ID Cards Compulsory in UK by 2010 - Official

Originally posted by AdamJ
well there is a reason they originally called them entitelment cards.

- Yes, it was originally suggested they would be a means to access benefits and the NHS.

Which is nothing like what you have suggested.

but
1. if i was saying 5 years ago i dont want id cards, youd be saying "oh ridiculous where did anyone suggest such a thing"

- No.

ID cards have been being kicked around as a possibility pretty much ever since they were gotten rid of in the 1950's.

2. you really know this will lead to that position. its the only possible outcome. you will need it for everything, so you will need it to buy and sell, and then they are going to be able to control you with it.

- Well you can insist that is so all you like but if the commercial sector adopt this attitude it is hardly a "they" thing.

The government will not be involving itself.

You might also care to know that a person unable to prove their ID sufficiently right now is effectively 'barred' from state benefits and the financial world.
Nothing to do with ID cards or an all pervasive and impending state 'control'.

Its an entitlement card. be a good citizen and you can have your rights.

- OK if you say so, but you might care to explain just what is so different about the state of affairs right now then, hmmmmmm?

you just have no concept of what this is and where it will lead.

hey, if its no different from the current state of affairs whats the point in having it.

Originally posted by AdamJ
you just have no concept of what this is and where it will lead.

- Just because I do not agree with your interpretation of what this is and where it will lead is no reason to try and claim that 'I can't see the truth'.
Jeez, how closed minded is that?

I just don't accept the claims of a '1984' and 'sky falling in' interpretation of the events and their meaning.

Like I said, I've heard it all before with the poll tax.
That too was supposed to be the death of British freedoms and democracy and the cementing of an all-powerful one party state.
All hysterical and grossly OTT rubbish.

if its no different from the current state of affairs whats the point in having it.

- But hang on, I never said "it is no different" (so why are you saying I did?).

What I did say was that part of your complaint (regarding the situation that you seem to believe these cards will usher in) is how things are now.
Therefore that part of your complaint is rather dedundant and obviously based upon you not being aware of how those things are now.

That is nothing like claiming it is all the same and no different (and, by extension, that therefore bringing them in has no point).

[edit on 15-4-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

First off, I am sorry if this has already been covered, but I got about 3 or 4 pages in and began to lose the will to live........

I have a few issues that bug me about ID cards....

One of my concerns over the ID card thing is that Blair and his inner circle originally floated the ID card thing on the back of the 9/11 attack saying it would help to protect us against terrorism. When that was blown out of the water as an argument (Madrid bombing - ID cards in Spain), they turned to more mundane domestic matters ie: helping to eradicate benefit fraud.

As someone who works with offenders on a daily basis, I have dealt with many, many people convicted of swindling benefits. One common thread exists between them all. They made, or continued to make claims for benefits they were not entitled to. I have not come across a SINGLE case of someone using a false identity to claim benefits. I cannot see how a card, however whizzy will make any sizeable impact on the amount of benefit fraud.

The costs of introducing ID cards, even by conservative estimates is going to be crippling. Incidentally, why are we being told that we have to pay an as yet undisclosed amount for the card? Surely the whole ID card system is being paid for with taxpayers money. So we're paying twice then...

Finally, Government IT systems have a woeful track record. Take the National Health Service 'pick and mix' system being introduced. We were told it would cost around £6 billion but it's now £18 billion and rising. There are also many dissenting voices in the NHS that are saying it is a waste of time and money and it doesn't even work.

My overall view is that quite apart from any civil liberties issues, it will cost astronomical amounts of money, it will not stop terrorists, it will not make a significant impact on benefit fraud so WHERE is the 'killer app.' for these things??

Yes i echo your views, and the manipulativeness behind this shows that its not really about terrorism or benefit fraud.
Interesting hearing your take on it and it doesnt suprise me in the least that the total opposite is actualy the truth ie most benefits cheats just claim stuff they are not entitled to.

This is not a new idea by the way its been pushed in the United States since the early 1990s and continualy rejected, though they finaly have passed it now.
Howard proposed it in the UK, Blair has taken it up. So its not Blairs/Labours idea.

