In message , Mike
writes

"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.

You then go to the european court of human rights, win and then discover
that HMG says they don't recognise it anymore

--
geoff

"Mike" wrote in message
...

"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.


Then HMG modifies the legislation, taking into account what the Law
Lords found wanting in the previous legislation....

Joe wrote:
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?

Same as with the poll tax, not cooperate. If enough people refuse to
cooperate it becomes unworkable. If HMG prosecutes people for walking
peacefully down the road, theres gonna be quite an outcry.

Governments do not rush into things like this, because they know if
they do it could be a major egg on face incident, resulting in loss of
governing power, which is something of prime importance to them. This
will all be explored over time to see what they can and cant do and
stil remain in government.

It is in the end a balance of power, and government relies on the
governed mostly being willing to cooperate. People will cooperate with
a lot, but not everything. A party that ceases to take notice of its
electorate quickly finds itself unelected.


NT

wrote in message
ups.com...
Joe wrote:
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?

Same as with the poll tax, not cooperate. If enough people refuse to
cooperate it becomes unworkable. If HMG prosecutes people for
walking
peacefully down the road, theres gonna be quite an outcry.

But they won't be prosecuting people for walking down the street, they
will be prosecuting people for not carrying their ID card, a slight
but important differnace. If there was a law that stated that all
drivers when driving had to have their drivers licence with them (as
there are in other domocratic countries), with the risk of being
prosecuted if they don't, would there be an outcry - hardly.
snip

It is in the end a balance of power, and government relies on the
governed mostly being willing to cooperate. People will cooperate
with
a lot, but not everything. A party that ceases to take notice of its
electorate quickly finds itself unelected.


We shall see, in just over a weeks time....

raden wrote:
In message , Mike
writes


"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.

You then go to the european court of human rights, win and then discover
that HMG says they don't recognise it anymore

I don't think we can reasonably expect an EU court to disapprove of
compulsory identity cards. Almost certainly, there is an EU dimension to
the government's obsession with them.

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
enews.net...
If there was a law that stated that all
drivers when driving had to have their drivers licence with them (as
there are in other domocratic countries), with the risk of being
prosecuted if they don't, would there be an outcry - hardly.

Oh yes there was. There is a big difference between being British (or at
least English) and being from one of the ex-colonies or other parts of
Europe. If you remember our passport used to "require and demand"
foreigners allowed us free passage through their countries.

Send in the gunboats.

Joe wrote:

I don't think we can reasonably expect an EU court to disapprove of
compulsory identity cards. Almost certainly, there is an EU dimension to
the government's obsession with them.

Once again: it's not the *card* that's the serious issue. It's the
linked set of state-run databases, to which the majority of civil
servants and privatised agency contractors get access to, with the
detailed trial of all the times and circumstances when the card or
biometrically-identified individual has been Seen, which matters. And
it's that idea which, for example, the Germans recently rejected -
despite having had both ID cards and local registration since at least
the end of WWII.

Me, I don't think the ID-and-movements register proposed in the last
Parliament (and some version of which most likely awaits under an
incoming Labour *or* Tory administration) will pass muster in either
British or European courts as consistent with the Human Rights Act our
sovereign Parliament passed. But what would I know...

Stefek

Stefek Zaba wrote:

Once again: it's not the *card* that's the serious issue.

both are imho: both the insecure abuse-inevitable huge-cost and
pointless database, and the criminalising of innocent people going
about theire ordinary business. I dont see how one could call the
latter a non problem.


NT

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

Same as with the poll tax, not cooperate. If enough people refuse
to
cooperate it becomes unworkable. If HMG prosecutes people for
walking
peacefully down the road, theres gonna be quite an outcry.

But they won't be prosecuting people for walking down the street,
they
will be prosecuting people for not carrying their ID card, a slight
but important differnace.

the actions are identical. Our 2 descriptions emphasise different parts
of what is the one same action.

If I open my door today and walk down the road, all is well. If I do
that with ID card laws, Im criminalised. Its madness.


