wrote in message
ps.com...
:::Jerry:::: wrote:

Do you drive (legally) ?.....

Nothing wrong with a license to drive, the annual slaughter
justifies
some basic checks on competence. Drivers license is not an ID card
that
must be carried to avoid prosecution.

However there is no comparable justification for a compulsory ID
card.


The point I'm making is that like it or not any of the present ID type
cards could and probably will be (if there is not a specific ID card)
made into a 'sudo ID card' [1] and it's carrying made compulsory, if
passports and drivers licenses are converted into 'sudo ID cards' that
alone will cover most of the adult population [2] - it's just a mater
of what information will be held on the card and why.

If HMG want us to have compulsory ID cards then we will have
compulsory ID cards, like it or not.

[1] talk has already started about converting passports into sudo ID
cards, whilst holding the same sort of info as the proposed ID card,
and if HMG wishes to go down this route they don't even need to place
the decision before Parliament AIUI - Passports being Crown and not
Parliament granted.

[2] yes it would be possible not to have any type of ID card but will
people really want to give up the 'right' to either go out of the
country or drive ?...

"chris French" wrote in message
...
In message , Alan
writes
In message .com,
wrote


Respect for the Police within the group of my 'law abiding'
friends
has fallen dramatically as more notice more and more Police tax
collection points on our major roads.

If they are law abiding what is the problem?

This 'tax'is easily avoided by dint of not breaking the relevant
law.

In one respect you are quite correct, but when speed limits are
reduced for no real reason and soon after a camera is erected you
really do have to ask what the real reasons are, now it could be that
they want to **** off so many motorists that they stop using their
cars and thus reduce the number of cars on the road but the more
likely reason is that it's a location that will generate income (what
ever the official line says).

I know of two cameras that have been erected within the last 18
months, both are sited for income generation rather than any safety
issues relating to speed, one is blatantly miss sited in so much that
the real danger point on the said road is a mile further down the road
(were people have been run down whilst crossing) *after* the camera -
drives can and do still exceed the speed limit at the danger point....

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Mike wrote:

Rumour has it next year's passports will require fingerprints anyway so
nobody is going to bother with iris scans or suchlike for ID cards.

The ICAO (is that the right ETLA?) will require a biometric on passports
- however all they *require* is a digitised facial biomtric - i.e. a
photograph.

It is the UK gov that is attempting to add FUD to justify their case by
saying that fingerprint or iris scans etc will also be required - they
won't, and there is currently no international treaty setup to use them
should it be there.

(Although the US are toying with the idea of RFID enabling passports to
facilitate quicker checks on them at immigration desks. This add the
reassuring prospect that someone will be able to skim all the usefull
informatiion from your passport just by walking close by you!)




About 2 seconds in a microwave oven should remove that particular danger.


--
Richard Sampson

mail me at
richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk

In message , chris French
wrote
In message , Alan
writes
In message .com,
wrote


Respect for the Police within the group of my 'law abiding' friends
has fallen dramatically as more notice more and more Police tax
collection points on our major roads.

If they are law abiding what is the problem?

No problem for the law abiding individual but it could be a problem for
law enforcement if respect for the Police no longer exists.

This 'tax'is easily avoided by dint of not breaking the relevant law.

The tax can be avoided by paying more attention to the roadside rather
than paying attention to what is in front of you. I'm sure this aids
road safety.

The Police can only operate if the population at large agrees to what
they are doing.

IMO, a large number people don't agree on how the yellow boxes and speed
traps are being operated by the Police and believe they have little to
do with road safety and more to do with generating cash.

How long before the majority of the population are classified as
criminals by these yellow boxes and who many of are going to have the
attitude of 'f**k them' when it comes to dealing with the Police in the
future.
--
Alan

chris French wrote:
In message , Alan
writes

Respect for the Police within the group of my 'law abiding' friends

has fallen dramatically

Although not perfect, there is still plenty of respect and cooperation
between police and public. Imagine what would happen to crime rates if
that evaporated entirely.


If they are law abiding what is the problem?

1. It is not whether one is law abiding that counts, it is whether
certain people think you are or not. The 2 are obviously different
things.

2. Are you going to tell us there has never been, is not currently, and
never will be any law that is unjust or even outrageous? Such laws
always exist, society is never perfect.

3. Will you put your hand on your heart and tell us there are never any
miscarriages of justice? Have you ever even been in a courrt and
appreciated the considerable problems involved in determining the truth
and the guilt or innocence?

