nrogers Posted November 26, 2008 Share Posted November 26, 2008 How about a GPS tracker up our arses as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa84 Posted November 26, 2008 Share Posted November 26, 2008 and a red bulb flashing above our heads too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted November 26, 2008 Author Share Posted November 26, 2008 But basically introducing a new database, with all the security, data gathering and all the rest will not "save" money, it will cost money. It'll cost to run, cost to set up and cost to sort out when they f*ck it up. Guess who will pay for that - Us.Yep - fully agree with that. Implementing this new nhs database for example has cost quite a bit of cash. Thats why i am saying ridding the idea of databases of information with everyone just having all of their own data on their own ID card. Never going to happen like that of course. Thats probably an idea that is too simplistic to be fair but in theory ID cards could work as long as they were used in the situations which were actually a help.utterly ridiculous idea - could never happen - how could capita make money out of that In france they have also implemented an IT system that allows a patients records to be accessed wherever they are needed. And it cost relatively bugger all. Any patient that wants them can have his records copied onto a SD card, stick it in their wallet, and when they get hit by a bus, the local A&E can stick the SD card into their computer and get the persons medical details. Ingenius. However the big consultancies wouldn't have thought of that one as they wouldn'e be able to sell many services on the back of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattJ83 Posted November 26, 2008 Share Posted November 26, 2008 yep unfortunately thats the probelm - its all about money. As for Identity theft Bickster - anyone can currently phone up and say they want an appointment at a doctors claiming to be you cant they? Yes you need an address but thats not too difficult. Im trying to concentrate on the positives such as medical data that ID cards could bring. At the end of the day no data is secure though. Edit: ok, ok. i've had a better read through this thread - im coming at this from a different angle - these Id cards would be bad - being stored on a central database. All of this info is stored on seperate databases making data more secure and im not convinced a databaqse infrastructure really exists to just create one massive all mighty database. They had enough trouble recently testing a database with 10,000 users! Obviously the card would be used to store data such as passport etc and that would be pretty bad. A card with medical data on seems better to me though butthat really doesnt achieve what an ID card would do - hence irrelevent here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villal Posted November 26, 2008 Share Posted November 26, 2008 I don't see why the cards cant incorporate data such as passport info. IMO, this would cut the need for the goverment to hold data on people. . Cards such as these will most probably utilise RFID technology, whilst no where near an expert on this technology I understand that RFID is not at all secure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattJ83 Posted November 26, 2008 Share Posted November 26, 2008 I don't see why the cards cant incorporate data such as passport info. IMO, this would cut the need for the goverment to hold data on people. . Cards such as these will most probably utilise RFID technology, whilst no where near an expert on this technology I understand that RFID is not at all secure Yep - i have removed my stupid cap. Nothing is secure - what i was originally saying stems away from what the govenment would use these cards for and is hence a pointless factor in this debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted November 28, 2008 Share Posted November 28, 2008 A way out of the ID folly It was a perfect day for a bit of news burial, and so it proved. On Tuesday, while everyone was chewing over Alistair Darling's mixture of gain and pain, a British government began issuing ID cards for the first time in 56 years, though few people seemed to notice. As well as a spread of quiet news coverage, a small group of cultural and political high-ups - Neil Tennant of the Pet Shop Boys, Brian Eno and Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty - warned of the damage to the UK's image abroad, and there were small protests in Liverpool and Cardiff, but that seemed to be it. Maybe the prospect of the Tories taking power and honouring their pledge to scrap the scheme has dampened the anti-ID camp's ardour. For now, however, the government's aim - should Labour win the next election - of introducing the cards and a national identity register by stealth, seems to be proceeding to plan. From this week, students from outside the European Economic Area and the non-European spouses of accredited British residents will need to apply for a card and go on the register. The same will soon apply to millions of other foreign nationals and airport staff; and by some time in 2012, every applicant for a new passport will be joining up. From a panicky perspective, irrespective of what happens at the next election, it's not hard to see all this coming to pass thanks to the bureaucratic equivalent of the great German war machine - though if such comparisons suggest the state at its most clunky and Kafkaesque, the government is busy wrapping its ideas in shiny inclusive packaging. Last week, for instance, it announced that transgender people will be allowed to carry two cards at once. So, the madness continues, and even people in power seem either confused or opposed. In the past few months I have spoken to one government minister who claimed the project had effectively been kicked into the long grass, and another - no leftie - who optimistically sketched out how the Brown government might have decisively served notice of lean times and a bold