Manchester to get ID cards First

[TooNice]

I am not convinced that we'll see a general election this year, but suppose we do, and Labour loses - what's likely to happen with this scheme? Has too much money already gone into for anyone to reverse it?

In terms of information linked to the card, how does the UK ID card compare to that of the other countries?

I am guessing that a major reason why many are against the ID card in the UK is due to the fact that the government managed to lose dics containing personal information. Has that occurred in any countries with ID cards, and if it has, how severe are the consequences?

[arthurleung]

I am not convinced that we'll see a general election this year, but suppose we do, and Labour loses - what's likely to happen with this scheme? Has too much money already gone into for anyone to reverse it?

In terms of information linked to the card, how does the UK ID card compare to that of the other countries?

I am guessing that a major reason why many are against the ID card in the UK is due to the fact that the government managed to lose dics containing personal information.

I think, the reader is a fixed cost, what is stored on the card could be changed even last minute, just need to modify the database structure.

Whoever wins could just strike a compromise, like having less data in the RFID. Afterall, you only need the card number to identify your fingerprint.

No doubt someone will manage to lose disks. Nowadays with USB sticks it is hard not to lose any data. Other than banning USB sticks through Windows AD policy there is not much can be done.

Lets say user can be identified using both Un-salted or Salted ID Number. Any user accessing the system can only export data with the Salted ID number (but allowed to lookup with either), and no names.

If the data is leaked, change the salt for the Salted ID. Issue new cards to affected people (Probably don't even need that). The now invalid Salted ID means nothing. There may be still too much data remaining to identify a person but it is definitely harder to actually do it. Nowdays people can identify someone from internet search queries, there is no way to completely stop it, other than making it harder to do so.

There are probably more fool-proof way of doing it, I'm not an expert on data protection, surely someone will come up with a better idea.
Not so sure about the muppets running the country.

[Grotbags]

I'm almost 32 Years old, in all my life i've been asked to prove my I.D maybe 4 times at the most, most of these times have been at the supermarket buying booze because the cashier's being a bit to zelous in their new job. There's no reason for it in my life. Its just another method for data collection. More data = more information on public/citizens = easier ways to socially construct towards a goal.

[G4Z]

arthurleung you make some decent points but as yet I can't see any benefits for me as an individual from this scheme but I can see plenty of costs and potential for abuse by the government. The one benefit you have stated about waiting 20 minutes at immigration is a non-starter for me to be honest because we already have RFID passports capable of doing the exact same thing, I have one and it even worked in Portugal. That to me is not even a benefit of ID cards or the database that goes with them, I still have not heard a good argument about the benefit to the individual from this system.

[arthurleung]

I'm almost 32 Years old, in all my life i've been asked to prove my I.D maybe 4 times at the most, most of these times have been at the supermarket buying booze because the cashier's being a bit to zelous in their new job. There's no reason for it in my life. Its just another method for data collection. More data = more information on public/citizens = easier ways to socially construct towards a goal.

That REALLY depends on if you're mobile or not. I came to UK 7 years ago, I've changed address 5 times. I have to keep sending in certified copies of passport and crap for every single service I want to register for, because they couldn't verify me electronically. The lost productivity for me to chase up all these stuff amounts to a few days per year.

At 32 you probably already have a fully fixed address and have a proper long-term record that the combination of your name and your address is enough to identify you.

The need for an ID card if you don't go out of country frequently is not high I'd admit. I lived in Hong Kong and many people (my parents included) have to go through the border twice a week or more. Having an ID card saves massive amount of time in this case and increase the maximum throughput of the border control by a couple folds. If you never go out of where you live, let alone an ID card, you don't even need a passport. 10-20 years back you probably don't even need a bank card.

[0iD]

I'm just waiting for the whole operation to be outsourced to India.

[zulander]

Its not going to take off in Manchester is it. We didnt vote for the congestion charge mainly based on it costing more but for drivers. Few will pay £30-60 for the card.
I know other countries have them France its illegal not to carry it with you but we have survived for this long without them i dont see why they need to be introduced.
The tories have already said they will bin them if they get in so pointless exercise and a complete waste of money all round

[arthurleung]

Its not going to take off in Manchester is it. We didnt vote for the congestion charge mainly based on it costing more but for drivers. Few will pay £30-60 for the card.
I know other countries have them France its illegal not to carry it with you but we have survived for this long without them i dont see why they need to be introduced.
The tories have already said they will bin them if they get in so pointless exercise and a complete waste of money all round

The argument ONLY for the fee:
If paying 30 pounds save me from doing all the certified documents (£7 each + time), save me an hour going through border control every time I fly, save me from bringing a passport to the pub and possibly lose it (£££ to replace), I am far more than happy to pay for it. Not to mention provisional driving licenses aren't free either. These cards last for years, more so if its RFID (unless you cut it in half). £30 for 10 years means £3/year, considerably less than what I donate every year.

