A stolen credit card can be cancelled, and, if you read, i covered my points on that a few posts back. As for what good fingerprints are - WHOA - Lots m8, you CAN make fake fingerprints ya know, falseies that fit over your regular tipsies, now a big ole bank robber grabs your tippies and makes copies he can lash to his own with sealant, he then commits a crime, whos prints are at the scene ?
YOURS.
Did you know that every time you attempt to get a creditcard, your data is storred in 4 different places... make more than 4 try's and you get blacklisted as a credit risk... you havent done anything yet though, but you still get blacklisted lol ..... Ok so they get ur NI number, theres a shitload of stuff they can access with that - take the job centre for example, when you talk with them on the phone, thats the first thing they ask for... do you want unknowns accessing your work record by phone ? How about your medical number and blood type.... do i want ppl poking around in my medical history - HELL NO !!
I dont call this paranoid at all, i call it justified caution.
Big Brother is watching you!
Let me tell you something in case you don't know... fingerprints aren't stored in digital form and accessible UNLESS you commit a crime or felony first. After that they become part of a cataloged and searchable database. Also I would have to be pretty much unlucky for MY fingerprints to appear on a crime scene totally at random... a thief or terrorist would rather use other known fingerprints... not an anonimous one. So that doesn't bother me.
About the rest I made it clear that the stored info would need to be simple (ss number, which anyone can access anyway, using a phone call) and not that valuable (no bank info, for instance).
Also, I rather have my bloodtype in that card and be accessed (or viewable right away) when needed (in an accident, for example) than NOT have it and lead to a time consuming search on a database of my medical history JUST for that simple info... but it's my opinion...
About the rest I made it clear that the stored info would need to be simple (ss number, which anyone can access anyway, using a phone call) and not that valuable (no bank info, for instance).
Also, I rather have my bloodtype in that card and be accessed (or viewable right away) when needed (in an accident, for example) than NOT have it and lead to a time consuming search on a database of my medical history JUST for that simple info... but it's my opinion...
Last edited by DaveT on 22/12/2004 - 12:30, edited 1 time in total.
I think some people here are missing the point. Storage of information per se is NOT the key issue - the national population database is. This is legislation that's so controversial that the German government specifically passed a law to make sure it COULDN'T happen in that country. It provides all those with access to one of the natpop entry points access to EVERY OTHER PIECE OF INFORMATION ABOUT YOU that is stored. Everything. The NHS can check your tax records, for instance. It's been mooted that some of those that will have access to the natpop db are NOT government agencies, either.
Also, I don't understand why DaveT keeps thinking Americans and Brits are somehow not accountable without an ID card. I have a driver's licence and passport! I have a national insurance card! Good griefâ€â€why is the government not just updating our national insurance cards with a photo, if all it wants is a basic ID card? Because it's NOT a basic ID card, that's why!
The government claims ID cards stop terrorism: that didn't seem to be the case in Spain; nor did we have ID cards when the IRA was active.
The government claims ID cards will cut down on benefit fraud. Well, whoop-de-do. I'm sure it's well worth spending at least FIVE *BILLION* POUNDS to stop £50m of benefit fraud (which is usually written off anywayâ€â€none of the banks care)! Also, it's worth noting that the initial estimate of costs was £3bn, and it's now £5.5bn. Some analysts predict the final cost, including all materials, will be closer to £12bn - £15bn. Of course, the tax payer foots the bill. If you're pro-ID card, don't complain when you're paying more taxes next year, and when your passport costs close to £100 and has to be renewed every five years.
The government claims ID cards will (get thisâ€â€one of Clarke's recent ones) enable you to get a card at a video library! Yippee! My dreams have come true. (Well, apart from the fact I already have a video library card, which required me to have... ... an addressed bill.)
The government is also passing various related laws that are shockingly draconiun (see earlier in this thread); sure, SOME of them are for very specific circumstances, but others are not. Do you really think it's okay to potentially be landed with a £2,500 fine or a two-year jail sentence for forgetting to inform the government that you lost your card, or that you changed your address?
Also, the government is lying/being VERY economical with other truths:
- It claims 80 per cent are in favour. That figure is very old and came from extremely biased questions. The actual figure from various other polls is now around 50 per cent and is steadily dropping.
