| A
few quotes picked from the thousands of comments
left on UK media websites objecting to the introduction
of ID cards.
Link:
The ID cards debate
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,,1759344,00.html
Tony Blair:
"This
is why I say this is as much an issue of modernity
as liberty. We are trying to fight 21st century
crime by 19th century means. It hasn't worked.
It won't work. The terrorism is different. The
street crime is different."
==========
But
what I find absolutely unacceptable is his unwillingness
to consider the effect of such proposals on the
innocent and the free majority of this country.
Why is there talk of allowing commercial organisations
to access the National Identity Register? Doesn't
he care about our right to anonymity? Why has
there not been a larger study into the effectiveness
and technical viability of such a scheme?
http://gizmonaut.net/bits/suspect.html#20060222
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2508308,00.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.
jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/12/04/do0402.xml
This
is a slippery slope - as one WWII writer put it
"when they came for the jews, I didn't protest,
when they came for the homosexuals I didn't protest,
when they came for me, there was no-one left to
protest!"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml
?xml=/opinion/2006/11/06/do0601.xml&s
Sheet=/opinion/2006/11/06/ixopinion.html
My
main concern about these ID cards is "mission
creep". Where will it all end? Will it end
when the card contains our full medical history
and our future health predictions? Will it end
when the card contains all our educational qualifications
and job references? Will it end when the card
contains all our income details and what we've
spent that income on? Will it end when we have
been classified (grades A to E) depending on our
value and usefulness to the state (and, of course,
to our economic masters)?
Don't
forget that a large proportion of the electorate
is already ignored at a General Election because
they are not "the right type of people"
living in "the right area" who do not
"fall within the right household income bracket".
Note also that the idea that Parliamentarians
(politicians) are the best guardians of our liberty
is quite obviously rot. Anyone with any experience
of these parasites over the past thirty years
knows better than that. Who was it that once said
hiring an MP is just like hiring a London taxi?
Very easy to do, done in secret and cheap in every
sense of the word.
Tony
Blair has been such a great disappointment for
our country. I first met him in the early 1990s
and (like many others) was greatly impressed.
His Labour Party seemed different too - but at
heart it isn't. Once it was content to control
business and industry. Now it seems content to
control me and you. "Time for a change in
Government," do I hear you say? "Time
for Tony to go." Yet, who will replace him?
By the time of the next General Election Gordon
Brown, David Cameron and Ming Campbell will all
be in favour of ID cards. Reason - "it has
all gone too far and cannot be reversed."
This is because the State, the Economy and the
EU will always win. You (a part of the easily
ignored and quite irrelevant masses) will always
lose. Unless, of course, you all agree to break
their laws. Perhaps YOU will. Somehow I doubt
it. After all, if you have nothing to hide and
nothing to fear there is a one thousand pound
fine and the real chance of a spell in clink -
until you obey and conform too. For there is always
space in prison for noble fine defaulters - like
frail elderly pensioners and the victimised poor.
There is also time in prison for the forced administration
of your ID card. For you are now a number for
your nation and not an individual. For you too
will be a part of this project which will allow
Government to charge business a fee every time
they need to check your ID. A nice little earner.
Lovely jubbly. What a shame I won't get any of
the money made out of my own identity. Only a
Government as sleazy as this one would seek to
privatize the people in order to sell them for
a profit. Hitler and Stalin would be delighted
and so should you be. For they both believed economic
values were worth more than moral values. Now
don't forget that, Number 8284916. Social Category
E - (Lemon) - Worthless.
Posted by Neil Welton on November 6, 2006 6:30
PM
=========
The
case for ID cards seems to be taken from the mouth
of the South African government, c. 1960. And
indeed South Africans have had identity documents
since the "pass laws" were introduced
to restrict the movement of non-whites.
If
they work, ID cards have the potential to be a
tool of repression; if not, they are ineffective
for the declared purpose of keeping at bay those
whom the government considers to be terrorists.