Benefit Fraud

Benefit Fraud Hotline 0800 026 2456
Did you know that you are giving away nearly £80 a year to benefit cheats?

Nationally it's estimated that £2 billion is stolen by benefit cheats every year - that's £80 from every household in Britain. It's money that is being stolen from you, from your hospitals, your schools and your local services.

The red-tape removed by the redundunt (and not very reliable) checking of applications across the board could easily save a couple hundred millions per year (I wouldn't know, it might be into the billions). Multiply by 10 years and there is your £20 billion back into the pocket and cover the running cost with some extra savings.

Yes, the immediate cost is high. There might be minimal direct benefit to you (yet).

Cost of running a RFID system? Universities run it, TFL runs Oyster cards. It is not really that high. You don't expect every police officer carrying one around do you? There is readable information on the card BY EYE.

[G4Z]

arthurleung, you are really not convicing me that we as a nation should invest billions in a system so you don't have to take a passport into the pub?

Come on, seriously, what are the real tangigble benefits that are worth spending £20billion on? (plus whatever the annual running costs would be and the most likely subsidised cost of readers)

[james_d]

I know other countries have them France its illegal not to carry it with you

Actually, no, it's not, it's not even required to have one in the first place. What is required is that you're able to prove who you are to a gendarme if required - other methods are get someone else to vouch for you, or go with them to the station and they'll check through the records. It's easier to have one for that regard yes, but it's by no means compulsory.

[Steve A]

well we all know that northerners are all jobless criminals who can't be trusted, finally the labour party are doing something about this.

i for one welcome our monitoring every inch of our lives overlords!

Your comments are flawed my friend,

I am

a) Employeed

and

b) not a criminal

Many Thanks

[james_d]

The red-tape removed by the redundunt (and not very reliable) checking of applications across the board could easily save a couple hundred millions per year (I wouldn't know, it might be into the billions). Multiply by 10 years and there is your £20 billion back into the pocket and cover the running cost with some extra savings.

Be careful with the government spin about reducing benefit fraud. The vast majority of the £2b a year quoted is claiming more than you're entitled to - non declaration of savings, undeclared working whilst on JSA etc.

They don't actually know how much is false identity, but it's estimated at about £50million a year.

[arthurleung]

Actually, no, it's not, it's not even required to have one in the first place. What is required is that you're able to prove who you are to a gendarme if required - other methods are get someone else to vouch for you, or go with them to the station and they'll check through the records. It's easier to have one for that regard yes, but it's by no means compulsory.

Yes. But with the current UK system there is no central database that cover anywhere even remotely close to 100% of the population. If there is no records you can't check through it.

Be careful with the government spin about reducing benefit fraud. The vast majority of the £2b a year quoted is claiming more than you're entitled to - non declaration of savings, undeclared working whilst on JSA etc.

Now if the government go onto linking your bank account to your ID card, and the employer is required to register the job with your ID number, that £2b comes out. That also brings up all sorts of problems like illegal workers and illegally paying less than the minimum wages.

It is a matter between making everyone register and so filtering out the "illegals" or to get people to report them.
I wouldn't go too far into this and ger ridiculed for over-optimistic view.

[zulander]

Actually, no, it's not, it's not even required to have one in the first place. What is required is that you're able to prove who you are to a gendarme if required - other methods are get someone else to vouch for you, or go with them to the station and they'll check through the records. It's easier to have one for that regard yes, but it's by no means compulsory.

They certainly were at one time in france and other EU countries it is mandatory. Having checked the ruling now it appears that as you say its not complusary. I still cant see the scheme catching on over here france brought the scheme in the 1940s if it was free it might have a chance but right now i dont see it

[G4Z]

Yes. But with the current UK system there is no central database that cover anywhere even remotely close to 100% of the population. If there is no records you can't check through it.

National insurance number.

[james_d]

Now if the government go onto linking your bank account to your ID card, and the employer is required to register the job with your ID number, that £2b comes out. That also brings up all sorts of problems like illegal workers and illegally paying less than the minimum wages.

It is a matter between making everyone register and so filtering out the "illegals" or to get people to report them.
I wouldn't go too far into this and ger ridiculed for over-optimistic view.

Why yes, they could do all that. Several countries have had setups approaching that before, the DDR and the USSR being examples.
Weren't all that popular for some reason.

The government works for us, not the other way round. It has no business having access to my bank account unless I've actually committed a criminal act.