If there was a law that stated that all
drivers when driving had to have their drivers licence with them (as
there are in other domocratic countries), with the risk of being
prosecuted if they don't, would there be an outcry - hardly.

not comparable, driving licenses have a valid basis.


NT

:::Jerry:::: wrote:

But they won't be prosecuting people for walking down the street, they
will be prosecuting people for not carrying their ID card, a slight
but important differnace. If there was a law that stated that all


More likely they will be prosecuting people for not turning up for their
interviews to be scaned and fingerprinted....


--
Cheers,

John.

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

wrote in message
oups.com...
:::Jerry:::: wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com.. Joe
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?

Same as with the poll tax, not cooperate. If enough people
refuse
to
cooperate it becomes unworkable. If HMG prosecutes people for
walking
peacefully down the road, theres gonna be quite an outcry.

But they won't be prosecuting people for walking down the street,
they
will be prosecuting people for not carrying their ID card, a
slight
but important differnace.

the actions are identical. Our 2 descriptions emphasise different
parts
of what is the one same action.

If I open my door today and walk down the road, all is well. If I do
that with ID card laws, Im criminalised. Its madness.

Many laws are madness to those who object to them...



If there was a law that stated that all
drivers when driving had to have their drivers licence with them
(as
there are in other domocratic countries), with the risk of being
prosecuted if they don't, would there be an outcry - hardly.

not comparable,

Yes it is.

driving licenses have a valid basis.


No they don't, you do not NEED an licence to be able to drive, they
are used solely as a way of 'Policing' who drives.

"Mike" wrote in message
...

"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.



hmm, interesting. Why's that? Antenna/circuitry dimensions too small to be
affected by domestic microwaves? I suppose it _has_ to be affected and
therefore potentially overloaded by some frequency of radiation though.

I see a market developing for shielding passport holders. Nice, pretty
silver-plated cigarrette-case type things...

--
Richard Sampson

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

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
eenews.net...

snip


If there was a law that stated that all
drivers when driving had to have their drivers licence with them
(as
there are in other domocratic countries), with the risk of being
prosecuted if they don't, would there be an outcry - hardly.

not comparable,

Yes it is.

driving licenses have a valid basis.


No they don't, you do not NEED an licence to be able to drive, they
are used solely as a way of 'Policing' who drives.




Driving licenses, passports, switch/credit cards, nectar-type cards, etc are
not entirely comparable with ID cards.

Each of these entities are entirely optional - if you don't drive you don't
need a driving license, if you never go abroad you don't need a passport.
You don't have to join store schemes, and you can opt to pay for your
shopping by cash. Data held as a result of these entities is also pretty
well dispersed, giving an additional layer of protection against abuse.

The difference with an ID card is that you will have to have it just on the
basis that you exist. Worse than that, the government will expect you to
pay for this priviledge.

Although not proposed at the current time, compulsion to carry the card will
only be a matter of time. It'll only take one more Blunkett of a Home
Secretary assisted by a large parliamentary majority, and it'll be in.
Without compulsion to carry or produce, the cards are essentially useless
for day-to-day identification purposes by the police. Perhaps muggers and
terrorists will be compelled to produce their cards before they commit their
crimes...

--
Richard Sampson

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

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

driving licenses have a valid basis.

No they don't, you do not NEED an licence to be able to drive, they
are used solely as a way of 'Policing' who drives.

they are a way of reducing the annual slaughter that is driving. That
is their reasonable basis.


NT

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


[ context snipped previously ]

driving licenses have a valid basis.

No they don't, you do not NEED an licence to be able to drive,
they
are used solely as a way of 'Policing' who drives.

they are a way of reducing the annual slaughter that is driving.
That
is their reasonable basis.


But they do not stop that slaughter.

"RichardS" wrote in message
...

snip

[ re ID cards ]

Although not proposed at the current time, compulsion to carry the
card will
only be a matter of time. It'll only take one more Blunkett of a
Home
Secretary assisted by a large parliamentary majority, and it'll be
in.
Without compulsion to carry or produce, the cards are essentially
useless
for day-to-day identification purposes by the police. Perhaps
muggers and
terrorists will be compelled to produce their cards before they
commit their
crimes...


