Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
waste o' money though
except that its not really been abandoned has it? just not made compulsary for certain groups of workers.
Im a bit puzzled by the whole proposal though, i mean why do they want them? and IF they really do want them (rather than it just a scheme to appear to be doing something) then surely the uptake of them would be greater if they didnt charge people for them?
Is there a reason or purpose to them?
and I assume most people won't want to pay for one
but I can see how my grammar has led to an 'eats shoot and leaves' type misunderstanding.
i signed a petition against them in birmingham on friday. they didnt coerce me over or anything either, i saw it and marched straight up to show my support.
that item of information ;)
saying im against i.d cards? im perfectly happy to give it.
(and i didnt need many personla details at all for the petition)
is that that goes "you wont mind carrying them if you havnt got anything to hide"
basically people who argue this must have nazi tendancies (If they can make unfounded presumptions then so can i)
I resent the implication that if you don't want them you must be a criminal or in some way a bit dodgy
Its an old technique used in many other circumstances too, just boldly saying that one thing means another.
I often get a similar thing when criticising capitalism (well the capitalism that we have) because of this people call me a commie (which Im not)
Similarly if one criticises the lamentable level of democracy that we have (cos we havnt developed it further) then people say oh you'd rather live under hitler or stalin eh? or in mayanamar or n korea.
Its a stupid argument of saying that if you are against one thing then you must support or be something else that is terrible, it is due to a huge ignorance on behalf of the arguer in thinking that reality is polarised as much as the political argument tries to arrange itself (due to the slightly polarised nature of confrontational party politics) This bipolarness idea seems to have spread to much of the population when it comes to them discussing political issues.
They are morons and this makes the concept of 'my destiney in their hands even less appealing'
is flexible....governments will move the goalposts.
and smile and that. BLOODY PASSPORT PHOTOS.
is really quite astounding.
but we could just like, y'know, not pay for the cards? I'd like to see the Government take legal action against the entire populations of Greater Manchester and London for not coughing up.
According to the rags, we've already paid for ID cards.
Now we wait to see to what extent we'll be paying for them again.
It just occurs to me that if we all get sent a letter asking us to cough up £x and most of us don't, not much could be done about unless Government officials come round our houses, hold us upside down and shake us by the ankles.
I'm confident there'll be some kind of excellently antagonistic scheme to combat this. Something like "If you don't have an ID card then you can never go to Alton Towers again. Or get a job."
Thorpe Park is my favourite
(actually funded by the gov)
these things would have had such a huge margin for error. i used to work on a countywide smartcard concessionary bus pass scheme which was using basic ID card technology....it fucked up on a weekly basis....and as far as i'm aware still does. i would spend days cleaning up erroroneous data, sometimes info would just disappear into black holes never to be found again.
That anyone who renews or applies for a new passport will still be entered into the ID card database? I'm doing exactly this on Saturday, so kind of concerned.
You mean 'hysterical and nonsensical because of media ridiculousness', right?
I could just about see why, despite not being pro-ID card myself, someone else might be in favour of them as an idea. But there are still some quite hefty practical issues to be considered. Data protection has time and time again proved to be something of a problem for the Government and local councils.
But I can see the arguments for and they're certainly reasonable. The only argument against that makes any sense is the issue of cost. Anything else is just hysteria.
The information stored on them is stuff that the government already have for the most part with various departments etc, and if there were any issues with data protection, having ID cards would do a lot for combating them. Such a database would be given considerable protection anyhow. Most of the 'lost' details from government departments / councils etc have been fairly minor things that nobody could use to cause harm.
They lost literally thousands of CSA records, all of which contained very sensitive personal and financial details for numerous people. There are other similar examples, as well as examples of relatively useless/unimportant data being lost and the media, as you say, creating a hysteria about it. I'm not sure that the importance of the data lost really matters when considering just how often the powers-that-be manage to lose it though, as the very loss doesn't really inspire confidence.
There are also valid concerns regarding the technical methods that would be used (most electronic card schemes experience a great deal of data corruption) and again, as you've said, the finanical cost.
I think that in practical terms you're probably right; the Government isn't some malevolent force out to exact evils against your or my person, and they aren't likely to gain access to any information they don't already have via the use of these cards and the associated database. That isn't what concerns many people though; it's the idea of being that traceable, of having everything about you reduced to a series of quantifiable fields, of losing (or at least having to share) ownership of what makes you you. Perhaps you feel that's stupid but I'd say it's a valid concern.
in building a system of this magnitude, and it only takes one bloke having a slightly off day to make a mistake that could potentially blow the entire thing completely open, particularly when the data, or subsets thereof, will apparently be made available to as many agencies as this one is going to be.
The technical undertaking here is on a scale that's not been achieved (in this country at least) before and the implications of the data being lost could *potentially* be on a scale that we haven't yet seen before.
Done properly, I'm not hugely worried about the civil liberties thing, but the fact is that it's extremely rare that an IT project goes 100% smoothly - anything less than that success rate in terms of data security and integrity for this one just isn't good enough.
No need to be nasty.
would have been a better choice.
As DanielKelly says, while our Labour government has clearly proven to be utterly trust-worthy and perfect in their ideologies for us, but others might not be quite so clean cut. They'll have access to this database where they'll know alot of stuff about me. I shouldn't have to not leave the country in order to not be added to this goldmine of information about the UK's citizens.
What do you think about the ID card situation Nymeria?
Or have easy ways of finding it out. What kind of reason could anyone have for not wanting the government to know information about them other than a penchant for engaging in illegal activities?
governments can change goalposts ...and as i've already mentioned there are HUGE margins of error with this technology, erroneous data, data disappearing, people being wrongly 'blacklisted' etc
Apart from the fact that all the useful information intended to be held on the ID card database already exists and that the companies who the government will be calling on to implement this because about as competent as a cardboard teapot - the advent of mandatory ID cards changes the relationship between US and THEY from 'public servants politely asking us for our co-operation in helping to make a better tomorrow' to 'imperial eunuchs requiring that we prostrate ourselves before the seat of heaven for £40'.
Lastly, though it may be a bit... Spartist to think like this, but opposition makes them think. How fucked up would this country be if we just agreed to every scheme they put in front of us?
As long as it was demonstrated that such prostration would be more efficient than the existing overly-complicated tax system we have, that is.
Nymeria wins the prize for wheeling out the argument that I singled out as being supremely stupid (way up there somewhere ^)
and a wry smile crossed my face.
would be the main reason...
or not at all. A middle ground is pointless, I'm not disagreeing there.