It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What do you guy thin about the new ID card Bill

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 10:25 PM
link   
Mr,Blukett says 80% of the people were behind the Bill,but it's said that the politicians were'nt...
.Tony Blair said ID cards would "protect rather than erode civil liberties".
Lib Dems have vowed to stop the plans, which they regard as "deeply flawed". The Tories expressed some misgivings.

news.bbc.co.uk...

I still have my national seciurity card which I have'nt used in 7 years,would it still work??

Here in Belgium we had them introduced already 5years or so..I don't understand actually how GreatBritian has'nt tried to do this earlyer..




posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 02:38 AM
link   
i'm sure this subject should stir up some stronger emotions in me, but to be honest i really couldn't care whether i have to get one or not.



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 07:43 AM
link   
*cough* police state *cough*

Thats my view on the matter, this country is heading for a police state.



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 09:18 AM
link   
I must admit I'm with BlueLol on this.

I have sympathy for Infinite's misgivings too but I just don't see what the big deal is given the sheer amount of ID most of us already carry and the general 'stop and search' powers the Police in the UK already have here.

In the UK we have had ID cards before as a war-time measure but the system costs a lot of money to administer and wasn't reckoned to be worth persisting with once the war had ended.



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey


I have sympathy for Infinite's misgivings too but I just don't see what the big deal is given the sheer amount of ID most of us already carry and the general 'stop and search' powers the Police in the UK already have here.



So we have ECHELON, CCTV everywhere and now ID cards?? next it will be bio-metric,etc. We have become a tool of the government, liberty is now non-exstience



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 11:00 AM
link   
I have to agree with infinite on this one. Fear of terrorism is being used as an excuse to give us all ID cards with photos, biometrics and who knows what else. They're definitely a needless reduction of civil liberties in reaction to a fear of terrorism. i was more afraid of the IRA back in the day.




"Know your true identity and being able to demonstrate it [the implication here being with an ID card] is a positive plus and is a basic human right which all of us should treasure."


This is a quote from David Blunkett on the BBC link in the first post. I nearly laughed out loud reading this.

I know my identity. How does forcing me to carry an ID card help me exercise this?




Rather than requiring more information from people, he said the cards would ensure a "less intrusive" way of collecting details than the national census.


What the hell? We'll still have a census too! What kind of rubbish is this man spouting?



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Horus_Re
Tony Blair said ID cards would "protect rather than erode civil liberties".


Looks like Mr Blair is spouting more


I daresay he'd say the same about the chip too :shk:



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pisky
Looks like Mr Blair is spouting more


Doesn't he always


ID cards are a waste of time, they won't stop terrorism, just look at Spain.
And look at the massive cost to the tax payer


[edit on 7-12-2004 by UK Wizard]



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard
ID cards are a waste of time, they won't stop terrorism,


- But they aren't meant to specifically "stop" anything on their own.

They are simply part of a range of measures aimed at making life much more tough for would-be terroists and criminals.


just look at Spain.


- Yes indeed, just look at Spain (and all the other modern developed free and democratic countries that have them).

No one has decided they are a total waste of time and effort despite their not being the sole perfect solution, have they, hmmmm?


And look at the massive cost to the tax payer


- If having ID cards ever stopped just a single massive attack anything like a 9/11 or something like the Bishopsgate bombing we'd consider them cheap at twice the price.

I'm not that enthuised about them myself UK Wizard but I think this black and white 'they do and will do nothing positive at all' attitude is just not a reasonable position to take and certainly one not bourne out by the facts and experience of them.

The debate is whether they would do enough for the price, not IMO, that they will do or can only do 'nothing'.

We had them at various times in the past for a range of very good reasons, not for nothing.



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 01:29 PM
link   
OK. maybe We could connect this Bill to civil liberties violations like so many other things...our computers are also being observed to an extent..emails ,blogs etc..bank cards,...social secuirity...etc...
With the tech.of today we just can not avoid being watched by 'big Brother' as they are reffered to..but isn't there anything that you guys see as being an advantage to the person ....say you have just been in a car accident and your in need of a blood infus..this info on you Id card could save your life..
I think if one hasn't got anything to hide need not worry about a card with your details,which are on a central computer anyways,having said that we all have some kind of a moment in our lives which we rather leave berried...but that's just an illusion we cling to..They Know ...if it has been done,you can't outrun...
So what left is to embrace,and maybe end the ratrace..