new direction: scrapping the renewal of Trident and calling time on the ID scheme. Fat chance, it seems. Jacqui Smith's zeal seems undimmed: the plan is becoming more concrete and the Home Office's cost projections are being vigilantly updated. In keeping with the fashion for optimistic government forecasts, it puts the cost of a newly combined passport-ID scheme at slightly more than £5bn over 10 years, though plenty of voices predict anything up to three times that amount. Relative to the huge budgetary figures dancing before our eyes, that may still seem modest - but should you want to be mischievous with the official figures, it's not hard: £5bn is a quarter of what the government expects to take back before 2015/16 via tax rises. According to the Home Office's numbers, the annual cost of the plan will peak at about £525m - on today's figures, just over 75% of the yearly proceeds from the much-discussed 45% top tax rate. If the whole lot was brought forward, it would cover nearly two years of Labour's Building Schools for the Future programme. Fiscal maths will surely inflame public opinion less than a more general complaint - that when times are tight this is exactly the kind of ill-advised cash magnet to avoid. If the era to come will be one of crackdowns on waste and anxious public audits, the Tesco mantra will be unanswerable: every little helps, and savings from the death of ID cards will be bigger than most. Here, perhaps, is the most useful argument against the scheme, and the key to the fight to come - not elegant tributes to the glories of the Liberal inheritance, or invocations of the Big Brother state, or even warnings from the more enlightened end of the Groucho Club - but something altogether more blunt: we simply can't afford it. And that is a shame. I'll be very glad to see this wretched idea consigned to the bin (if that happens) but I would prefer that it were done for what I believe to be the right reasons rather than purely financial pragmatism (that would leave the way open for the scheme to be revived when more money is around). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted November 28, 2008 Share Posted November 28, 2008 Interestingly £5BN is the amount that was announced as potential "efficiency savings" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiganvillain Posted November 28, 2008 Share Posted November 28, 2008 If the spinmeisters want to wrap the abandonment up in financial doublespeak rather than just admit it was bollox then I won't care as long as it gets binned Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villal Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 In a couple of papers today: Daily Mail Telegraph Clauses in the draft Immigration and Citizenship Bill give state officials the power to make anyone who has ever entered the country, at any time, prove who they are without needing any suspicion of a potential crime. Civil liberty groups warned that the catch-all clauses would effectively cover any British citizen who has ever left the UK, even for a holiday, because they will have "entered" the UK on their return. Refusing to hand over the necessary documents would be a criminal offence with a maximum penalty of almost a year in prison and/or a hefty fine. Officers will also be able to hold someone until they meet the requirements and can even demand a medical examination, although that will be more targeted at foreign nationals arriving from countries with high health risks of contagious diseases. Critics said the move would see a return to war-time Britain where citizens had to carry their "papers" with them and accused the Government of bringing in compulsory ID cards by the back door. Phil Booth, national coordinator of the NO2ID campaign, said: "We have not had any sort of law like this outside of war time. "In practice it will be impossible to determine who has or has not entered the UK and therefore this applies to anyone in the UK." Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne added: "This is potentially a catch-all power which would allow the police or the officials to arrest and hold anyone who was unable to prove their own identity. "The Government has always promised that it would never introduce such a draconian intrusion into our daily lives." The clauses in the Bill, contained in the Queen's Speech, were unearthed by civil rights group Liberty and centre on a power to examine those who "arrive in, enter or seek to enter the UK". A sub-clause refers to anyone who "has entered the UK" and can therefore mean anyone who has entered either recently or in the past. It means police or immigration officers would have the power to stop anyone, either at a port of entry or inside the country, and demand their identity purely on the basis they may have entered the UK at some point. Clause 28 gives the power to require the production of a passport or other valid identity document. A Liberty spokeswoman said: "This extends powers of examination to several new categories including anyone in the UK (whether a British citizen or not) who has ever left the UK at any time. " Currently, police or immigration officers can ask for identity if there is reasonable suspicion of a crime or immigration offence. The Liberty spokeswoman added: "Clause 28(3) dramatically changes this premise allowing identity documents to be demanded of anyone that has at any time entered the UK by anyone authorised by the Secretary of State. No suspicion of criminality or immigration offending is required." She said it went "far beyond" what is reasonable for immigration control, adding: "We believe that the catch-all remit of this power is disproportionate and that its enactment would not only damage community relations but would represent a fundamental shift in the relationship between the State and those present in the UK." Around eight in ten UK citizens have a passport and the majority of those will have left the country at some point and therefore have "entered" again. The clauses are in