerpts online with a simple google search. It's basically an application of game theory to history--fascinating stuff. It's on my top five list of books that should be required reading for all humans everywhere.

Every step forward we make as a society toward complexity generally requires a diminishing of our personal independence. That's the trade-off. Each of us has to decide where we say "too much."
Debatable. Which deserves another thread, and if such a thread is created you will probably whup my sorry little ass.Rather than debate it, I'll just recommend a book that discusses it in greater detail than I could ever repeat--Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny by Robert Wright. You can get excerpts online with a simple google search. It's basically an application of game theory to history--fascinating stuff. It's on my top five list of books that should be required reading for all humans everywhere.

Thank you. I'll look for it.

I would agree, but now people have to thumb scan to get a driver's license! If I'm a citizen -- and I can drive, why do they need my prints?

(what is this, Nazi Germany?)Their argument would undoubtedly involve identity theft as an issue, and today, thanks to the advancement in scanners and home publishing, they may have a point. Personally, I think it's getting real close to the line, but I can still see their point of view. This isn't Nazi Germany--in some ways, it's a far more dangerous world, and what many in law enforcement are trying to do is make their little part of society safer. Their line is undoubtedly farther along the scale than yours or mine is, but you do them a disservice by accusing them of trying to turn everyone into soulless slaves of the state. They're just doing the jobs we ask them to do. They get overeager and we pull them back--it's a constant struggle.

Think of this analogy--it's possible to create an automobile that is virtually unstoppable and completely safe. It would make a tank look like a Mini, bt it could be done. But what do you lose in the process? It would go about 4 mph and would have to be powered by something other than a internal combustion engine, but it would be safe. But it's impractical. So we make tradeoffs. No armor. Smaller engine. Quicker in hopes of avoiding obstacles. You get the idea. So our cars aren't as safe as they could be, but they're safer than they were. We've reached a compromise. The extremes in society are anarchy and an totalitarian police state. We're just trying to come down somewhere in the middle.

Their argument would undoubtedly involve identity theft as an issue, and today, thanks to the advancement in scanners and home publishing, they may have a point. Personally, I think it's getting real close to the line, but I can still see their point of view. This isn't Nazi Germany--in some ways, it's a far more dangerous world, and what many in law enforcement are trying to do is make their little part of society safer. Their line is undoubtedly farther along the scale than yours or mine is, but you do them a disservice by accusing them of trying to turn everyone into soulless slaves of the state. They're just doing the jobs we ask them to do. They get overeager and we pull them back--it's a constant struggle.


Are you sure? The courts have already thrown out the 4th Amendment:
http://www.theneworleanschannel.com/news/2953483/detail.html

How much more of the constitution do they have to dismantle before I can call them "fascists" ?

Are you sure? The courts have already thrown out the 4th Amendment:
http://www.theneworleanschannel.com/news/2953483/detail.html

How much more of the constitution do they have to dismantle before I can call them "fascists" ?I think you're overreacting a bit. First off, it's a District Court decision and the decision was about as split as it can get--one pro, one split in the concurrence, and one anti. So it will get appealed, first to the entire court, and if that fails, to the Supreme Court. Once the big dogs rule, talk to me.

But looking at the facts of the case as they're reported--and I'm only going on that--I'd say that the cops are on pretty reasonable ground. They were allowed into the home and were securing the area to protect themselves from a guy with felony convictions for violent offenses. I'll admit up front that there's probably more to the story. I grew up in that area of Louisiana--lived 20 miles from there not 5 years ago--so I know what the cops are like. But the 4th Amendment hasn't been tossed onto the trash heap just yet--there are plenty of steps between here and there.

I think you're overreacting a bit.

http://prisonplanet.tv/audio/042704warren.htm

I just don't want this to happen to my grandmother...

As described herein, the government should either make it mandatory OR charge a fee. It could be like those safety cards the DMV pass out. Not a drivers license, but it is a government accepted photo ID proving you are you to their satisfaction. If you don't want one, don't get it; but like the folks at the airport be ready for some inconvience when stopped by the local constables. Or the government eats the costs so even poor street bums are expected to have one or else.

Of course, if you can't afford a 35 pound fee, then a 2500 pound fine is something the government will just wind up being done out of anyway.

Emperor Pro-Tem "Big D"

it will reduce crime and you will only be worried about it if you have something to hide.

it will reduce crime and you will only be worried about it if you have something to hide.

Oh boy, sign me up for the next TELESCREEN install!



Back to reality: What crime will an ID card reduce?