4. And finally, if the law says you must carry ID cards, and you commit
the awful crime of walking peacefully down the street, and are
arrested, assaulted, strip searched, thrown into a cell, threatened,
prosecuted, and so on, will you still tell us its abiding by the law
that counts? And that what happened to you was in fact just? Can anyone
be so naive?


NT

:::Jerry:::: wrote:
wrote in message
ps.com...
:::Jerry:::: wrote:

Do you drive (legally) ?.....

Nothing wrong with a license to drive, the annual slaughter
justifies
some basic checks on competence. Drivers license is not an ID card
that
must be carried to avoid prosecution.

However there is no comparable justification for a compulsory ID
card.

The point I'm making is that like it or not any of the present ID
type
cards could and probably will be (if there is not a specific ID card)
made into a 'sudo ID card'

It is already used to prove ID, but this is fundamentally different to
the ID card proposed. The driving license is a different thing, has a
genuine justification, and is not a significant problem.


[1] and it's carrying made compulsory,

that is not possible, since at no time can everyone be expected to have
a driving license.


if
passports and drivers licenses are converted into 'sudo ID cards'
that
alone will cover most of the adult population [2] - it's just a mater
of what information will be held on the card and why.

no, these are very diffrent things to ID cards. The fact that they also
prove or semi-prove ID does not make them the same thing.


If HMG want us to have compulsory ID cards then we will have
compulsory ID cards, like it or not.

wrong, obviously. The government and the governed always exist in a
balance of power, and it must be so for society to remain reasonably
healthy.


[2] yes it would be possible not to have any type of ID card but will
people really want to give up the 'right' to either go out of the
country or drive ?...

License and passport arent ID cards. Look at what the problems are with
ID cards, quite different.


NT

wrote:
:::Jerry:::: wrote:




If HMG want us to have compulsory ID cards then we will have
compulsory ID cards, like it or not.


wrong, obviously. The government and the governed always exist in a
balance of power, and it must be so for society to remain reasonably
healthy.



So if a new government, of whatever party, enacts a law on May 6th (or
10th, or whenever it gets its act together) requiring compulsory ID
cards, we can... do what, exactly?

Bear in mind that the current large overall government majority results
from the votes of less than a quarter of the electorate.

wrote in message
oups.com...
snip

License and passport arent ID cards. Look at what the problems are
with

But they can be made into them quite easily. There has already been
talk about how passports could be made to hold the same information
that they want ID's cards to hold, what's more (as I've already said
before) they don't even need Parliamentary approval to do so.

ID cards, quite different.


It's no different, a database is a database. How secure that database
is, well. that's another issue.

The point is, if HMG want to introduce an ID card then they will, if
they have a majority and use the whip they will be able to make
carrying it compulsory, once introduced I can't see any future HMG
giving them up. QED...

"B Thumbs" wrote in message
...
snip

And a jolly good idea. Why shouldn't those who /choose/ to break the
law not
help out the local economy. I do speed at times, but i don't moan
when
caught.


You missed the vital line in the other posts "....but when speed
limits are reduced for no real reason and soon after a camera is
erected you really do have to ask what the real reasons are...." and
" For years the Council stonewalled them by saying traffic and
accident levels did not justify a camera.", I don't think anyone
object to the placing of cameras at danger spots but when speed limits
are reduced and then camera are installed it's nothing what so even to
do with preventing accidents.

In message , Andrew McKay
writes
John Rumm wrote:
Yup, that is why to fool them you have to cut out the pupil of the
photo and look through the hole while the photo is scanned ;-)

Shhh! There might be terrorists reading this newsgroup....

Well, at least we know that Blunkett isn't

(he's trying to make a comeback you know)

--
geoff

In message ws.net,
":::Jerry::::" writes

wrote in message
ups.com...
:::Jerry:::: wrote:

Do you drive (legally) ?.....

Nothing wrong with a license to drive, the annual slaughter
justifies
some basic checks on competence. Drivers license is not an ID card
that
must be carried to avoid prosecution.

However there is no comparable justification for a compulsory ID
card.


The point I'm making is that like it or not any of the present ID type
cards could and probably will be (if there is not a specific ID card)
made into a 'sudo ID card'

Do you mean pseudo ?

of not, what is sudo?


