More ID card disingenuity

[SilentDeath]

Does the government actually want hte details on a central database?

I assumed any details about you would be stored only on the ID card - which wouldnt be nearly as bad, but I would still be agsinst the whole thing.

[nichomach]

The details WILL be on the national identity register. How else could they sell them?

[Rave]

Bah, passed with 31 majority. Have to hope the Lords and committees savage it now....but I won't be happy even with a modified scheme so I hope it gets neutered so much it has to be dropped.

I cant find my passport, im going to get one quick now.

Unless you need one then you're best off getting it a couple of months before they introduce the new We Treat You Like A Common CriminalTM passports, which I think is in 2007. That's what I'll be doing.

[KBeee]

I love the way the costs are going up and up
From "We've already got to go biometric for passports (half truth/lie), so the extra cost of biometric ID is negligable..."
To "They will cost between £20 to £30, and free for the less well off...."
To "Of course they won't be too expensive - we'll cap the cost to the individual..(to £100 if my guess is right)"
But the ID cards have to be fiscaly neutral - so if they cost more than the £100 cap, then the extra cost has to be gouged from somewhere else... probably the extra will be added to the passports price. ID is £125, passport £150... ooops, ID's capped at £100, have to make it ID £100, passport £175.

[Rave]

The extra cost will come from taxes. They're not even bothering to lie about this, just hoping we won't notice.

[KBeee]

Not really... the Treasury has said that the ID cards must be fiscaly neautral - that means self financing, no extra from existing taxes. That leaves either a new tax (another hidden tax), or money raised by other means, like selling data to private companies etc.
The cards aren't compulsory of course (same as breathing isn't compulsory), but it can easilly be made compulsory to have "proof of genuine ID" to buy anything or sell anything.
So you don't need an ID so long as you don't want to buy or sell or work or use a service.

An interesting letter today in El Reg
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
No-one seems to have picked up on the announcement made by Tony Blair on monday as he was trying desperately to drum up support for his stupid surveillance scheme.

"The ID card will form the basis of a way of making secure business transactions".

Which will of course mean that EVERYONE will need access to the technology used to verify the details held on the card. How else would we be able to check whether that spotty kid in Comet is authorised to sell you a new TV?

Yes, he did say "business transactions" even though it's supposed to be a "personal" ID card. To cope with this new (made up on the spot?) functionality, the card or the associated database will need employment and credit history

Of course, those of us in the IT industry know how much this will all cost. The careful wording of the announcement that "private companies will not be able to pay to access the data" rather than "the data will not be available to private companies" makes it clear that someone else will have to cover the cost of this. My bet is that WE will end up with a bill every time someone accesses OUR information - a TAX.

Andrew Alston
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good idea Huh?
How about a little 10p charge each time your ID is verified, to cover costs?

[Rave]

The cards aren't compulsory of course (same as breathing isn't compulsory),

Well, since they'll be collecting all your biometric details when you apply for a passport, entry onto the database will be effectively compulsory unless you don't want to leave the country. As I understand it, there is a clause in the bill that the government can decide at any point to make the cards compulsory once there has been sufficient 'voluntary' uptake, and at that point they can compell citzens to turn up to ID themselves under sanction of a £2000 fine.

EDIT: Comment revoked as being unduly aggressive after some thought.

[nichomach]

As opposed to voting Tory and landing us with different (and probably much worse) sh1t?

[Rave]

The truth is, I'd rather be poor, but free.

Edit: to elaborate, I'd rather have had Howard's bigotry than Blair's Big Brother vision for the future. When I read 1984 in the mid-90s I was glad we'd never have to worry about that vision of the future again. More fool me eh?

[G4Z]

I actually read it for the first time in January, its really quite amazing how much of what is in the book seems to be coming true.

[RedPutty]

it would have been better if the tories had won, at least they would have been more honest about pandering to capitalism and taking away our rights. Labour fought a fraudulent election (and i'm not even counting their "if you dont vote for us the tories will win" fallacy that so many sheep believed).

[spikegifted]

This is probably not the right place nor time to ask this question, but, for me, it is one that is just begging to be asked:

How many of my esteemed colleagues here who're complaining our PM's policy/policies actually voted for him and his party in the recent general election?



For those who voted for him or his party: Well... Wise choice! (Or not...)

For those who didn't vote: We were all given a chance to air our preferences, you choose not exercise your right - you've no-one to blame but yourselves.

For those who voted tactically to keep another party out: You're only lying to yourselves.

For those who voted for any other reason: Better luck next time.

[Stoo]

Are we forgetting about Letwin and Howard blatent BS regarding their policies (other than the knee-jerk "whatever the opposite of labour are saying" ones), mainly regarding their enormous budget black-hole?

Both the Tories and Labour are as bad as each other in different ways, and the Lib-Dems just haven't got enough experienced statesmen (& women) to form a proper government at the moment.

I still don't get the whole you voted for blair thing either, because unless you live in the Sedgwick constituency, you actually voted for your local representative, IE, I didn't vote for Tony Blair, I voted for Bob Blizzard, my local MP. Who alongside one of the other Labour MP's in the area has done an amazing job of getting local investment going again, why jepodise something that is going to directly affect me a lot more by making a protest vote against Tony Blair?

I just hope the house of lords can do something useful for once and kill this stupid bill, or at least, mortally wound it..

[Trippledence]

ID cards arnt a bad thing, a national one that costs over 100 pounds is.. Right and seen as most people have some form of ID any way why dont places just start requesting ID if they wanted it. Its because they dont. If this bill does come into power i think it;s high time for a Recolution. Revolt i say, they cant put us all in jail.

[wasabi]

OK, maybe I'm a bit thick, but if we remove the vague point of principle thing, what is the REAL problem people have with this? Photos are such a pathetic form of ID it is laughable they're still around. My only gripe is paying for the sodding things.

IMO there are far better causes of individual freedom to fight for. If people really had individual freedom we'd have the right to take as many and whatever drugs we wanted, not wear seatbelts, kill ourselves if we wished, and wouldn't have to pay taxes for lazy dolie slappers down the road to have kids.

[Trippledence]

Also am i the only one who doesnt get the whole ID cards stop terorists thing. I mean a terorist isnt going to carry a card idetifing himself as one.