The British government is trying to introduce compulsory ID cards by 2013 [see the other thread]. These cards, which will be compulsory, will cost £35 and if you don't pay you will be fined £2,500 (then be made to pay for the card). It won't benefit us in any considerable way, and will only help the government keep tabs on us, but we have to pay for the priveledge of having a useless piece of plactic with some technology on it.

It has a ring of the Mafia about in my ears. Buy this [which you don't need] or we'll exort a stupid amount of money out of you.

It's just another form of taxation.

The British government is trying to introduce compulsory ID cards by 2013 [see the other thread]. These cards, which will be compulsory, will cost £35 and if you don't pay you will be fined £2,500 (then be made to pay for the card). It won't benefit us in any considerable way, and will only help the government keep tabs on us, but we have to pay for the priveledge of having a useless piece of plactic with some technology on it.

It has a ring of the Mafia about in my ears. Buy this [which you don't need] or we'll exort a stupid amount of money out of you.

It's just another form of taxation.

yeah but normally taxation goes toward something we want or need. I don't think many people want these ID cards.

A school child's parents in the U.S. must pay $65 at the beginning of every school year to have their child enroll. In many states they must pay an additional $150 on school supplies - in Louisiana it is necessary to do so as the schools refuse to pay for your school supplies in any way. Then in some states (most prominantly Louisiana) the child must wear school uniforms. If any of these things are not met the child does not go to school.

If the child is not in school the parent is brought to jail.

I'm not going to cry anyone a river because they have to pay for an I.D. card that helps boost up security.

Roy del Fuego: "Of course, a socialist government always loves its people, naturally, so pay no attention"

Labour ain't socialist. Guess we should pay attention then.

As for the issue itself, I believe that irrespective of the civil liberties arguments, the ID scheme is unacceptable. It's poorly conceived, at risk of obsolescence by the time it finally gets implemented and it won't help at all.

And they'll fine us for refusing? Christ I'm sick of this country's political system. Where's my democratic avenue of protest? Vote for one of three parties that don't represent my views, give my vote to a minority party that has no influence or join the stay-at-homes. Brilliant.

DP

TP

I'm all in favour of ID cards.
I have no objection to carrying one, but I do agree that £35 is rather excessive for a piece of plastic. Pensioners and other people on benefits will not be able to afford it.
ID cards are only to be feared by people with something to hide, and I think they could be useful in reducing fraud and could hold very useful information such as allergies to Penicillin and other things which can otherwise cause medical disasters.

Big deal.

Here in Spain, ID cards are mandatory from the age of 14 (right to vote=18 ), and we have to pay about 5 euro to renew it every 10 years. Not having/carrying it will bring you to the police precinct to be IDed by your finger prints (index AND thumb) and a fine of 300 euro.

And yes, I have the ID number 46225XXX-A. (last three digits removed)

Of course, we come from a dictatorship (ever heard of Franco?), that was the one who implemented those measures.

Right now we are a Constitutional/Parlamentary Monarchy (= democracy?), but no one argued against the ID system.

So I laugh at your concerns, from the photo of my "Documento Nacional de Identidad". Hm. I think I will scan it and post it here. Later.

The British government is trying to introduce compulsory ID cards by 2013 [see the other thread]. These cards, which will be compulsory, will cost £35 and if you don't pay you will be fined £2,500 (then be made to pay for the card). It won't benefit us in any considerable way, and will only help the government keep tabs on us, but we have to pay for the priveledge of having a useless piece of plactic with some technology on it.

It has a ring of the Mafia about in my ears. Buy this [which you don't need] or we'll exort a stupid amount of money out of you.

Sounds more like a tax to me. But this time some of the money (like 1%?)you pay actually come back to you as a citizen. You should be grateful! :mrgreen:

The British government is trying to introduce compulsory ID cards by 2013 [see the other thread]. These cards, which will be compulsory, will cost £35 and if you don't pay you will be fined £2,500 (then be made to pay for the card). It won't benefit us in any considerable way, and will only help the government keep tabs on us, but we have to pay for the priveledge of having a useless piece of plactic with some technology on it.

It has a ring of the Mafia about in my ears. Buy this [which you don't need] or we'll exort a stupid amount of money out of you.

You are a fool, having ID cards is a good way to reduce terrorism. If everyone carries cards, we can:

1. Catch them by their ID card if they do something
2. if they have no idea card, then that narrows it down
3. Without an ID card, they can't come in by air

The British government is trying to introduce compulsory ID cards by 2013 [see the other thread]. These cards, which will be compulsory, will cost £35 and if you don't pay you will be fined £2,500 (then be made to pay for the card). It won't benefit us in any considerable way, and will only help the government keep tabs on us, but we have to pay for the priveledge of having a useless piece of plactic with some technology on it.