[edit on 16-4-2006 by AdamJ]

Originally posted by 5ick8oy
One of my concerns over the ID card thing is that Blair and his inner circle originally floated the ID card thing on the back of the 9/11 attack saying it would help to protect us against terrorism. When that was blown out of the water as an argument (Madrid bombing - ID cards in Spain), they turned to more mundane domestic matters ie: helping to eradicate benefit fraud.

- Sorry but the bombing in Spain does not render ID cards utterly worthless; they simply failed to affect those particular events then and there.

.....and there is no reason why it cannot be said they will have multiple possible effects.

As someone who works with offenders on a daily basis, I have dealt with many, many people convicted of swindling benefits. One common thread exists between them all. They made, or continued to make claims for benefits they were not entitled to. I have not come across a SINGLE case of someone using a false identity to claim benefits.

- Then I suggest you go talk to people in the 'Benefit Investigation Service'.

Multiple identities are a prime (if not the prime) method of benefit fraud.

In a system of benefits now dependant on an IT system (brought in by the last tory government and itself once derided as unworkable, bug-ridden, over-budget and grossly expensive) based upon the National Insurance number how on earth could it be otherwise?!

Finally, Government IT systems have a woeful track record.

- Er, they aren't "Government IT systems". They are IT systems commissioned by the UK Government and built by the private sector.

There have been problems with some systems but in that event the private sector has been fined.

Some of this stuff is ground-breaking and difficult; is anyone so surprised there are problems?

There are also many dissenting voices in the NHS that are saying it is a waste of time and money and it doesn't even work.

- It'll never happen/work is the standard cry of any group resistant to new tech.

My overall view is that quite apart from any civil liberties issues, it will cost astronomical amounts of money, it will not stop terrorists, it will not make a significant impact on benefit fraud so WHERE is the 'killer app.' for these things??

- There are plenty of people who disagree with that view.

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- Sorry but the bombing in Spain does not render ID cards utterly worthless; they simply failed to affect those particular events then and there.

7th July 2005, London Underground. UK nationals. Again ID cards - worthless. Maybe you are right. Maybe ID cards won't be "utterly" worthless. Maybe just "almost" worthless.

- Then I suggest you go talk to people in the 'Benefit Investigation Service'.

Multiple identities are a prime (if not the prime) method of benefit fraud.

Good "suggestion". I DO talk to people involved in benefit fraud on a regular basis and I was not aware that the Benefit Investigation Service existed. I understood it to be the BFI or Benefit Fraud Inspectorate. see www.bfi.gov.uk...

A quote from their front page "We do not deal with cases of benefit fraud. If you want to report a suspected benefit fraud you can visit the targeting fraud website" at www.targetingbenefitfraud.gov.uk...

If you would care to research this subject you would see that your claims are completely baseless.

- Er, they aren't "Government IT systems". They are IT systems commissioned by the UK Government and built by the private sector.

Well, NOOOOO. You don't say. Praise be for your insight. I was under the impression that Tony Blair himself was rolling his sleeves up and slotting PCB's into the Swanwick ATC systems.

Oh well, the fact that Mr Blair is involved in the tendering of the contracts has NOTHING to do with the efficiency (or otherwise) of the many contracts (CSA, passport system, ATC at Swanwick, NHS et. al.)

There have been problems with some systems but in that event the private sector has been fined.

Well halle-bloody-leuah for something.

Some of this stuff is ground-breaking and difficult; is anyone so surprised there are problems?

How reassuring to hear this when the executive are steamrollering a policy of biometric ID through parliament.

- It'll never happen/work is the standard cry of any group resistant to new tech.

Damn. And I was hoping the population would roll over and have their tummies tickled....

- There are plenty of people who disagree with that view.

Well I would seriously hope so, otherwise what would be the point of such forums. Although I thought, perhaps naively that I would be engaged with an intelligent debate rather than a painfully useless rant backed up with no evidence.

Sickboy. i am against the cards and hopefully you have read my posys here. I disagree with sminkey on this but he isn't an idiot and his arguements have been good so far. The last post he made wasn't great but you can't imply he isn't intelligent on the strength of that one post.

Originally posted by 5ick8oy
Maybe just "almost" worthless.

- Or maybe in some circumstance very useful.

You will obviously prefer to view it how you will.