In
South Africa today, identity is still established
by a combination of ID book and the bills etc.
currently used in the UK. Using a single database
as a "gold standard" is unworkable because
chaos will ensue if (when) that database become
tainted by incorrect, duplicated, or maliciously
manipulated information.
And
furthermore digital information is always quicker
and easier to fake than physical documents, IF
one can find a hole in the security scheme.
A
single flaw in a security system - technology
plus humans - can cause the whole thing to be
irretrievably compromised. In such a scenario
not only would identify theft become incredibly
easy, it would also be possible for the bad guys
to create "gold standard" identities
at will.
Posted by South African IT Guy on November 6,
2006 7:47 AM
I am guilty of being a libertarian and I think
these arguments add up to lot of made-up claptrap
spoon fed to the authoritarian PM by those desperate
for the contracts and the thrill of pushing other
people around.
ID
cards clearly do not stop the determined terrorist.
Their presence might make outrages even easier
as a general comfort in believing that we are
protected by the ID net reduces vigilence. The
answer to thwarting terrorism is to keep an eye
on suspects and move in on those suspects when
necessary. A tricky business admittedly but nothing
to do with ID cards.
So
biometric systems help identify people trying
to get back to the UK illegaly do they?. Well
it jolly-well ought to, what would be the point
otherwise? Doesn't add up to ID cards being cool,
though does it. Not playing to the gallery here,
are we Mr. Blair? So what's new?
Helping
protect the vulnerable? I suppose biometrics can
determine not only whether we can be closer that
100 yards from a school, but the precisely who
can be in the same room as us at the same time.
Protecting the vulnerable comes from uninhibited
human contact between people in real communities,
who look out for each other and which keeps the
worst of human nature under wraps. ID cards/biometrics
are not going to stop wicked thoughts and deeds,
are they?
Oh,
if I want to hold a shopping loyalty card or give
my thumb print to a bank then that's my business
and my risk. Nothing to do with State determination
about what I must do unless on pain of imprisonment.
And the issue of cost and the system's efficacy
are simple distractions. What's at stake is infinitely
more important.
What
Mr. Blair presents is a cynical erosion of British
values of liberty based on responsibility, freedom
for individuals to choose to do the right thing
and Government held at arms length.
In
its place, he wants a European style, Statist,
guilty until proven innocent, government sanctioned
country, with people kowtowing to an omnipresent
but distant prying eye. This will then become
a country more vulnerable to attack, not less;
less able to respond effectively to change, not
more. It will be less willing to stand up and
be counted, more willing to hide in the shadows
in the face of difficult decisions, more cowardly,
less forthright.
Mr.
Blair is truly playing with fire in his determination
to chuck cold water on the furnace of freedom
that is central to British identity, which will
never be found on a piece of plastic or in a computer.
Posted by Tim Bender on November 6, 2006 7:48
AM
Report
this comment
=============
So many half-truths by our PM, it's hard to know
where to start, so I'll settle for exploding three
of them. 1. Identity was not an issue with terrorists
in the New York, in Madrid and in London. They
were happy for people to know who they were. 2.
The only biometric required on a new passport
is a digitised facial image. If one country, the
US, wants to fingerprint people upon entry, that's
upto them. Like many people, I have no intention
of going there. 3. He claims that we routinely
carry many forms of identification around with
us - what nonsense! Those who wish to can carry
their passport, driving licence or other ID, but
for most people most of the time, it's just not
an issue. One more thing - Blair says that the
police will have access to everyone's fingerprints
to help them solve crimes. I have served in the
police for almost three decades. When I joined,
the only people who were compulsorily interviewed,
fingerprinted and photographed, were those suspected
of crimes. Now he wants to treat every UK citizen
as a suspect and yet he claims there are no implications
for civil liberties.
Posted by Brutus on November 6, 2006 8:29 AM
Report this comment
==============
In
his desperation to have some lasting legacy (other
than taking us to war on a falsehood), Blair promotes
a vehicle which in his second paragraph he admits
will not be wholly effective. His Premiership
has been characterised by an authoritarian streak
unrivalled in recent times. All the examples he
gives of new technology facilitating identity
verification have one thing in common - they are
based on consumers having the right to choose
whether or not they want to participate. Under
Labour we have no such choice -actually we do
- enrol or be fined or imprisoned!