All quite correct, but what is so wrong in having to carry an ID card,
that is the point I'm trying to make, personally I can't see the need
for ID cards (certainly not for the reason Blair and Co. are giving)
but I can't see what the problems is with having to carry one if the
law demands it. I *can* see concerns about who could be entitled to
see and or access any information recorded on to the card, but then
many of the same concerns could be levelled at bank cards etc.

:::Jerry:::: wrote:

All quite correct, but what is so wrong in having to carry an ID card,
that is the point I'm trying to make, personally I can't see the need
for ID cards (certainly not for the reason Blair and Co. are giving)

Partly it is about losing yet another freedom that we in the UK have had
for a very long time, that is not typically available in many other
countries.

At the moment no one can randomly stop you in the street and demand that
you prove who you are.

There is also the practical issue of there being occasions where you are
popping out for a walk along the beach one summer evening, and you don't
want to carry anything. Currently you can do just that, and you won't
get into trouble for doing it (unless there is no one home when you
return without your key! ;-)

--
Cheers,

John.

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

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

All quite correct, but what is so wrong in having to carry an ID
card,
that is the point I'm trying to make, personally I can't see the
need
for ID cards (certainly not for the reason Blair and Co. are
giving)

Partly it is about losing yet another freedom that we in the UK have
had
for a very long time, that is not typically available in many other
countries.

But as you say, we have been loosing freedoms for many years...


At the moment no one can randomly stop you in the street and demand
that
you prove who you are.

But just having ID cards does not mean that anyone will be able to do
so, what it does mean is that anyone who needs to verify you are who
you are will be able, together with you being able to prove who you
are - both with the minimum 'fuss'.

If the Police have (in their eyes) good reason they can stop you now
in the street and ask who you are and where you live. Who is
suggesting that there will be hoards of Police walking around randomly
stopping people?


There is also the practical issue of there being occasions where you
are
popping out for a walk along the beach one summer evening, and you
don't
want to carry anything. Currently you can do just that, and you
won't
get into trouble for doing it (unless there is no one home when you
return without your key! ;-)


Well unless you walk in the nude what is the problem about carrying an
ID card, as you say, most people will be carrying at least their house
keys anyway?

Once again: it's not the *card* that's the serious issue.

both are imho: both the insecure abuse-inevitable huge-cost and
pointless database, and the criminalising of innocent people going
about theire ordinary business. I dont see how one could call the
latter a non problem.

Forget all that. The whole scheme will fall by the wayside anyway, since
AFAIK no government project involving IT has *ever* worked (by that I mean
when the [massively over budget] bill is paid the system does what it says
it does).

If the government can't run the CSA/Passport office/DSS/IR now, bearing in
mind that these agencies only process data on a *part* of the adult
population, what on earth makes you think they will be able to deliver a
system which can keep tabs on the *entire* population, across *all* of these
agencies ?

If my local GP - who has had 2 new computer systems in 6 years - still uses
my old address which changed 3 years ago, and which I HAVE SEEN HIM DELETE
AND UPDATE on 3 separate occasions, then how is this system going to cope
with the 10,000 people who move weekly ? Plus the name changes. Deaths
.......

I think the only thing we have to fear from the ID card debacle is the fact
that there are politicians and senior civil servants out there who think it
will work ... are these the same people who suggested whitewashing the
windows when the bombs fell ?

Jethro

:::Jerry:::: wrote:

But as you say, we have been loosing freedoms for many years...

True, but I don't see it as a suitable justification to lose more. It is
a slippery slope each step makes the next objection simpler to overcome.
Once the ID card database is in place then it can be used in
justification for what in the IT world we call it feature creep.

At the moment no one can randomly stop you in the street and demand

that

you prove who you are.


But just having ID cards does not mean that anyone will be able to do
so, what it does mean is that anyone who needs to verify you are who
you are will be able, together with you being able to prove who you
are - both with the minimum 'fuss'.

If I want to prove who I am, then I can do so now with a minimum of
fuss. I don't see that an ID card helps much. It can be no more
authorative than the sources of information that it is based on (i.e.
passports etc). There is a danger however that it will be trusted more
and hence people will do less cross checking than they currently do when
it matters.