It has a ring of the Mafia about in my ears. Buy this [which you don't need] or we'll exort a stupid amount of money out of you.

You are a fool, having ID cards is a good way to reduce terrorism. If everyone carries cards, we can:

1. Catch them by their ID card if they do something
2. if they have no idea card, then that narrows it down
3. Without an ID card, they can't come in by air

Almighty Sephiroth: "You are a fool"

Erm... no, he isn't. Have you considered the possibility of forgery?

You are a fool, having ID cards is a good way to reduce terrorism. If everyone carries cards, we can:

1. Catch them by their ID card if they do something
2. if they have no idea card, then that narrows it down
3. Without an ID card, they can't come in by air

Even Blunkett has admitted it won't stop terrorism. They can still get in legally (also illegally, the English Channel isn't that large). The air isn't the only way to enter a country. Also, Read Incertonia's first post.

Also, finding out who is responsible for suicide bombing it too little too late. It won't change anything, their mission is accomplished and they are dead (along witht their victims). Also it will only be universal in 2013, which gives terrorists plenty of time to plan.

It will also be very expensive to set up, a bill footed by the tax payer. And to add insult to injury, after we've paid for the database, we have to pay for the priviledge to be in the database, with no option (save emmigrating) for opting out. We get nothing out of it. It doesn't make us more secure in any way, shape or form. But the governemtn does get something out of it, but they don't have to pay for it, so it is win-win for them, and lose-lose for us.

*bump*

Blunket was suggesting for a while that it would help to stop terrorism, and then the terrible tradgedy in spain happened, spain being a country where id cards are in use. obviously id cards didn't help all that much. and now blunkett has stopped that line of promotion and is using the 'it'll cut down on organised crime' line. if the crime's that organised they'll be faking them before us citizens get real ones

I personally wouldn't mind the idea of an id card that could be my drivers licence, passport, proof of age all in one, this would save a lot of hassle, and would be easy to sort out if you get your bag stolen etc. what concerns me is the idea of storing biometric data on them. finger prints, retina scans, records of the exact size of the features of your face. is a photo not enough?

Anyone here happen to know just what private firm has been selected to contain/review the information and whether or not they intend to outsource to another country?
Just checking. That's the intention stream .....

I personally wouldn't mind the idea of an id card that could be my drivers licence, passport, proof of age all in one, this would save a lot of hassle, and would be easy to sort out if you get your bag stolen etc. what concerns me is the idea of storing biometric data on them. finger prints, retina scans, records of the exact size of the features of your face. is a photo not enough?That's the kind of tradeoff I was talking about in earlier posts. For you, the convenience outweighs any potential loss of independence or the potential for the government to track your whereabouts.

I have to admit that my increasing reliance on my debit card bothers me some. I'm frightened of the day approaching when cash becomes meaningless.

I don't understand the convieniance point. I see no possible utility in these (other than stuff the Government will make up). I am fine with my passport and drivers license being seperate (btw, if you have either a passport or drivers license then you have proof of age).

My incapability to see the utility of the cards, either for the private citizen or the government, makes me suspect more sinister motives. This is not due to irrational paranioa (sp?), but due to the fact that it has no overt use.

:oops:

I don't understand the convieniance point. I see no possible utility in these (other than stuff the Government will make up). I am fine with my passport and drivers license being seperate (btw, if you have either a passport or drivers license then you have proof of age).

My incapability to see the utility of the cards, either for the private citizen or the government, makes me suspect more sinister motives. This is not due to irrational paranioa (sp?), but due to the fact that it has no overt use.I agree with you, but for others, the tradeoff is worth it. It's not worth it to me, but there are plenty of people who either trust their government implicitly or who just don't care enough to raise a stink about it.

I don't understand the convieniance point. I see no possible utility in these (other than stuff the Government will make up). I am fine with my passport and drivers license being seperate (btw, if you have either a passport or drivers license then you have proof of age).

My incapability to see the utility of the cards, either for the private citizen or the government, makes me suspect more sinister motives. This is not due to irrational paranioa (sp?), but due to the fact that it has no overt use.
I agree with you, but for others, the tradeoff is worth it. It's not worth it to me, but there are plenty of people who either trust their government implicitly or who just don't care enough to raise a stink about it.

But should people who don't think the trade off is worth it have to get it? I'm fine with others wanting to getting it, it is their 'choice,' but I'm not fine with paying for something I don't want (for various reasons).