Just how many people realise the penalties they
have planned for non-compliance with this scheme?
One final point, most people would rather have
a policeman actually stopping a crime that a CCTV
camera recording it,but they settle for the latter
as better than nothing.Let's not forget, we have
great footage of the July 7th bombers on the way
to their outrage.
Posted
by Peter Steadman on November 6, 2006 8:44 AM
Report this comment
=============
Thank
you Mr. Blair,
You
have convinced me.
It is important to keep my identity safe and secure
from untrustworthy people who express contempt
for the values of fairness, liberty, thift, honesty
and self-reliance that I believe in and act to
destroy the British way of life.
I am thinking specifically of your government.
ID cards will give the state more power which
politicians like you will be likely to abuse,
and thus should be opposed.
Posted by Peter Jackson on November 6, 2006 10:20
AM
Report this comment
==============
As last weeks Repoort on the Surveillance Society
showed we are already the most spied on nation
outside Russia. Let's complete the task and put
everything in place for a future Police State,
after all we implicitly trust the Government,
the Police, the Social Services and of course
Insurance Companies who wouldn't dream of using
a National DNA Database when Underwriting Health
and Life Insurance Policies. I agree with the
Prime Minister, use this new technology to keep
out unwanted individuals, just don't inflict it
on Freeborn Citizens of the United Kingdom.
Posted by Richard Ireton on November 6, 2006 10:23
AM
Report this comment
==========
Tony
Blair's arguments for ID cards (Daily Telegraph
6 Nov) amount to no more than simplistic assertions
and distortions. For example: we all allow companies
to gather information on us so why not the Government?
The reason, obviously, is that the power of companies
to use the information to harm us is very limited
whereas that of the Government is crushing and
this Government has shown a marked predilection
for crushing people who disagree with it, annoy
it or cause its more green gilled but influential
members some envy.
Blair's
statement: "I simply don't recognise some
of the figures that have been attached to ID cards
" is easily explained. His figures exclude
the cost to banks and other organisations of introducing
ID card checking. These costs will be passed directly
to customers rather than to the Government. He
says a national identity system "should prevent
us having to tell every agency individually when
we move house." Only if every agency has
access to the database. Leaving aside the obvious
need still to tell every agency to check the database,
it means that all their billing, loyalty card,
credit card, direct mail and other customer relationship
systems will need online access to the identity
database.
It
also means that the checking process would entail
only a digital electronic check - not a check
in person so the biometric data would not be physically
matched to an individual. This would be no better
than current non-biometric digital checks. It
also means that just about every company and organisation
in the country and, presumably many overseas organisations,
would have access to the database. Proponents
of the ID card scheme fail to mention that biometric
data is just digital data which can be stolen
as easily as any other digital data. In any case
the iris data can be constructed from a colour
photograph and matched to an address and other
personal data in the same way as is currently
done by forgers. How secure will that be? Furthermore,
a visual image of an iris can be constructed to
match a digitally encoded biometric. Biometrics
will temporarily increase the cost of forgery
until it becomes routine.
There
is a fundamental principle in security systems
that the ID card scheme ignores: the need to know.
Millions of people would have ready access to
my data way beyond their needs. How can I trust
them? Will the government or employer specially
vet each of them to ensure they are trustworthy.
Or will they be assumed to be trustworthy because
they too will be on the national identity database?
Suppose an identity database user who is in financial
or personal trouble is offered a bribe or blackmailed
into divulging another's personal data?
The
truth, as has been admitted by EDS at a seminar
on biometric security, is that the Government
scheme will not benefit ID card holders. All the
benefits accrue to the Government and supplier
companies like EDS.
Posted
by Peter Gardner on November 6, 2006 10:25 AM
Report this comment
================
Tony
Blair has cited many bogus reasons to justify
ID cards and the citizens database. Of course,
we want to see crime cut - perhaps the State should
stop murderers getting out of jail early just
to reoffend?