If the Police have (in their eyes) good reason they can stop you now
in the street and ask who you are and where you live. Who is

Which is information you are not obliged to supply (unless they arrest you).

suggesting that there will be hoards of Police walking around randomly
stopping people?

I doubt it. However you can see that it will become yet another tool
they use in much the same way as they used to use the "suss" laws

There is also the practical issue of there being occasions where you
are
popping out for a walk along the beach one summer evening, and you
don't
want to carry anything. Currently you can do just that, and you
won't
get into trouble for doing it (unless there is no one home when you
return without your key! ;-)

Well unless you walk in the nude what is the problem about carrying an
ID card, as you say, most people will be carrying at least their house
keys anyway?

I am not suggesting this point is a partcularly "big" one - it pales
into insignificance compared to the all invasive database. However it
does add yet another way that someone in officaldom can have a pop at
you should they want to for some reason.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

Jethro_uk wrote:

Forget all that. The whole scheme will fall by the wayside anyway, since
AFAIK no government project involving IT has *ever* worked (by that I mean
when the [massively over budget] bill is paid the system does what it says
it does).

Good point well made. In fact it is doomed to failure before it even
starts since they have already fallen at the first hurdle. They can not
define why they want it, or what it is supposed to achieve. As an
engineer I can see no way of ever matching that set of requirements or
for that matter even generating a set of requirements from it.

If the government can't run the CSA/Passport office/DSS/IR now, bearing in
mind that these agencies only process data on a *part* of the adult
population, what on earth makes you think they will be able to deliver a
system which can keep tabs on the *entire* population, across *all* of these
agencies ?

None. Part of me thinks "well it would be rich pickings for anyone even
remotely into technology or IT for a good few years". The sad thing is
that we will all be paying for it for years to come.

I think the only thing we have to fear from the ID card debacle is the fact
that there are politicians and senior civil servants out there who think it
will work ... are these the same people who suggested whitewashing the
windows when the bombs fell ?

What is worse is you will have lots of technology providers egging them
on since it will sell product. If you are non technical it is easy to be
blinded by the science and convinced that whichever technology is being
hawked will solve all the problems.

As always it is the fringes and the corner cases that will break the
system. A biometric scanner bought because it is "99.9%" accurate (as
if!) may still leave several thousand people denied access to their
flights each day because according to the screen at the check-in desk,
the owner of the finger/iris should be a middle aged black woman when
clearly he is not!

--
Cheers,

John.

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

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...

big snip


As always it is the fringes and the corner cases that will break the
system. A biometric scanner bought because it is "99.9%" accurate (as if!)
may still leave several thousand people denied access to their flights
each day because according to the screen at the check-in desk, the owner
of the finger/iris should be a middle aged black woman when clearly he is
not!

Your 'should be a ... when clearly _he_ is not': reminds me
to climb onto a soap-box about an 'Identity' thing that
annoys me! My local bus company sells discount travel cards
in the form of 'scratch-cards'. The card permits travel on
all buses for an entire day - making multi-stage travel very
economical. To make the cards valid one needs to scratch
= expose the date for which the journey will be taken.
Thus one exposes the fields for Year, Month,
and day-number - so far so good. But one must also
expose a field MALE or FEMALE. !
Now, I know that the small print says the tickets are
not transferable ... but only one passenger can get
on the bus with one ticket and no count is taken of how
many journeys any one ticket utilises.
So; Father-Son could transfer ticket without being detected;
Mother-Daughter could transfer ticket without being detected;
Sister-Sister could transfer ticket without being detected;
Brother-Brother could transfer ticket without being detected;
Gay-Gay could transfer ticket without being detected;
but Husband-Wife are prohibited!
I've never quite figured out how this effects trans-sexuals ...

And presumably they're going to introduce Identity Cards ...
is this the same Government whose Prime Minister when
told about difficulties in obtaining an appointment
for a GP says 'That's not how it's supposed to work!" ...
or who thinks that the way of tackling the problem of
student-accommodation is to get 'the wife' to use some con-man to
purchase two flats in Bristol?