- It claims it can deal with the rollout of the system, when it's failed in the past with EVERY SINGLE IT system it's tried to implement.
- It say the card won't be compulsary. However, it will be compulsary to sign up to the database, which amounts to the exact same thing.
- It says you won't have to carry the card with you. This is a red herring, seeing as YOU are the card.
The UK card proposals are not merely an ID card. They are not the equivalent of Iceland's kennitala, which holds your name, address, marital status, and date of birth. They are not the equivalent of ID cards in other European states, which hold some other basic information, too. They go much, much further, but it appears the general public is happy to drop its rights to privacy and certain freedoms in return for some potential convenience and some empty promises about terrorism.
I'm not against ID cards per se (although I have yet to hear a single argument in favour of them that I agree with); I am, however, totally and utterly against the current government proposals, which I think are a disgrace, yet par for the course for this government, which seems intent on getting rid of things like trial by jury, too.
Question: if this scheme is so great for Britain, why does the government have to constantly lie about it to the general public?
Also, I don't understand why DaveT keeps thinking Americans and Brits are somehow not accountable without an ID card. I have a driver's licence and passport! I have a national insurance card! Good griefâ€â€why is the government not just updating our national insurance cards with a photo, if all it wants is a basic ID card? Because it's NOT a basic ID card, that's why!
The government claims ID cards stop terrorism: that didn't seem to be the case in Spain; nor did we have ID cards when the IRA was active.
The government claims ID cards will cut down on benefit fraud. Well, whoop-de-do. I'm sure it's well worth spending at least FIVE *BILLION* POUNDS to stop £50m of benefit fraud (which is usually written off anywayâ€â€none of the banks care)! Also, it's worth noting that the initial estimate of costs was £3bn, and it's now £5.5bn. Some analysts predict the final cost, including all materials, will be closer to £12bn - £15bn. Of course, the tax payer foots the bill. If you're pro-ID card, don't complain when you're paying more taxes next year, and when your passport costs close to £100 and has to be renewed every five years.
The government claims ID cards will (get thisâ€â€one of Clarke's recent ones) enable you to get a card at a video library! Yippee! My dreams have come true. (Well, apart from the fact I already have a video library card, which required me to have... ... an addressed bill.)
The government is also passing various related laws that are shockingly draconiun (see earlier in this thread); sure, SOME of them are for very specific circumstances, but others are not. Do you really think it's okay to potentially be landed with a £2,500 fine or a two-year jail sentence for forgetting to inform the government that you lost your card, or that you changed your address?
Also, the government is lying/being VERY economical with other truths:
- It claims 80 per cent are in favour. That figure is very old and came from extremely biased questions. The actual figure from various other polls is now around 50 per cent and is steadily dropping.
- It claims it can deal with the rollout of the system, when it's failed in the past with EVERY SINGLE IT system it's tried to implement.
- It say the card won't be compulsary. However, it will be compulsary to sign up to the database, which amounts to the exact same thing.
- It says you won't have to carry the card with you. This is a red herring, seeing as YOU are the card.
The UK card proposals are not merely an ID card. They are not the equivalent of Iceland's kennitala, which holds your name, address, marital status, and date of birth. They are not the equivalent of ID cards in other European states, which hold some other basic information, too. They go much, much further, but it appears the general public is happy to drop its rights to privacy and certain freedoms in return for some potential convenience and some empty promises about terrorism.
I'm not against ID cards per se (although I have yet to hear a single argument in favour of them that I agree with); I am, however, totally and utterly against the current government proposals, which I think are a disgrace, yet par for the course for this government, which seems intent on getting rid of things like trial by jury, too.
Question: if this scheme is so great for Britain, why does the government have to constantly lie about it to the general public?
Like I said, it depends on the question. The typical question being asked is something like this:
"Would you be in favour of an ID card if it stopped terrorism, benefit fraud, and made it easier for you to go about your everyday life?"
To be frank, it amazes me that the figure is as low as 80 per cent, based on that...
"Would you be in favour of an ID card if it stopped terrorism, benefit fraud, and made it easier for you to go about your everyday life?"
To be frank, it amazes me that the figure is as low as 80 per cent, based on that...