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
No one has decided they are a total waste of time and effort despite their not being the sole perfect solution, have they, hmmmm?


So because everyone else has them we must too??????


If having ID cards ever stopped just a single massive attack anything like a 9/11 or something like the Bishopsgate bombing we'd consider them cheap at twice the price.


But would it stop a terrorist attack, it didn't work in Spain so why would it work here???


The debate is whether they would do enough for the price, not IMO, that they will do or can only do 'nothing'.


I know, of course they would achieve something, but its 'would they do enough for the cost'??


We had them at various times in the past for a range of very good reasons, not for nothing.


For things like wars, not peace time.



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 02:39 PM
link   
I don't think it has directly much to do with the 9/11 attacks..
Let's face it ,We endorce all other modern tech to a lagre extent..OK.not everything..If you start talking about stem cell research and clones. super computers,etc..etc...but a meer ID card..,causes so much concern..come on !!!



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard
So because everyone else has them we must too??????


- That was hardly what I was getting at UK Wizard and you must know that.

I was trying to point out that in the example of a 'failure' for the ID cards you gave - Spain - they still see enough value in them despite this to keep them.

Rather than simply discarding them maybe it would be worth our giving fair consideration as to why they still retain them.

.....is that not a fair point?


But would it stop a terrorist attack, it didn't work in Spain so why would it work here???


- Because whilst they never will be guaranteed to stop every single attack that does not mean they might not thwart several other attacks.


I know, of course they would achieve something, but its 'would they do enough for the cost'??


- Exactly. That is all I have been saying.

My point is that we get a little further in these debates if we can at least see what value the people who actually use these things see in them.

The Spainish and other European peoples who have these things are not stupid; they understand the principles of liberty and 'big brother' as you and I so why do they feel ok about these cards?


For things like wars, not peace time.


- Well again that is part of the debate. Some see us living in a low level war.


Originally posted by Horus_Re
We could connect this Bill to civil liberties violations like so many other things...our computers are also being observed to an extent..emails ,blogs etc..bank cards,...social secuirity...etc...


- Yes. Absolutely, an excellent point.

I am all for a formal written ' Bill of Rights' in the UK rather than this out-dated nebulous and vague discretionary situation we have.

I agree that the state's rights should be codified as the people's should be, it would be an excellent opportunity to redefine, expand and communicate the rights and liberties of the British people.



[edit on 7-12-2004 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 03:03 PM
link   
perhaps we should be thinking even further ahead of that plastic I.D. card that one day we might be carrying around with us.

imagine that I.D. card, being a chip in your head! how about that for infringement of personal liberty.

When technology gets personal



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by BLUELol
imagine that I.D. card, being a chip in your head! how about that for infringement of personal liberty.

When technology gets personal


- I thought it was supposed to be a bar code tattoo we were all to fear.



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 03:16 PM
link   


- I thought it was supposed to be a bar code tattoo we were all to fear.


a bar code tattoo is so pass, so Hollywood! but alas, if it allowed me to transform my arm into something of Terminatoresq variety, then


seriously though, i personally find the idea of having my facial structure scanned to gain access to KFC intriguingly inspirational. and the same goes for having all my 'statistical' details on a card.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 08:55 AM
link   
This is all police state tatics to use fear to keep us in line. We keep getting told that the UK is a target and numerous reports of "attacks being foiled". Labour are using fear in the same way the American Republican party used to get voters to vote for them.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
This is all police state tatics to use fear to keep us in line. We keep getting told that the UK is a target and numerous reports of "attacks being foiled". Labour are using fear in the same way the American Republican party used to get voters to vote for them.


If fear becomes the major election issue, then the terrorists have won

If these attacks were as major as the Gov have said they were, then why is the media not going hyper about it?????

Concerning barcodes:






posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard
If fear becomes the major election issue, then the terrorists have won


- I'd say that's true but if the IRA with their actual repeated shooting and bomb attacks couldn't provoke wide-spread fear in the UK I doubt if the mere 'worry' of Islamic terrorism will.


If these attacks were as major as the Gov have said they were, then why is the media not going hyper about it?????


- That is hardly proof of anything either way.

I don't have any way of knowing any more about this than you right now but it could be that the threat is greater than people imagine but the papers are taking a responsible line and going out of their way not to panic the public.