We
need to examine the real reason that this authoritarian
State wants to introduce a citizens database.
The answer is far more to do with controlling
ordinary people than anything else. Blair and
Brown want to control our car use, our house use
our need to keep our own earnings, personalisation
of tax rates. Brown cannot achieve is Socialist
goals in the conventional way - this is the alternative
approach. In short the State is in the process
on nationalising us all.
The
biggest threat we all face is from the Authoritarian
State.
Posted by Graeme Brown on November 6, 2006 10:30
AM
Report this comment
===========
Dear Prime Minister, I must disagree with your
proposed ID card scheme as it infringes my belief
that the government of the country exists to serve
the people. And that people do not exist to serve
the state. By forcing me against my will to register
on the national identity register and to own an
ID card you are imprisoning me in your own belief
that central government should be able to control
the actions of every individual for the good of
the state. I don't happen to think that your Governmnet
would do anything outragously evil with these
new found powers, unlike in the USSR or Nazi Germany.
But we in this generation cannot foresee what
kind of governments will take power in the future,
and therefore should not leave such an unstable
legacy for future generations.
Your
argument against the civil liberties objection
to ID cards and the national identity register......
"the
civil liberties argument, effectiveness and cost.
I know this will outrage some people but, in a
world in which we daily provide information to
a whole host of companies and organisations and
willingly carry a variety of cards to identify
us, I don't think the civil liberties argument
carries much weight."
This
is a very lazy argument and will not persuade
anyone who is concerned about civil liberties.
I personally only carry one debit card from an
ethical trading source. and I use cash almost
all the time. The point is I have the choice to
do this, and can change my card or burn it at
any time. We will have no choice to do this with
the national ID card.
Posted by Richard Clay on November 6, 2006 10:31
AM
Report this comment
===============
I don't think the public has a problem with CCTV
and DNA being used to track down dangerous criminals.
I think the public has a massive problem with
biometric data being taken without even being
the suspect of a crime.
Mr
Blair has taken one public opinion and, as usual,
used it to try and justify a scheme that is related
to something else. This is not about stopping
terrorism, fighting crime or controlling immigration,
this is about wanting to know every detail of
our lives so that greater control can be excercised
over the individual by the state.
This
level of snooping and prying is on a par with
the old Soviet states. It is evil and stealthy
and the Great British Public are walking into
it with eyes wide open. We have to get rid of
this control freak and his sinister political
allies as soon as we can.
Posted
by Simon Hawksley on November 6, 2006 10:36 AM
Report this comment
=============
Tony, in case you weren't aware, crime is a price
we pay for civil liberties.
If
you don't want any crime, get rid of the civil
liberties. Brand everyone's foreheads with ID
numbers, fingerprint and put everyone in a prison
camp. Ergo, no crime! It will also be easier to
identify the illegals - they will be the only
ones running around free. Catch them and put them
in jail too. See Tony, you win!! No crime, no
illegal immigration and no home-grown terrorism.
Freedom is a small price to pay, no?
Posted by PeterJon on November 6, 2006 11:23 AM
============
A
true statesman once wrote "They who give
up a little liberty in order to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin
Strange thing is, ID cards won't make us any safer,
but will end up removing a lot of our liberties.
Its a total lose/lose situation for us. The only
major winners will be the IT countries who will
make billions peddling this rubbish. I hope the
main loser will end up being Blair and his sycophants
who have brought this country closer to a police
state than it has ever been before.
Posted by David Brunton on November 6, 2006 11:30
AM
===========
For
once I am in full agreement with Tony Blair. All
European countries are using ID cards, you can
travel throughout Western Europe without a passport,
including Switzerland, and in Spain where I live
you produce your ID card as proof of identity
when paying by credit card. Lets face it, all
people who are employed and have a bank account
are already "hooked" by the authorities
(Police, Inland Revenue) anyway.