--
geoff

:::Jerry:::: wrote:
The point is, if HMG want to introduce an ID card then they will, if
they have a majority and use the whip they will be able to make
carrying it compulsory, once introduced I can't see any future HMG
giving them up. QED...

The govt don't have to make them overtly compulsory - they will become
the standard for all occasions where identity is desired (even if not
neeed), whether de facto or de jure. Sign up with a doctor or dentist,
sign up for evening classes, open a bank account, rent a flat /
television / car, start a new job, buy a new consumer unit ....

Owain

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
eenews.net...
The point is, if HMG want to introduce an ID card then they will, if
they have a majority and use the whip they will be able to make
carrying it compulsory, once introduced I can't see any future HMG
giving them up. QED...

They can introduce them but the judiciary can, have (in 1954) and hopefully
will again make having, let alone carrying them, optional.

"RichardS" wrote in message
...
(Although the US are toying with the idea of RFID enabling passports to
facilitate quicker checks on them at immigration desks. This add the
reassuring prospect that someone will be able to skim all the usefull
informatiion from your passport just by walking close by you!)

About 2 seconds in a microwave oven should remove that particular danger.

Uh ... how ?

"Alan" wrote in message
...

Respect for the Police within the group of my 'law abiding' friends
has fallen dramatically as more notice more and more Police tax
collection points on our major roads.

If they are law abiding what is the problem?

No problem for the law abiding individual but it could be a problem for
law enforcement if respect for the Police no longer exists.

This 'tax'is easily avoided by dint of not breaking the relevant law.

The tax can be avoided by paying more attention to the roadside rather
than paying attention to what is in front of you. I'm sure this aids
road safety.

The Police can only operate if the population at large agrees to what
they are doing.

IMO, a large number people don't agree on how the yellow boxes and speed
traps are being operated by the Police and believe they have little to
do with road safety and more to do with generating cash.

How long before the majority of the population are classified as
criminals by these yellow boxes and who many of are going to have the
attitude of 'f**k them' when it comes to dealing with the Police in the
future.

We're long past that phase round here. Not only speed cameras but lots of
other nonsense where the police seem to set their own priorities
irrespective of the views of local councillors or members of the public.
What we need are locally elected sheriffs like in the US to replace chief
constables.

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 18:03:27 UTC, raden wrote:

Do you mean pseudo ?

of not, what is sudo?

Dunno, but you can get cream for it at the chemist...!

--
Bob Eager
begin a new life...dump Windows!

raden wrote:
Shhh! There might be terrorists reading this newsgroup....

Well, at least we know that Blunkett isn't

Don't be too surprised if he is aware of what goes on in newsgroups. I
recently discovered that you can get web browsers that read out the text
from web pages, so a usenet message would be a doddle for a similar utility.

(he's trying to make a comeback you know)

And I predict that as soon as Labour are back in he will be too. Can't
quite predict which job he'll be given though. He's done education and
Home Secretary.

I always thought that Blundergit was a wasted talent in the Labour
party. How much more would his contribution be worth if he were made
minister for the disabled!

Andrew

--
Please note that the email address used for posting
usenet messages is configured such that my antispam
filter will automatically update itself so that the
senders email address is flagged as spam. If you do
need to contact me please visit my web site and
submit an enquiry - http://www.kazmax.co.uk

:::Jerry:::: wrote:

If HMG want us to have compulsory ID cards then we will have
compulsory ID cards, like it or not.

Pshaw. The democratic process in the UK isn't perfect, but if sufficient
people don't 'like it' it won't happen. Australia's experience with
their 'citizen card' is instructive: when initially planned, Publick
Opinion was sthg like 70% in support; as the debate progressed and the
proposals were scrutinised more carefully, the proportion swung the
other way, with 70% or so opposed. The plan was abandonulated.

Even the '80% of the population support the idea' survey (details at
http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews...rds-dec-04.asp
) shows the public support, with very little detailed discussion in the
popular media yet, to be very soft. In that survey, the first question
was, roughly, 'ID cards: good or bad?', 81% replying in the 'v good' or
'good' categories. There's then a series of further questions: 'national
biometrics register: good or bad' (no mention of comprehensive audit
trail of presentation of these cards and/or scanning of a matching
biometric, mind) - 81% still in the 'yeah OK' categories; then a series
of polarised statements, covering many of the points we've sketched here
- e.g. 'do you agree more with "govt IT, brewery, great time, organise,
couldn't" or "govt IT, experienced, already run big systems, will do
fine with this one too", generally supporting the gummint arguments
still, though interestingly in a ratio of about 65:35 rather than 80:20.