Concerning barcodes:





- It's a lovely image isn't it?


Mind you, if it was feasible to have your details including your full genotype encoded like that on you (maybe in a few places, just in case of really horrific accident) would you?
For emergency (medical) use, hmmm?



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 08:19 PM
link   
Facial identification is the fastest growing biometric technology today. According to many industry experts, it is also the most controversial of all biometrics. Despite their lingering questions regarding the practical usefulness of facial identification technology, law enforcement and military facial identification systems have been in place for several years without arousing too much controversy. According to industry insiders, this is because these applications have proven quite successful in carrying out specific objectives and the public is often unaware of these uses. Although facial recognition technology has not been proven to be an accurate and effective way of identifying terrorists or wanted suspects, some of the proposed post-September 11 uses of the technology such as in immigration and airport security have been welcomed by the general public. Are we too eager to buy into a new technology without clearly evaluating its effectiveness and without weighing the potential harms involved with its use?

Before September 11, the public viewed the technology with much more skepticism than it does today. Many people remain skeptical when it comes to widespread use of the technology in areas other than public safety and security. The possibility of identity theft and privacy infringement are the most common concerns voiced by people.

Much of the skepticism may be attributed to the very visible and troubling past uses of the technology. Tampa, Florida is one such questionable application.
Viisage Technology's software matched 19 faces in the Tampa Super Bowl crowd to persons whose purported likenesses were contained in a law enforcement database, all of whom had criminal records but were not wanted by police, nor were there outstanding warrants for the individuals' arrests. Ybor City, a nearby coastal village, installed 36 of the surveillance systems. Many visitors to the city and civil libertarians expressed their utter disgust with the system, calling it a "virtual lineup." The program was likened to Big Brother and people feared that the technology would worsen racial profiling practices and would accidentally identify innocent people as criminals. These criticisms persist even though the law is pretty clear, at least so far, that visual privacy rights don't apply in public places.

In spite of the harsh criticism of the Florida systems, Virginia Beach became the second city in the U.S. to use the technology when it installed a similar facial-recognition system in November 2001 at the Oceanfront. Although Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf initially disapproved of Virginia Beach's plan to incorporate the technology for security purposes, she changed her opinion about the technology in light of the September 11 terrorist attacks. The public is more at ease with the idea of giving up a little privacy if it means the possibility of preventing even greater tragedies. "Possibility" is the keyword here, indeed. In actuality, the systems have yet to identify one "bad guy."

Some facial identification advocates say that the cameras have not caught any suspects because the systems have been successful in deterring terrorists and other criminals from entering the protected area. Others, like the single dissenter of the Virginia Beach decision, are more skeptical. Her research of the software led her to conclude that it was not worth giving up a sense of liberty for the marginal security benefits that these products provide.

Read the whole story...

www.forensic-evidence.com...

In spite of the harsh criticism of the Florida systems, Virginia Beach became the second city in the U.S. to use the technology when it installed a similar facial-recognition system in November 2001 at the Oceanfront. Although Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf initially disapproved of Virginia Beach's plan to incorporate the technology for security purposes, she changed her opinion about the technology in light of the September 11 terrorist attacks. The public is more at ease with the idea of giving up a little privacy if it means the possibility of preventing even greater tragedies. "Possibility" is the keyword here, indeed. In actuality, the systems have yet to identify one "bad guy."

Some facial identification advocates say that the cameras have not caught any suspects because the systems have been successful in deterring terrorists and other criminals from entering the protected area. Others, like the single dissenter of the Virginia Beach decision, are more skeptical. Her research of the software led her to conclude that it was not worth giving up a sense of liberty for the marginal security benefits that these products provide.

For many, privacy is the most obvious and overriding concern. One aspect that bothers many people is both the incompleteness or the over-inclusive content of the database against which individuals' likeness is being compared. Virginia Beach police have minimized this concern with an agreement stating that they will only enter pictures of runaways, wanted felons and people suffering from dementia into the database. The Visionics' CEO announced that its system, FaceIt facial recognition, captures the images of faces taken from security cameras in airports and creates a unique mathematical identifier called a "faceprint" for each face. The faceprint is compared to those already stored in the database and if it doesn't match one of a terrorist, then the subject is not stopped and there is no record of that particular faceprint going through the system. The system simply doesn't recognize or identify the face.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join