I DO talk to people involved in benefit fraud on a regular basis and I was not aware that the Benefit Investigation Service existed. I understood it to be the BFI or Benefit Fraud Inspectorate. see www.bfi.gov.uk...

- Yeah well whatever, they keep changing their name, there was a time when it was once just called the 'fraud section' in a local office (I know a few people who work in those offices, in central London they used to be quite fond of their name as the 'BIS'.
In northern Ireland they are called the BIS).

If you would care to research this subject you would see that your claims are completely baseless.

- This is not true.

In an interlinked national benefit system dependant on NI numbers please feel free to explain how multiple claims can be made without multiple identities/NI numbers.

It is in fact your claim that is baseless and frankly one doesn't particularly need much 'expertise' about 'the system when this claim is so obviously illogical.

the fact that Mr Blair is involved in the tendering of the contracts has NOTHING to do with the efficiency (or otherwise) of the many contracts (CSA, passport system, ATC at Swanwick, NHS et. al.)

- Some might contest that (there used to be a 'public sector' that designed and built it's own IT systems very well; NIRS1 is a prime example) but that I guess is another argument and from a time less and less people know anything about and are remembering.

Well halle-bloody-leuah for something.

- So you might admit that it's not all a simplistic bad picture then?

How reassuring to hear this when the executive are steamrollering a policy of biometric ID through parliament.

- Fancy footwork, but seeing as how the biometric ID cards 'system' has yet to be finalised you must know that was a reference to other previous systems.

Damn. And I was hoping the population would roll over and have their tummies tickled....

- A healthy scepticism is one thing, a rather game-like and childish insistence that everything is going to be useless, too expensive and doomed to failure - or the dawn of a fascist state - is quite another.

I thought, perhaps naively that I would be engaged with an intelligent debate rather than a painfully useless rant backed up with no evidence.

- What "rant"?

You made claims about Spain, or London 7/7 for that matter, which are not logical (the failure of ID cards to stop the Spainish attacks do not 'prove' the cards would always be of little or no use, ditto London).
You also made claims about benefit fraud that I know to be false.
I challenged this.
That is not a "rant".

......and you might just find a decent debate going on if you could clip down on the silly sarcasm.
K?


[edit on 16-4-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

- Or maybe in some circumstance very useful.

You will obviously prefer to view it how you will.

Yep. Opinions. That's what it's all about. I've offered two examples of when ID cards have NOT worked. Perhaps you could offer a couple of examples of when they HAVE.

- Yeah well whatever, they keep changing their name, there was a time when it was once just called the 'fraud section' in a local office (I know a few people who work in those offices, in central London they used to be quite fond of their name as the 'BIS'.
In northern Ireland they are called the BIS).

I can't argue with that. ;(

In an interlinked national benefit system dependant on NI numbers please feel free to explain how multiple claims can be made without multiple identities/NI numbers.

It is in fact your claim that is baseless and frankly one doesn't particularly need much 'expertise' about 'the system when this claim is so obviously illogical.

Sorry but I said NOTHING about 'multiple' claims. My experience is that people make claims on the basis of benefits they 'claim' to be entitled to when in fact they are not. This does not require 'multiple' identities.

-

- Some might contest that (there used to be a 'public sector' that designed and built it's own IT systems very well; NIRS1 is a prime example) but that I guess is another argument and from a time less and less people know anything about and are remembering.

Fair enough.

- So you might admit that it's not all a simplistic bad picture then?

I never said anything about a 'simplistic bad picture'. But yes. I admit it is not that. I just don't happen to agree that spending billions and billions of pounds on an ID card system is a useful way of using taxpayers money.

- Fancy footwork, but seeing as how the biometric ID cards 'system' has yet to be finalised you must know that was a reference to other previous systems.

I feel reassured. Perhaps my cynicism that the Executive of this country decide things and then 'sell' it to the populace is wide of the mark. I hope so.

A healthy scepticism is one thing, a rather game-like and childish insistence that everything is going to be useless, too expensive and doomed to failure - or the dawn of a fascist state - is quite another.

So when exactly did I say that 'everything' is going to be useless, too expensive and doomed to failure'? I thought we were talking about ID cards. I must have misread the thread title. If we were talking about 'everything' I apologise.....