--

Brian

"Brian Sharrock" wrote in message
...

[ re discount bus tickets ]
snip
Thus one exposes the fields for Year, Month,
and day-number - so far so good. But one must also
expose a field MALE or FEMALE. !

So! It just seems like cheap market surveying to me, I really can see
why you seem so upset over having to disclose gender (or apparent
gender, in case you're transgender...).

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

But as you say, we have been loosing freedoms for many years...

True, but I don't see it as a suitable justification to lose more.
It is
a slippery slope each step makes the next objection simpler to
overcome.
Once the ID card database is in place then it can be used in
justification for what in the IT world we call it feature creep.

But that, again, has been happening to (a lesser extent) for many
years.

snip

But just having ID cards does not mean that anyone will be able to
do
so, what it does mean is that anyone who needs to verify you are
who
you are will be able, together with you being able to prove who
you
are - both with the minimum 'fuss'.

If I want to prove who I am, then I can do so now with a minimum of
fuss. I don't see that an ID card helps much. It can be no more
authorative than the sources of information that it is based on
(i.e.
passports etc). There is a danger however that it will be trusted
more
and hence people will do less cross checking than they currently do
when
it matters.

True, and that is one of my concerns, the need for such cards when at
least 80 percent of the adult population already have suitable ID, a
fact born out by Labours 'plan B'.


If the Police have (in their eyes) good reason they can stop you
now
in the street and ask who you are and where you live. Who is

Which is information you are not obliged to supply (unless they
arrest you).
snip

....and you want a lot of hassle, if you have done nothing wrong what
is the objection to giving your details, if they suspect you of being
involved in crime they are just as likely to arrest you so you can
'help them with their enquiries'.

It's due to people objecting without good reason to giving the police
the above information that some think there is a need for compulsory
ID.

In article , Jethro_uk
wrote:
Forget all that. The whole scheme will fall by the wayside anyway,
since AFAIK no government project involving IT has *ever* worked
(by that I mean when the [massively over budget] bill is paid the
system does what it says it does).

A slight exaggeration perhaps. DVLA seems have come good after a
hugely problematic start and I'm impressed at the way in which
Companies House have made life easier and cut their charges.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
[Latest version QSEDBUK 1.10 released 4 April 2005]

:::Jerry:::: wrote:

Once the ID card database is in place then it can be used in
justification for what in the IT world we call it feature creep.


But that, again, has been happening to (a lesser extent) for many
years.

So even more reason to oppose it now then?

...and you want a lot of hassle, if you have done nothing wrong what
is the objection to giving your details, if they suspect you of being

None personally. However using your ID card (or one of its linked
siblings) would then create an entry on the ID register. This opens up
new data mining possibilities. You can see that if use of the card gets
integrated into many business processes (like shops want to see it when
you pay by CC for example) it is not long before all these separate
records and identities (Credit cards, store cards, council records,
DVLA, ANPR events etc) can be linked to a single point of reference.

involved in crime they are just as likely to arrest you so you can
'help them with their enquiries'.

How long before you get asked to "help us with our enquiries" simply
because a bit of software has analysed your recent movements / spending
patterns etc, and has correlated them to the likely activities of a
criminal / terrorist / child molester etc.

Yes it may catch some more criminals, but at the expense of sweeping
lots of false positives in as well.

It's due to people objecting without good reason to giving the police
the above information that some think there is a need for compulsory
ID.

I have not even seen Nu Labia give that justification yet ;-)

--
Cheers,

John.

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

Tony Bryer wrote:
In article , Jethro_uk
wrote:

Forget all that. The whole scheme will fall by the wayside anyway,
since AFAIK no government project involving IT has *ever* worked
(by that I mean when the [massively over budget] bill is paid the
system does what it says it does).


A slight exaggeration perhaps. DVLA seems have come good after a
hugely problematic start and I'm impressed at the way in which
Companies House have made life easier and cut their charges.

Sorry? When was this? They've just doubled their charges.