Until we get to a non-abstract impact: that of personal cost. First qn
here is 'how much would you pay': 30% nowt, next 45% in the "up to 20
quid" boxes. That's 75% accounted for; another 23% cap their enthusiasm
at 50 quid, with none in the 60, 70, 80, 90 bands, but the last 2% in
the "affluent patriots" box of "up to 100 nicker". (They can't *all* be
IT consultants working on privatised gummint IT, can they? :-) Second qn
says "well, HMG figure 35quid, or 85quid combined with a passport. Now
waddya think?" Our 81% fades to 68% - most of the movement being from "v
good" to "good". So, present one new fact, on proposed cost, and support
drops by 13 percentage points out of 81 - that's one-sixth of the
project "supporters" faded away. The survey didn't go on to say, for
example, 'criminals currently gain access to centralised government
databases by slipping 100 quid to people whose low-paid jobs give them
access to those databases. Do you think the gummint will keep the
national identity register and the record of all the times and places
where the ID card's been shown secure against such access?', or similar
questions giving rates of 'hacker' (cracker, really, but we've lost that
linguistic battle!) access to DB systems.

[1] talk has already started about converting passports into pseudo ID
cards, whilst holding the same sort of info as the proposed ID card,

The manouver they've used only allows them to tweak the passport format;
to set up the really significant part of this proposal - the linked
databases of card and biometric usages, and the links to other databases
- needs the primary legislation which was timed out in the last session,
but which will back in the new Parliament.

Unashamedly biased followup info at
http://www.no2id.org.uk and
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/comrace/identitycards/

"Mike" wrote in message
...

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
eenews.net...
The point is, if HMG want to introduce an ID card then they will,
if
they have a majority and use the whip they will be able to make
carrying it compulsory, once introduced I can't see any future HMG
giving them up. QED...

They can introduce them but the judiciary can, have (in 1954) and
hopefully
will again make having, let alone carrying them, optional.


AIUI that was due to the reason they were introduced having past, this
time it looks like an open ended reason....

"raden" wrote in message
...
snip

Do you mean pseudo ?


Yes ! Duh...

:::Jerry:::: wrote:


[2] yes it would be possible not to have any type of ID card but will
people really want to give up the 'right' to either go out of the
country or drive ?...

I have not had a passport for about 30 years and I very much doubt that
I will get one in the next 30 years.

I have a paper driving licence and I doubt that I will continue to drive
if my doctor tells me not to.

Where does that leave me?

Dave

Owain wrote:


The govt don't have to make them overtly compulsory - they will become
the standard for all occasions where identity is desired (even if not
neeed), whether de facto or de jure. Sign up with a doctor or dentist,
sign up for evening classes, open a bank account, rent a flat /
television / car, start a new job, buy a new consumer unit ....

Indeed. But I can't see most of these simpler "ID checks" being done by
Fully Authorised Users with biometric readers and links to the Central
DB. (To be specific: enrol at NHS provider: yes, but emergency treatment
won't need an ID card; evg classes - no; open back acct - yes-ish; rent
a flat - no; rent a teli - unlikely unless TVLRO enforce and/or
subsidise readers at point-of-rental, and in any case the TV rental
market's almost dead now that cheapie TVs are, wot, 40 quid at Tesco;
rent a car - not at most sites, *expecially* airports (short-stay
overseas visitors won't carry a UK-issued ID card); start new job - no,
most employers won't have on-line readers; buy a new CU - yes of course ;-)

All of which suggests to me that there will be a great deal of purely
visual ID-card "checking" - "yup, that looks like your photo on that bit
of laminated plastic". Which will make trivial forgery well worth while:
and because the majority, law-abiding population would (if the
legislation came to pass) carry genuine Govt-issue ID, the aura of
Officially Issued ID would make using non-reader-checked use of
forgeries *more*, not less, attractive to fraudsters.

If you want to think those example through some more - the 'start a new
job' is one where there's a whole variety of cases depending on the
'officialness' of the employer. At one end of the scale is applying for
a permanent job for a large private- or public-sector body: there the
personnel dept will prolly have an on-line reader. The big range in the
middle will be at smaller private companies, where they'll copy down
details manually from the card you show them, but if the NIRN (National
Identity Registration Number) on the card turns out (when they pass
details on to the tax-n-benefit authorities) not to match the name you
gave, expect uncomfortable questions from your new employer. At the
purely casual end, 'employers' will look at ID cards and write down
details for the valid-looking ones, so that they can vaguely plausibly
claim to have checked; many will push responsibility for such checking
on to agency intermediaries anyway.