-

You made claims about Spain, or London 7/7 for that matter, which are not logical (the failure of ID cards to stop the Spainish attacks do not 'prove' the cards would always be of little or no use, ditto London).
You also made claims about benefit fraud that I know to be false.
I challenged this.
That is not a "rant".

Ok, fair enough, I apologise for the 'rant' thing. However I have still yet to see any evidence of what you are saying. You point out that my claims of benefit fraud are 'false'. According to www.targetingbenefitfraud.gov.uk...
and I quote..."Common types of benefit fraud include not telling us:
o About other money coming in including earnings
o When couples are living together as husband and wife, as civil partners and as same sex couples
o About any savings they may have

60% of all benefit fraud comes from fraudulent claims for Income Support, Jobseekers Allowance and Housing Benefit"

I fail to see how ID cards would help in these cases given we already have many different ways of identifying ourselves (driving licences, passports, birth certificates etc....)

Look...I am happy to engage in a debate about this, but PLEASE....provide some actual evidence to back up what you are saying....

......and you might just find a decent debate going on if you could clip down on the silly sarcasm

.

Whatever. I'm the sarcastic sort. Nevertheless, I see no 'decent' debate'. At least give me some sources to back up what you are saying. I'm happy to admit when I am wrong, but you have done nothing to convince me that I AM wrong on this issue.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
Sickboy. i am against the cards and hopefully you have read my posys here. I disagree with sminkey on this but he isn't an idiot and his arguements have been good so far. The last post he made wasn't great but you can't imply he isn't intelligent on the strength of that one post.

You are completely right. If my post gave the impression that I regarded sminkey as an 'idiot' I apologise as it was not my intention. It is clear from this thread (and many others) that sminkey is far from being an 'idiot'. I reacted to his post in a rather impulsive way and maybe did not fully consider the tone of my reply. However, I stand by the thrust of what I said, and I have yet to see any evidence to back up sminkeys claims.

Cheers

Originally posted by 5ick8oy
Perhaps you could offer a couple of examples of when they HAVE.

- Well seeing as we don't have them yet that's difficult.

I can refer to professional opinion that does believe they will help and I can point to several countries on the continent that have them (and presumably find them useful and worth the money they cost).

Sorry but I said NOTHING about 'multiple' claims. My experience is that people make claims on the basis of benefits they 'claim' to be entitled to when in fact they are not. This does not require 'multiple' identities.

- Ah, I see where we have crossed wires.

I agree that individual fraud is as you say, down to information being concealed.

Organised fraud is quite different. These do require multiple identities and it is here that I can see the cards stopping a lot of it.

I just don't happen to agree that spending billions and billions of pounds on an ID card system is a useful way of using taxpayers money.

- Thankfully it's a free country and you can hold the views you wish to.

Perhaps my cynicism that the Executive of this country decide things and then 'sell' it to the populace is wide of the mark. I hope so.

- Well we shall see, it seems these things are on the way no matter what now.

So when exactly did I say that 'everything' is going to be useless, too expensive and doomed to failure'? I thought we were talking about ID cards. I must have misread the thread title. If we were talking about 'everything' I apologise.....

- Don't be so sarcastic.

I fail to see how ID cards would help in these cases given we already have many different ways of identifying ourselves (driving licences, passports, birth certificates etc....)

Look...I am happy to engage in a debate about this, but PLEASE....provide some actual evidence to back up what you are saying....

- I think I've fairly cleared up where I was coming from on the benefits.

As for crime or terrorism?

I would point you at those countries on the continent.
They don't have them for fun and they believe they have a worthwhile contribution to make (and at this time of night I am not trawling through umteen sites to prove the bleeding obvious).

I'm happy to admit when I am wrong, but you have done nothing to convince me that I AM wrong on this issue.

- You'll find much of my point in all of this has been about a complete unwillingness for some people in this debate to give any credit to the other side whatsoever.

You're free to hold whatever opinion you like about this, I disagree but as it is still a hypothetical debate it makes much of it difficult to prove and I can't really say you are wrong any more than you can me.

www.timesonline.co.uk...

Official comments by MP's supporting these cards from this article.

Tony McNulty, the minister in charge of the ID card project, admitted that ministers had been too enthusiastic in suggesting that the cards could be the answer to a host of problems such as terrorism and multimillion-pound benefit fraud.

