UK ID Cards - for or against?

[oshta]

I think making them compulsary would be a pointless waste of time/effort/money and possably counter-productive.

However, i think there should be an optional ID card that you could buy, ie, for proof of age etc.
- from my exprence, nowhere accepts anything other than a driving leicense or pastport, which is lame for anyone who doesnt drive.


Daniel

[Taz]

AFAIK, the government suffered yet another defeat in the Lords yesterday (Monday). This was not that well publicised but the motion defeated was to make the cards compulsory.

[teachmech]

When I leave the house I always carry my driving liecnece(??) as it is in my wallet why not carry an ID card instead that covers everything? I simply believe that an ID card would be a good thing overall. However why we as indiviuals should pay is another matter.

[iranu]

For all those people who think that ID cards are a good idea I would like to make them aware that the ID card that you all want is capable of being tracked. This government has said that the data would only be readable from a scanner, but they have yet to say who is able to do the scanning.

I foresee a future, a very near future, where every time you get on a train or bus, every time you go into a government controlled building (school, hospital, job centre, police station) your ID card will be scanned most likey without you knowing about it. Combined with number plate recognition and camera/satellite monitoring of cars your exact movements will be tracked by government. It would be very easy for a government to insist that scanning technology be incorporated at airports and ports on the grounds of anti-terrorist legislation.

People who carry id cards at the moment carry bits of plastic or paper with writing on. They do not carry their dna profile etc just name address photograph. This cannot be tracked or scanned - there's no computer chip on them.

The proposed ID card system is a lot more invasive than current ID schemes. It is just another step that Britain is taking towards a police state. Wake up before it's too late.

If you don't believe it when I say we are heading to a police state just witness the country's leading policeman, Sir Ian Blair, dictating to the media ( a free media - one of the basics in a democratice free state) over how they should cover murders where the victim is in an "ethnic minority" and accusing them of institutional racism. The state (or the police) telling the press what they can report and how they can report it is part of a police state.

[TeePee]

I don't know about ID cards, but I'm about to face another interview at the US Embassy for another visa. Currently everyone who needs a visa (British nationals on holiday can fill out a waiver on the plane) has to visit the embassy in person so that they can be fingerprinted. A passport with biometric information would hopefully avoid this neccessity, if they are allowed to apply for visas by post. If nothing else, the £1.50 a minute phone call to book an appointment could be avoided!

[nichomach]

Rubbish, iranu. Ian Blair did not dictate anything to anyone; he merely pointed out that there was a distinct difference in the reporting of the death of a white lawyer and an asian builders' merchant. What he actually said was:

He had been asked if the capital's police gave a "proportional response" to all murders.
"I am pretty furious. We do devote the same level of resources to murders in relation to their difficulty," he said.
"What the difference is, is how these are reported. I actually believe that the media is guilty of institutional racism in the way they report deaths.
"That death of the young lawyer was terrible, but an Asian man was dragged to his death, a woman was chopped up in Lewisham, a chap shot in the head in a Trident murder - they got a paragraph on page 97.
"With one or two exceptions, clearly Damilola Taylor was one, the reporting of murder in minority communities appears not to interest the mainstream media," Sir Ian said.
He said the capital's police had to respond to media interest.
He said that while the murders of two schoolgirls in Soham in 2002 were "dreadful crimes" but he had been surprised at how much coverage the murders received.
"Let's be absolutely straight. It was a dreadful crime, nobody is suggesting anything else.
"But there are other dreadful crimes which do not become the greatest story in Britain and that did for that August period."

In the same way that the police are not above criticism, neither should the media be. Blair feels that crime against members of minority communities is given short shrift by the mainstream press; it's his right to state that. He also feels that media coverage is expected to have an effect upon policing priorities; again, it's his right to state that. That's an opinion on the current state of the media, and the media aren't shy about commenting on the police, or anything else for that matter. He did NOT tell anyone whether or how to report anything and he certainly couldn't and I think wouldn't attempt to enforce that. Being able to state an opinion is also part of a free state.

As regards ID cards, I agree with a lot of what you say; the government have been allowed to get away with murder in terms of the declared basis and objectives of ID cards, stating that they'd have to gather the biometric data anyway for passports, when the only biometrics required for that is one digital photograph. I feel that the proposed identity register is intrusive, and I dislike the ease with which we are moving to a surveillance based society. That said, these days you could sell the great British Public on just about anything if you tell them "it's for safety" or "to protect against terrorism" - we have become a disgustingly risk-averse society.

[RVF500]

For roughly 30 years we lived with a home grown terrorist threat that was very real. The IRA carried out a significant number of attacks both in Northern Ireland and mainland UK. As well as some in Europe.

In all this time no one saw the need for a surveillance state. In fact the general opinion was that if we stopped going about our business as normal and introduced such measures then we were in fact allowing the terrorist to win. They were restricting our way of life and basic freedoms.

So why, when we are faced with a much lesser threat than we did then do we race headlong towards a police state. Concrete obstructions outside of the houses of parliament no less. This has much much more to do with government control of the population than it ever has to do with the security of our country. This is state security and state control. Now that has a sinister ring to it wouldn't you agree?

[Rave]

Agreed RVF. How often is that going to happen?

[RVF500]

It seems that a climbdown in the short term has been acheived. But you can bet your bottom dollar that they will still try and slide it in the back door.

All they have to do to get this through and make it palatable is to reduce the cost first of all. £0 would be acceptable. And instead of forcing people to divulge everything from name to biological make-up. Simply make it an identity document with notning more sinister than details already used to obtain a passport. But then common sense was never a strong point amongst politicians.

[Taz]

It's the big Commons vote later today. It's interesting that ID cards will technically become compulsory as anyone applying for a new passport will be required to get a biometric one. Hence, even if you oppose the concept of biometric ID cards, that data will still be held by this government when you next apply for a new passport.

[RVF500]

Yep, slide it in via the back door. Whoever voted for this sham of a govt should take a long hard look at themselves. Especially when they wake up and realise that their essential freedoms have been happily signed away. I don't mind if people shoot themselves in the foot. I do mind when I get dragged along with them.

[Big RICHARD]

I find it quite funny that the government press on with ID cards, they have basically said to MPs 'If you can't vote the right way the first time we will continue to have votes until you get it right'. Why is there no maximum number of times that a piece of legislation can be put through the House of Commons before it is thrown out for good? (or at least a minimum period of 10 or so years) This would protect us from extremist laws (such as ID cards).

[directhex]

hooray. your government has completely failed you.

every labour voter, take a bow, and go join "students for an orwellian society"

[Matt1eD]

Was anyone sad enough to watch some of the debate on BBC Parliament online!

[iranu]

Once again my theory on left leaning "liberal" governments being more dangerous for the population than right leaning ones gets an added boost.

The sad thing is that half the British population can't be bothered to stand against this and the other half have swallowed the government's BS and think it's a good idea.

1984 should be compulsory reading in the last year of school.

[Matt1eD]

1984 should be compulsory reading in the last year of school.

1984 is one of my favourite books.

At first one thinks 'that's terrible, evil, horrible', then 'good germany didn't win the war and support russia', then '****, we're actually a bit like that'.

It's frightening, to an extent they do have this control imo.