Stefek, appearing to drift from uk.d-i-y topics - but what's more d-i-y
than forging plausible-looking State ID cards? Oh, silly me, it'll be
*illegal*; so that'll stop everyone, expecially criminals, from doing it...

Stefek Zaba wrote:
The govt don't have to make them overtly compulsory - they will become
the standard for all occasions where identity is desired (even if not
neeed),
Indeed. But I can't see most of these simpler "ID checks" being done by
Fully Authorised Users with biometric readers and links to the Central
DB. (To be specific: enrol at NHS provider: yes, but emergency treatment
won't need an ID card; evg classes - no;

It'll be required 'for the safety of other students' - applicants
already have to declare criminal convictions

rent a flat - no;

Landlords and letting agents would be daft to let without some proof of
ID; if there's an ID Card they can ask for that. Not legally demand, but
there will be no penalty on them refusing to let to someone without an
ID Card.

rent a car - not at most sites, *expecially* airports (short-stay
overseas visitors won't carry a UK-issued ID card);

Short-stay overseas visitors will have a passport or National Identity
Card from their own country.

start new job - no,

Already required, to some extent.

All of which suggests to me that there will be a great deal of purely
visual ID-card "checking" - "yup, that looks like your photo on that bit
of laminated plastic". Which will make trivial forgery well worth while:
and because the majority, law-abiding population would (if the
legislation came to pass) carry genuine Govt-issue ID, the aura of
Officially Issued ID would make using non-reader-checked use of
forgeries *more*, not less, attractive to fraudsters.

I agree, but the number of places asking for or insisting on ID Card
will mean that most people will decide it's less hassle to forget their
principles and get one.

Stefek, appearing to drift from uk.d-i-y topics - but what's more d-i-y
than forging plausible-looking State ID cards? Oh, silly me, it'll be
*illegal*; so that'll stop everyone, expecially criminals, from doing it...

Why bother forging a card - if the system is based on existing records
(passports, driving licences, birth certificates) those are already all
compromised. Just apply for a new card with false info. The biometric
/might/ mean you can only get one card and duplicates will be detected,
but possibly not.

Owain

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 18:03:27 +0000, raden wrote:

In message ws.net,
":::Jerry::::" writes

wrote in message
oups.com...
:::Jerry:::: wrote:

Do you drive (legally) ?.....

Nothing wrong with a license to drive, the annual slaughter
justifies
some basic checks on competence. Drivers license is not an ID card
that
must be carried to avoid prosecution.

However there is no comparable justification for a compulsory ID
card.


The point I'm making is that like it or not any of the present ID type
cards could and probably will be (if there is not a specific ID card)
made into a 'sudo ID card'

Do you mean pseudo ?

of not, what is sudo?

That would be the one that lets you bypass security wouldn't it.
But only for those of us with grown up operating systems on our computers.

--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html

Harvey Van Sickle wrote in message ...
On 23 Apr 2005, Rob Horton wrote

-snip-

As a foot note, I have heard a rumour that in New Zealnd the
authorities have moved ion the opposite direction of Part P and
de-regulated. Apparently, deaths and injuries fell.

If they've deregulated, it's from a position which was way, way more
more draconian than Part P.

I've just spent a fortnight in New Zealand, much of which was doing
small jobs for my mother-in-law -- one of these was to install a PIR
light in the garage.

I established early on that to do any work -- anything at all -- which
breaks into the main circuit is prohibited unless done or certified by
a registered electrician. It was thus illegal for me to wire the light
into the lighting circuit via a junction box (which is what I'd planned
to do.)


The rules appear to have changed from 1/1/2003, but not in Oz which
has (SAIUI)mutually agreed standards with NZ. see
www.ess.govt.nz/rules/rules_codes.asp.

Would be good to hear from s

On 24 Apr 2005, jim_in_sussex wrote

Harvey Van Sickle wrote in message
...
On 23 Apr 2005, Rob Horton wrote

-snip-

As a foot note, I have heard a rumour that in New Zealnd the
authorities have moved ion the opposite direction of Part P and
de-regulated. Apparently, deaths and injuries fell.