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

:::Jerry:::: wrote:


But as you say, we have been loosing freedoms for many years...

True, but I don't see it as a suitable justification to lose more.

It is

a slippery slope each step makes the next objection simpler to

overcome.

Once the ID card database is in place then it can be used in
justification for what in the IT world we call it feature creep.


But that, again, has been happening to (a lesser extent) for many
years.

That makes it all right, does it? Wouldn't an equally valid conclusion
be that we should roll it all back?



If the Police have (in their eyes) good reason they can stop you

now

in the street and ask who you are and where you live. Who is

Which is information you are not obliged to supply (unless they

arrest you).
snip

...and you want a lot of hassle, if you have done nothing wrong what
is the objection to giving your details, if they suspect you of being
involved in crime they are just as likely to arrest you so you can
'help them with their enquiries'.form fillers

It's due to people objecting without good reason to giving the police
the above information that some think there is a need for compulsory
ID.


Hang on, how often do the Police have 'good reason' to want to know who
you are? If I'm ever asked, I will know for certain whether they have
'good reason', and I don't see why I should need to account for my
existence if they haven't. They're not gods, or royalty, they're just
other people.

There's no practical reason for saying either that compulsory identity
card carrying is a right or a wrong thing. Certainly it will solve
nothing. It will allow easier form-filling on the part of some people
who have no other purpose in life, but why should I be inconvenienced
and fined to achieve that? Why shouldn't they have to make my life
easier? I pay their wages, after all, they don't pay mine.

The bottom line, as they say, is that a card-carrying society is not one
I wish to live in. I don't see why I should have to accommodate those
who do, rather than them accommodating me.

In article , Joe wrote:
Sorry? When was this? They've just doubled their charges.

Only if you don't file online: if you do it's still £15. It was £18
back in 1995, which given the usual rate of government increased
would be twice that now. The cost for accessing latest accounts and
annual return online is now down to £2 - was £5 before 1 Feb.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
[Latest version QSEDBUK 1.10 released 4 April 2005]

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

Once the ID card database is in place then it can be used in
justification for what in the IT world we call it feature creep.


But that, again, has been happening to (a lesser extent) for many
years.

So even more reason to oppose it now then?

Many people didn't want the Poll Tax, we still have it )under a
different name), even after mass civil unrest - perhaps it's really a
lesson in not allowing one political party to ever have a majority
over all other parties.....


...and you want a lot of hassle, if you have done nothing wrong
what
is the objection to giving your details, if they suspect you of
being

None personally. However using your ID card (or one of its linked
siblings) would then create an entry on the ID register. This opens
up
new data mining possibilities. You can see that if use of the card
gets
integrated into many business processes (like shops want to see it
when
you pay by CC for example) it is not long before all these separate
records and identities (Credit cards, store cards, council records,
DVLA, ANPR events etc) can be linked to a single point of reference.

Yes, but this is an a problem with what any ID is used and how it is
used, mission creep is just one of the dangers.


involved in crime they are just as likely to arrest you so you can
'help them with their enquiries'.

How long before you get asked to "help us with our enquiries" simply
because a bit of software has analysed your recent movements /
spending
patterns etc, and has correlated them to the likely activities of a
criminal / terrorist / child molester etc.

Yes it may catch some more criminals, but at the expense of sweeping
lots of false positives in as well.

Yes, but IMO ID cards will be the lest of our worries, especially if
road pricing comes about, "You were in the xyz area of Birmingham at
14:00 hrs, there was a serious crime whilst you were there and your
vehicle fits the description..." - now prove that you were in fact
sitting in your living room 50 miles to the south eating a
sandwich....


It's due to people objecting without good reason to giving the
police
the above information that some think there is a need for
compulsory
ID.

I have not even seen Nu Labia give that justification yet ;-)


Oh yes they have, it's what is meant by "Helping to fight crime" IMO.

In message , Tony Bryer
writes
In article , Jethro_uk
wrote:
Forget all that. The whole scheme will fall by the wayside anyway,
since AFAIK no government project involving IT has *ever* worked
(by that I mean when the [massively over budget] bill is paid the
system does what it says it does).