Posted by Tony Patteson on November 6, 2006 11:40
AM
Report this comment
===========
The main argument against ID cards (aside from
ineptitude and cost overruns which can be relied
on) is fundamentally do you trust your government
(and all future governments). If you do then fine.
Given that most peoples level of trust in yourself
is such that if you said the world was round a
good many people (myself included) would start
to worry about falling off the edge, I can't see
how you can persuade people that its safe to give
you this power.
Dodgy dossiers, scientists hounded to their deaths
for party PR have hardly healped your case have
they.
Its your record on crime though that really kills
it. With an estimated 15% of drivers now with
no road tax or insurance you introduce booster
seats. You'll enforce any law on the suffering
law-abiding majority the pettier the better. Woe
betide a respectable person caught doing 31 in
a 30 limit but a career criminal caught unisured
and speeding after killing someone won't be any
more severely punished.
This wil surely just end up as another means of
extorting from and controlling the law-abiding
as the criminals won't use it and won't be punished.
Posted by MatG on November 6, 2006 11:47 AM
=============
It
is so sad to see this man scrabbling around looking
for a legacy...
I
have some bad news for you Tony.... Iraq is your
legacy, Its the only thing you have really done
in your 10 years... that and taxes.
Posted by Catherine Carr on November 6, 2006 12:00
PM
We don't want ID cards and we don't need them.
This is a solution looking for a problem not a
strategic approach to a clear issue. It will be
an infringement of liberty, protect nothing, be
a bureaucratic nightmare and a huge waste of money.
Mr. Blair, go now and please take whole bankrupt
political elite with you.
Posted by Bryan D on November 6, 2006 12:19 PM
Report this comment
==============
ID cards will not stop terrorists who do not care
or
more accurately want people to know who they are
after they commit their crimes. Neither 7/7, 9/11
or
7/21 would have been stopped by ID cards.
The
only justification for ID cards is that the
government wants to know more about what
Britons get up to all the time. It just admit
that and
let the people decide.
Posted by Andrew Ian Dodge on November 6, 2006
12:15 PM
============
It's not the ID card that's the issue, Mr. B'Liar,
it's the database you're proposing to put behind
it.
I
already have a Government-approved means of proving
my identity. It's called a PASSPORT, and Governments
all over the world accept its veracity. I don't
need, don't want and won't have your and/or any
successive Government monitoring and recording
my every move for the rest of my life. Just as
I will not allow your house inspectors into my
home uninvited, I WILL NOT have one or your so-called
ID cards.
Be
sure to note, I'm not the only one, and you can't
lock us all up.
Posted
by Laurie Brown on November 6, 2006 12:37 PM
Report this comment
===============
The
libertarian argument against ID cards does not
have a cost/benefit analysis at its basis. Rather,
it rests on the idea that government should be
answerable to the people. ID cards are symbolic
of a reversal of this relationship.
In
the UK, authority flows down from the crown. However,
whilst we may be British subjects, a large number
of people on all sides of the political spectrum
also regard themselves as British citizens.
It
is in this context, that ID cards are objectionable,
unless they are introduced as a short term measure
as part of a "state of emergency" package,
and subject to periodic reviews within Parliament.
Given
the horrors of the 20th Century, given the neo-fascistic
rise of the chav (watch this space), and given
the rise of Islamist fascism, I don't believe
that it is unreasonable for people to keep making
the libertarian (as opposed to hand-wringing liberal)
argument against universally mandatory ID cards.
Even Rousseau appreciated that man is first born
free ...
Posted by Anon on November 6, 2006 12:55 PM
Report this comment
==============
Well Mr Blair I know who I am, and if anyone in
authority wishes to know who Iam i will simply
give them the information they require.
Now thats good enough for me.
If it is not good enough for the state which seems
to be the case, then the state is asumming that
Iam a liar. Well Mr Blair that is not acceptable.
Posted by M. Ford . Bolton on November 6, 2006
12:46 PM
Report this comment
==========
"in a world in which we daily provide information
to a whole host of companies"
- Many of us do provide I would call it uninformed
consent, many of us wish we could press a button
and delete our credit records and all the information
on them. Still at least it is not being held by
the government...