If they've deregulated, it's from a position which was way, way
more more draconian than Part P.

I've just spent a fortnight in New Zealand, much of which was
doing small jobs for my mother-in-law -- one of these was to
install a PIR light in the garage.

I established early on that to do any work -- anything at all --
which breaks into the main circuit is prohibited unless done or
certified by a registered electrician. It was thus illegal for
me to wire the light into the lighting circuit via a junction box
(which is what I'd planned to do.)


The rules appear to have changed from 1/1/2003, but not in Oz
which has (SAIUI)mutually agreed standards with NZ. see
www.ess.govt.nz/rules/rules_codes.asp.

Thanks for the link; that sort of confirms what I was told -- the bit
that affected what I intended to do is explained at
http://www.ess.govt.nz/rules/pdf/ecp51v18.pdf.

That, though, seems to contradict itself, in that on page 1 it says (to
paraphrase) that you can run all the wiring and stuff you like, but
that it has to be checked, tested and connected to the electricity
supply by a licensed electrician; but on page 2 it says that in
your own home you can extend, install or alter any cables except those
between the street and the consumer unit.

It seems even more confusing to me than Part P.

--
Cheers,
Harvey

In message , Huge
writes

Do you mean pseudo ?

of not, what is sudo?

charon{huge}26: man sudo
Reformatting page. Please Wait... done

MAINTENANCE COMMANDS sudo(1m)

NAME
sudo - execute a command as another user

SYNOPSIS
sudo -V | -h | -l | -L | -v | -k | -K | -s | [ -H ] [-P ]
[-S ] [ -b ] | [ -p prompt ] [ -c class|- ] [ -a auth_type ]
[ -u username|#uid ] command

DESCRIPTION
sudo allows a permitted user to execute a command as the
superuser or another user, as specified in the sudoers file.
The real and effective uid and gid are set to match those of
the target user as specified in the passwd file (the group
vector is also initialized when the target user is not
root). By default, sudo requires that users authenticate
themselves with a password (NOTE: by default this is the
user's password, not the root password). Once a user has
been authenticated, a timestamp is updated and the user may
then use sudo without a password for a short period of time
(5 minutes unless overridden in sudoers).

You have enriched my life ...

--
geoff

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 22:15:23 UTC, raden wrote:

In message , Huge
writes
MAINTENANCE COMMANDS sudo(1m)

You have enriched my life ...

I prefer the cream (I wasn't joking about that...)

--
Bob Eager
begin a new life...dump Windows!

"Mike" wrote in message
...

"RichardS" wrote in message
...
(Although the US are toying with the idea of RFID enabling passports
to
facilitate quicker checks on them at immigration desks. This add the
reassuring prospect that someone will be able to skim all the usefull
informatiion from your passport just by walking close by you!)

About 2 seconds in a microwave oven should remove that particular
danger.

Uh ... how ?



Completely fry any RFID circuitry within said document.

May cause additional delay when passing through borders, though.


--
Richard Sampson

mail me at
richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk

Stefek Zaba wrote:

e.g. at border control points. 'Unsupervised' sampling, at ATMs say,
allows the whole range of photos, gummi-bears, and all the rest of the
equipment-fooling stuff to be deployed by the attacker.

The gummi bear one you could probably even get away with while
supervised (unless the super is going to check every finger!)



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Owain wrote:

Why bother forging a card - if the system is based on existing records
(passports, driving licences, birth certificates) those are already all
compromised. Just apply for a new card with false info. The biometric
/might/ mean you can only get one card and duplicates will be detected,
but possibly not.

Yes they don't seem to mention that so often ;-) (in fact the conversion
process will introduce more errors, so it ought to be less reliable that
what we have).

The other one that always amuses me, are the people who think there will
be an identity card singular - i.e. something that will replace all
other forms of id. They seems to miss the fact that they will still
require all the current forms of ID they already have (perhaps with
extra cost biometrics and links to big brother database), plus they get
the additional ID "Card" as well.