Snip*

Mr McNulty’s views on the benefits of identity cards reflect the more cautious approach to the scheme of Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary. On the day after the July 7 bombings in London, Mr Clarke was asked whether ID cards would have made any difference.

He said: “I doubt it would have made a difference and I’ve never argued, and don’t argue, that ID cards would prevent any particular act. The question is . . . does a particular measure help or hinder? I actually think ID cards help rather than hinder.”

I am trying to find other artciles as i know i have heard many people who actually are trying to impose this ID card system say that it will do little good. Should we support a system that will only maybe do a little good and will cost everyone a lot of money, whilst invading privacy? If you look at it in a cost/benefit scenario then the benefits don't outweigh the costs.

The NHS is failing and the massive amount of cash which this system is going to cost could do a great amount for the NHS. Obviously money isn't the only answer but it will be an enormous help.

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

Organised fraud is quite different. These do require multiple identities and it is here that I can see the cards stopping a lot of it.

'Organised fraud' is a catch-all phrase that does not necessarily infer the need for multiple identities. But let's assume that the type of fraud 'does' require many different identities. These 'organised' criminals are by their very nature relatively sophisticated and would probably quickly establish a way of forging or in some other way circumventing any ID card system. For instance when the French government introduced their 'unforgeable' smartcard in the 1990's, the forging of these cards quickly became one of the most profitable criminal activities in the country.

- Don't be so sarcastic.

Like I said, I'm the sarcastic sort, although I reserve my sarcasm only for those who I feel are being overly vague and 'woolly' in their arguments.

- I think I've fairly cleared up where I was coming from on the benefits.

Not really. You began this debate with me by making a sweeping statement about how "Multiple identities are a prime (if not the prime) method of benefit fraud." I appreciate that you have cleared up 'where you are coming from' but you have yet to back up this sweeping statement with anything approaching evidence.

As for crime or terrorism?

I would point you at those countries on the continent.
They don't have them for fun and they believe they have a worthwhile contribution to make (and at this time of night I am not trawling through umteen sites to prove the bleeding obvious).

I never said those countries had ID cards 'for fun'. It's a rather trite way of dismissing my point but give me the evidence and I will look at it. Who are 'they' by the way? Are you talking about the general public in these countries, the politicians or maybe the many companies that will undoubtedly profit from the manufacture, distribution, administration and enforcement of the ID systems?

- You'll find much of my point in all of this has been about a complete unwillingness for some people in this debate to give any credit to the other side whatsoever.

Look Sminkey, If I appear close-minded on this it is simply due to the way you began challenging my original opinion. I am the first to admit that it is simply that - an opinion. If you consider yourself on the 'other side' and want credit, fine. However, if you start to pick apart my posts with arguments that are not backed up, I will respond. You have not managed to debate the issue in such a way that convinces me in any way that my original points are incorrect. You make sweeping generalisations such as the one about 'other countries' regarding ID cards as 'worthwhile' without any evidence of this (or even which parts of society you are talking about).

You're free to hold whatever opinion you like about this, I disagree but as it is still a hypothetical debate it makes much of it difficult to prove and I can't really say you are wrong any more than you can me.

True although I believe it has passed the point of a 'hypothetical' debate. I'm about to take the kids to see Ice Age 2 so haven't got the time to find the qoute but I seem to remember recently the government stating that the ID card bill was too far advanced to pull back and that even if the Tories got back into power it would be unlikely that they would be able to reverse the process...

Originall posted by Sminkeypinkey
You're free to hold whatever opinion you like about this, I disagree but as it is still a hypothetical debate it makes much of it difficult to prove and I can't really say you are wrong any more than you can me.

Originally posted by 5ick8oy
True although I believe it has passed the point of a 'hypothetical' debate. I'm about to take the kids to see Ice Age 2 so haven't got the time to find the qoute but I seem to remember recently the government stating that the ID card bill was too far advanced to pull back and that even if the Tories got back into power it would be unlikely that they would be able to reverse the process...

Sick boy (love train spottingby the way) if you had read this entire thread you may have seen me link to a bbc news article with the quote you are on about. It was made by Charles Clark, here it is again.

news.bbc.co.uk...

From this article

But Mr Clarke said he did not think the opposition would be able to stop the scheme because by 2010 a "large number of people... should either have cards or hope to have cards".