A slight exaggeration perhaps. DVLA seems have come good after a
hugely problematic start and I'm impressed at the way in which
Companies House have made life easier and cut their charges.

And even though the IR website fell over when I was trying to do my end
if year returns online (I presume they completely miscalculated the
number of people who would be doing online returns, it worked a couple
of days later.

The C & E website worked fine when I did my return the other day


--
geoff

John Rumm wrote:


... . Part of me thinks "well it would be rich pickings for anyone even
remotely into technology or IT for a good few years".

'Would' nothing: there are already flocks of well-suited conslutants
salivating all over this opportunity. It's instructive to read around
the relevant section of the Home Office website to see the range of
tenders, solicitations for advice, pilot proposals, yada yada, which our
favourite suppliers-of-IT-services-to-the-State are bidding for.

What is worse is you will have lots of technology providers egging them
on since it will sell product. If you are non technical it is easy to be
blinded by the science and convinced that whichever technology is being
hawked will solve all the problems.

Yurp - the Arthur C. Clarke aphorism applies: 'Any sufficiently advanced
technology is indistinguishable from magic'.

BTW, it is worth reading the Duagman papers on iris recognition; there's
solid science there, and the false-accept and false-reject rates for
that particular biometric can be taken low enough to make
population-wide recognition feasible; but it does require 'willing'
subjects, and AFAIK there hasn't been enough work on compatibility
across the whole ethnic spectrum. Oh, and in a further discomfiting
twist, John Daugman's approach to patenting the technology is a clear
societal good: by licensing only the 'whole package', he's effectively
making sure that implementations don't make obvious, crappy, technical
mistakes - for example, they must set the discrimination parameters to
reflect the population size. Of course, getting the technology right
doesn't mean that the surrounding processes for registration, use,
minimisation of unnecessary data retention, yada yada will be gotten right!

Stefek

"Stefek Zaba" wrote in message
...

snip

BTW, it is worth reading the Duagman papers on iris recognition;
there's
snip

Is that the correct spelling, including 'Duagman' in a Google search
doesn't return one result...

:::Jerry:::: wrote:

It's due to people objecting without good reason to giving the police
the above information that some think there is a need for compulsory
ID.

What's 'good reason'? And who establishes it?

The structure of policing in the UK is based on the idea of 'policing by
consent'. Of course, it's easier to consent if you're middle-class and
white (guilty on both counts); but that's still the approach which
dominates, regardless of the area - community policing, link-building,
engagement, seems to work better over the longterm than massed swoops
(though an initial swoop and prosecution of local 'enforcers' seems to
be an effective initial component of local policing).

So, what effect does the introduction of ID cards have on this style of
policing? Is it more likely that people stopped and asked (maybe
'required' later?) to produce ID will (a) be carrying ID which
identifies them as Known Wrong 'Uns On The Run, allowing the police to
arrest them on the spot; (b) be innocent, but resent being stopped; (c)
be pleased that the police are active on their patch?

I'm not aware of any recent research on the balance between (b) and (c);
I know that the experience of wartime and just-after in the UK was
weighted in the (b) direction, precisely because of 'function creep' -
it's said there were three circumstances for ID-card checking at
introduction, but over fifty when they were scrapped. In the judgment
given in 1953 in the test case which scrapped them, the lord chief
justice (Goddard) ruled that giving police the power to demand an ID
card "from all and sundry, for instance, from a lady who may leave her
car outside a shop longer than she should", made people resentful of the
police and "inclines them to obstruct the police instead of to assist them."

Still, that was 50 years ago, and we've moved on [tm] since then. Shut
up, Santayana...

Stefek

:::Jerry:::: wrote:

Is that the correct spelling, including 'Duagman' in a Google search
doesn't return one result...

Apologies to you (and to Dr John D) - it's Daugman. Homepage at

http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/jgd1000/

Cheers - Stefek

Stefek Zaba wrote:

justice (Goddard) ruled that giving police the power to demand an ID
card "from all and sundry, for instance, from a lady who may leave her
car outside a shop longer than she should", made people resentful of the
police and "inclines them to obstruct the police instead of to assist
them."