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Stefek Zaba wrote:

Until we get to a non-abstract impact: that of personal cost. First qn
here is 'how much would you pay': 30% nowt, next 45% in the "up to 20
quid" boxes. That's 75% accounted for; another 23% cap their enthusiasm
at 50 quid, with none in the 60, 70, 80, 90 bands, but the last 2% in
the "affluent patriots" box of "up to 100 nicker". (They can't *all* be
IT consultants working on privatised gummint IT, can they? :-) Second qn
says "well, HMG figure 35quid, or 85quid combined with a passport. Now
waddya think?" Our 81% fades to 68% - most of the movement being from "v

wonder how they would go with the question: Govt RIA guestimate cost of
a biometric passport is 80 quid. So lets say 120 by the time its not
vapourware, and it has had a few billion of our tax pounds back handed
into it to keep the price "realistic". Special deal add on a ID card for
another 40. Oh lest say 60 for your drivers license. So 220 is all in.
Oh and you will need to renew the b'stard things at least every 10 years

access to those databases. Do you think the gummint will keep the
national identity register and the record of all the times and places
where the ID card's been shown secure against such access?', or similar
questions giving rates of 'hacker' (cracker, really, but we've lost that
linguistic battle!) access to DB systems.

oh come on, you will be telling me they dispose of hard drives with
sensitive personal data on next.... or the MOD could lose a laptop!

Obviously could never happen;-)

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Dave wrote:

I have not had a passport for about 30 years and I very much doubt that
I will get one in the next 30 years.

I have a paper driving licence and I doubt that I will continue to drive
if my doctor tells me not to.

Na you can probably keep on driving, since the doctor will probably have
to refuse to talk to you without proof if ID ;-)


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

:::Jerry:::: wrote:

QED...

nowhere near

NT

wrote in message
oups.com...
:::Jerry:::: wrote:

QED...

nowhere near


I know you aren't.

Owain wrote:
Stefek Zaba wrote:


Indeed. But I can't see most of these simpler "ID checks" being done
by Fully Authorised Users with biometric readers and links to the
Central DB. (To be specific: enrol at NHS provider: yes, but emergency
treatment won't need an ID card; evg classes - no;


It'll be required 'for the safety of other students' - applicants
already have to declare criminal convictions


Along with ethnic group, previous qualifications and a load of other
stuff. The database is being populated even if access isn't yet in place.

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
eenews.net...
The point is, if HMG want to introduce an ID card then they will,
if
they have a majority and use the whip they will be able to make
carrying it compulsory, once introduced I can't see any future HMG
giving them up. QED...

They can introduce them but the judiciary can, have (in 1954) and
hopefully
will again make having, let alone carrying them, optional.


AIUI that was due to the reason they were introduced having past, this
time it looks like an open ended reason....

Correct. But as the government would not want to reveal to the judge their
reasons for keeping ID cards "for reasons of national security" said judge
will rightly take umbrage and strike down the whole thing.

As they did this for holding foreign terror suspects they will have little
time for nonsense from HMG when it affect UK citizens - and specifically
themselves !

"RichardS" wrote in message
...
"Mike" wrote in message
...

"RichardS" wrote in message
...
(Although the US are toying with the idea of RFID enabling passports
to
facilitate quicker checks on them at immigration desks. This add the
reassuring prospect that someone will be able to skim all the
usefull
informatiion from your passport just by walking close by you!)

About 2 seconds in a microwave oven should remove that particular
danger.

Uh ... how ?

Completely fry any RFID circuitry within said document.

No it won't. Might with old style stuff but modern ones wouldn't even
notice it.

In message , Joe
writes
wrote:
:::Jerry:::: wrote:



If HMG want us to have compulsory ID cards then we will have
compulsory ID cards, like it or not.
wrong, obviously. The government and the governed always exist in a
balance of power, and it must be so for society to remain reasonably
healthy.

So if a new government, of whatever party, enacts a law on May 6th (or
10th, or whenever it gets its act together) requiring compulsory ID
cards, we can... do what, exactly?

Bear in mind that the current large overall government majority results
from the votes of less than a quarter of the electorate.

Ah, but there will be more votes by proxy (i.e. stolen postal votes). A
journalist on the news tonight logged on, downloaded someone else's
voting form, and would have been able to vote in his name.

If they can't even get something as straightforward as postal voting
sorted , how the hell can we trust them with what is, effect, your total
identity ?




--
geoff

"Joe" wrote in message
...
wrote:
So if a new government, of whatever party, enacts a law on May 6th (or
10th, or whenever it gets its act together) requiring compulsory ID
cards, we can... do what, exactly?

You ignore it and wait to be prosecuted in a lower court, appeal and then
ask the appeal court judges to strike the case. If they do HMG then appeals
to law lords who either support the legislation or more likely throw it out.