"I would be very surprised if the next Conservative manifesto said 'stop the scheme'. It would be very difficult to do," he said.

Sickboy, sarcasm has it's place and it has been used in this debate quite a bit by many of us. I would advise though that if you want your opinions taken seriously that you draw back a bit on the sarcasm and the general challenging tone of your posts. People usually pay more attention if you are calm and although i agree with you on ID cards i have yet to see you post any links that prove your claims.

I am still working on finding papers on the biometric aspect of these systems. I am having trouble finding recent reliable papers proving my points about how innaccurate these systems are. It's not that i can't find any but they seem to be biased, for example, facial recognition tests are carried out under perfect lighting conditions. I found one that used actual daily lighting conditions but it was 4 years ago and the technology has moved on since then so i don't want to use it.

Sick boy (love train spottingby the way) if you had read this entire thread you may have seen me link to a bbc news article with the quote you are on about. It was made by Charles Clark, here it is again.

Thanks for that (saves me a job searching for it). Strictly speaking I appreciate that it is good practice to read the whole thread before passing comment. Nevertheless, I only recently joined ATS and therefore entered the debate when there were hundreds of posts already on this thread. Rather than start a new thread I felt it would be better to add my comments to the existing one. I did qualify this in my first post, apologising in advance if I was duplicating what had already been covered though

Sickboy, sarcasm has it's place and it has been used in this debate quite a bit by many of us. I would advise though that if you want your opinions taken seriously that you draw back a bit on the sarcasm and the general challenging tone of your posts.

While I do agree with what you say, I did not appreciate sminkey's tone in the original reply to my take on the ID issue. He approached my opinions in a rather confrontational way, verging I thought on being a 'debunking' job. Too much use of 'err' and 'I suggest'.. came across as patronising and confrontational. So I was sarcastic.......but I do take your point

People usually pay more attention if you are calm and although i agree with you on ID cards i have yet to see you post any links that prove your claims.

My original post did not make any 'claims'. I was simply putting in my own personal thoughts on the matter. The subsequent posts were responses to what I considered to be 'baiting' by sminkey.

It's admirable that you are prepared to do the leg work in researching the biometric angle of the issue. Nevertheless, I have not tried to address the point about the reliability (or otherwise) of the systems in terms of the recognition of individuals. My original post referred to the implementation and day to day management of the infrastructure, in the case of ID cards, the national database. I am sorry if I did not make this clear.

ID cards are also really global as they act as passports and will result in a new level of airport security. You will need your ID card passport for air travel.

The ICAO specified facial recognition as the globally interoperable biometric technology for machine-assisted identity confirmation. The technology tests they used FRVT2002

"Cognitec, the leading performer on that test, gained a 77 percent rating but its success rate fell to 56 percent when the watch list grew to 3,000."
source

Sickboy.

I have also talked about the day to day buisness of the ID card scheme. The biometrics are an important part of that because if they are not accurate then you hvae delays in daily life. Imagine having 3 people in a bank cue havign to be rescanned two or three times. That's a big delay if you add it up thoughout the day.

Adam

That seems to be the problem with biometrics. The test i have found are small scale using below 200 people usually. The few bigger tests like the one you provided show that the accuracy drops because everything is so similar. I mean the facial recognition should be scrapped for the simple reason that 60 million people have such similar features! Even if they combine the 2d and 3d mapping on that number of people in this country it won't be accurate enough. Even fingerprints can be similar with this amount of people and the scanners we currently have. Like i say i am trying to find good articles to back this all up as i know members here need proof and not just my word (which is great and how it should be).

I would put in the effort if i thought i could stop it but its impossible. Its not a political idea its corporate.
Its already too late to stop it by the time it reaches consumer level, and it just has.
They give biometirc ID cards to the people they 'liberated' in Iraq!
We are the last to get it.

Originally posted by AdamJ
I would put in the effort if i thought i could stop it but its impossible. Its not a political idea its corporate.
Its already too late to stop it by the time it reaches consumer level, and it just has.

Well that is the problem with this whole damn country. If you accept it then it will happen! Ok maybe it is to late to stop but i would rather have had it come in and fought to stop it then simply letting it roll over me. Check my signature.