Still, that was 50 years ago, and we've moved on [tm] since then. Shut
up, Santayana...

Sadly they now seem to have a collection of techniques and practices
that achieve the same result. What intrigues me is their apparent
inability to connect these with their concerns over lack of public
co-operation.

It also opens the philosophical debate regarding use of technology in
general. We now live at a time where significant numbers of minor
"crimes" that historically were policed more in the breach, could now be
policed in totality. You could if you choose criminalise a large swathe
of the population with little effort.

Case in point: Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) is now being
rolled out nationwide. This will allow for the first time automatic
detection of all unlicensed (taxed) vehicles on the roads. How the
authorities choose to use this data will have a big effect on its
perception.

Yes, it must be a good thing to pick up the persistent dodger who has
never taxed the vehicle and probably does not have MOT / Insurance
either. But do you also want to prosecute the little old lady who fully
intends to renew her tax as she has for the last 40 years, but forgot to
go to the post office at the right time, and is now 20 days past the
renewal date? What about all the poor sods who have had someone "borrow"
their name and address when filling in the vehicles V5?

You can also see that the feature creep available offers some very
tantalizing prospective uses of the data. How long do you suppose they
will be able to resist using the data for these purposes? (before you
answer, remember back to the assurances given that speed cameras would
only ever be placed "close to accident black spots" on the actual roads
where the accidents happened... how long did that last before "close to
accident black spot" became "within a 'n' mile radius, and on any road
in the area"?)



--
Cheers,

John.

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

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
snip

Case in point: Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) is now
being
rolled out nationwide. This will allow for the first time automatic
detection of all unlicensed (taxed) vehicles on the roads. How the
authorities choose to use this data will have a big effect on its
perception.

mode=rant

As long as it is used to throw the book at the ******s who think its
clever to use registration plates with illegally spaced letters and or
numbers to make the plate read something different at first glance
[1] - IMO the offence should be classed and prosecuted the same as
driving with fails plates.

[1] which is all someone might get when the vehicle is involved in an
incident, and is the reason for having to display the registration in
the first place.

/mode

:::Jerry:::: wrote:


clever to use registration plates with illegally spaced letters and or
numbers to make the plate read something different at first glance
[1] - IMO the offence should be classed and prosecuted the same as
driving with fails plates.

[1] which is all someone might get when the vehicle is involved in an
incident, and is the reason for having to display the registration in
the first place.

But personalised plates are so conspicuous. They may be misleading, but
they are obviously misread and one can correct for that. People who
would prefer to escape attention shouldn't have personal plates. Ah, I
forgot, criminals are stupid.

--
David Clark

$message_body_include ="PLES RING IF AN RNSR IS REQIRD"

"DJC" wrote in message
. uk...
:::Jerry:::: wrote:


clever to use registration plates with illegally spaced letters
and or
numbers to make the plate read something different at first glance
[1] - IMO the offence should be classed and prosecuted the same as
driving with fails plates.

[1] which is all someone might get when the vehicle is involved in
an
incident, and is the reason for having to display the registration
in
the first place.

But personalised plates are so conspicuous. They may be misleading,
but
they are obviously misread and one can correct for that. People who
would prefer to escape attention shouldn't have personal plates. Ah,
I
forgot, criminals are stupid.


I'm not talking about 'personal' plates [1] but plates that have
illegally spaced letters or numbers, a big difference in that the
'personal' plate is recorded on the DVLA data base.

[1] personal plates are legal plates that have been issued but the
DVLA (or it's forbears) that mean something to the owner or possibly
spell out a word.

:::Jerry:::: wrote:

As long as it is used to throw the book at the ******s who think its
clever to use registration plates with illegally spaced letters and or
numbers to make the plate read something different at first glance

ANPR quite often fails to recognise non standard plates. In the case of
speed trap systems like SPECS then the plate is passed on to a human
operative to check. Not sure what will happen on ANPR since there will
obviously be 10's of thousnads of mis-read plates in the space of a day,
mostly for legitimate reasons.

--
Cheers,

John.

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