"and
organisations and willingly carry a variety of
cards to identify us,"
It
is funny how the number of people willingly doing
anything plunges when they are FORCED...
"I
don't think the civil liberties argument carries
much weight."
Plastic
Poll Tax. The only thing people have left that
they own that has any value (about £200
a pop) is their Identity. "Privatising"
that is going too far, it is robbery. My identity
is mine and I will not accept a plastic poll tax
that violates me to that degree.
As
for multiple identities they are not just used
by terrorists and fraudsters they are a right
- Mr and Mrs Smith can check into a hotel, you
can wake up one morning and call yourself Donald
the Great Duck, you can hide from an abusive ex,
you can be anonymous in a City you've never visited
before, and you can do so without tracking, monitoring
or public sector eyes looking over your shoulder
wherever you go... it's called freedom and I will
hold onto it with my last shred of life. Mr Prime
Minister, you will have to shed my blood before
I give up my fundamental freedom that my grandfather
died for to deliver and protect.
Posted by Melissa Gibson on November 6, 2006 1:10
PM
Report this comment
================
BBC
ACTION NETWORK
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/F1746068
Forget about privacy - we lost that long ago.
The government already has access to your bank,
credit card, phone and other such records - officially
on the order of some minor functionary in the
Home Office, and in reality probably in real time
without restriction. They know what you bought
and who you called.
The
point here is control. In a few short years every
transaction in your life will depend on your record
in the National Slave Register. At the touch of
a button someone in the Home Office can delete
that record or mark it "terrorist" -
and what our government can do you can bet the
CIA and every major criminal organisation in the
world can do too (and any fat fingered idiot at
the government's IT centre by mistake). We're
talking instant electronic outlawry. Don't worry
about them knowing you bought a bottle of wine.
Worry about going to the doctor and finding the
swipe lock on the door won't let you in because
the NIR says you're a non-person. Worry about
coming out of the wine shop and being shot in
the head by police because the NIR says you're
a suicide bomber (or Brazilian).
There
ought to be riots, but there won't be. The British
people will riot over money, or furry animals,
but not about vague ideas like freedom which only
concern the chattering classes (like us on this
board). Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!
What
force or guile could not subdue,
Thro' many warlike ages,
Is wrought now by a coward few,
For hireling traitor's wages.
(Robert
Burns lament for the old Scottish parliarment
is not innapropriate, and hardly blunted by the
hobbled new one introduced by mistake before Blair
discovered how inconvenient democracy actually
is.) "
By Brian Whittaker - on 30 Mar 2006 at 09:35
============
What
the government is not really telling you is what
chipset is going to be used in the ID cards.
You
think it's going to be like your credit card where
you have to hand it over.
Have
you not read into the use of FPID or FPIC chip
sets they are thinking of using on all ID cards.
They
then only have to think about the reading devices
and distance between readers.
I
have nothing to hide but the state belongs to
me. I don't belong to the state. I for one will
not pocess a card esspecially using the FPID or
FPIC chipsets.
"
By Douglas Allison - on 22 Feb 2006 at 14:15
==============
The
only reason to be against identity cards is if
you have something to hide." says a previous
commenter. Everybody has something to hide, surely?
3rd parties will be able to levarage the system
even without access to the information in the
governments database, simply by using each person's
assigned unique ID number to cross-reference all
the freely-available information they can lay
their hands on. Thus your history of late video
rental returns and binge supermarket alcohol purchases
will be available to employers, insurers, etc.
Any vaguelly interesting or dynamic person will
have far worse things to hide, from sexual predilictions
to paying back their student loan late, to voluntarily
going to therapy to help them with stress. You
think you have nothing to hide - how would you
react faced with issues like this at interview?
Perhaps by saying it is none of the interviewer's
business? My point exactly. No to ID cards."
By jonathan hartley - on 14 Feb 2006 at 16:53
|
UK
PM Tony Blair