the draft bill to be put forward in the Queen's Speech. They say refusal to submit to demands for identification would be a criminal offence that carries a maximum penalty of no more than 51 weeks in prison and or a £5,000. The Government is currently rolling out the controversial ID cards programme for both foreign nationals and Britons but has insisted it will not be compulsory for Britons to carry the cards. But Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti said: "Sneaking in compulsory identity cards via the back door of immigration law is a cynical escalation of this expensive and intrusive scheme. Shadow Immigration Minister, Damian Green, added "This scheme will do nothing to improve our security, may make it worse, and will certainly land the tax-payer with a multi-million pound bill. "Labour should be concentrating their efforts on things that will actually improve our security, like a dedicated UK Border police force, instead of trying to introduce ID cards through the back door. "Now more than ever the issue of our basic freedoms is very important." A Home Office spokeswoman insisted there were no plans to make it compulsory for British citizens to carry or produce forms of identity. She said: "It is simply wrong to claim there are any plans whatsoever to make identity cards compulsory for British citizens or to require British citizens to have their ID card – or any other form of ID – on them at all times and to present it when asked to do so. "From next year British citizens will have the convenience of being able to use identity cards to travel in Europe, but they will not become the only way to prove your identityat borders and the UK passport will still be valid. "In order to maintain an effective immigration control it is only right that we ask everyone attempting to enter to the UK to produce a valid identity document." But Mr Booth said it was "appallingly-drafted legislation", adding: "They have got to the point that we must take the worst possible implication of the legislation." Seems to me that this basically gives power to the police to stop anyone who has ever left the country, and if they cannot produce ID they will be held. And presumably if there is no one looking give a few digs to them whilst on the ground <--- Joke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villal Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 More from the Telegraph..busy today by the looks of things When the Government introduced its ID card legislation several years ago, it made one thing clear. Even though it would be obligatory to register on the ID database when obtaining a new passport, it would not be compulsory to carry a card. This has led some people to assume that the scheme is voluntary. It is not, except insofar as someone whose passport has expired is happy never to travel abroad again. But ministers recognised that the scope for ID ‘matrydom’ was high if people were forced to carry an ID card. The last identity system was abolished in 1952 following a celebrated case prompted by the refusal of a man called Clarence Willcock to produce his card when required to by a police officer. Mr Willcock reasoned that as the war that necessitated their introduction was over, he had no need to carry ID with him. The Government wanted to avoid creating an army of Clarence Willcocks so deliberately did not make it a legal requirement to carry ID. more on the link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted December 4, 2008 Author Share Posted December 4, 2008 We all love the EU, We all love the EU DNA database 'breach of rights' Two British men should not have had their DNA and fingerprints retained by police, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled. The men's information was held by South Yorkshire Police, although neither was convicted of any offence. The judgement could have major implications on how DNA records are stored in the UK's national database. The judges said keeping the information "could not be regarded as necessary in a democratic society". The database may now have to be scaled back following the unanimous judgement by 17 senior judges from across Europe. Under present laws, the DNA profiles of everyone arrested for a recordable offence in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are kept on the database, regardless of whether they are charged or convicted. Discriminatory The details of about 4.5m people are held and one in five of them does not have a current criminal record. Both men were awarded £36,400 (42,000 Euros) in costs. The judges ruled the retention of the men's DNA "failed to strike a fair balance between the competing public and private interests," and that the UK government "had overstepped any acceptable margin of appreciation in this regard". The court also ruled "the retention in question constituted a disproportionate interference with the applicants' right to respect for private life and could not be regarded as necessary in a democratic society". Scotland already destroys DNA samples taken during criminal investigations from people who are not charged or who are later acquitted of alleged offences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 Great news for the criminals - I wonder how many of these (figures up to 2006 so not sure how many more have happened since) Matches using newly-lawful DNA samples have been made to 88 murders, 45 attempted murders, 116 rapes and 62 sexual offences. would have been solved without DNA. Ah well just as long as the civil liberties of the scum of society are not being offended in any way and we can forget about the civil liberties of the families and victims of the crimes. A real reason for celebration, I'm sure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted December 4, 2008 Author Share Posted December 4, 2008 Great news for the criminals - I wonder how many of these (figures up to 2006 so not sure how many more have happened since) Matches using newly-lawful DNA samples have been made to 88 murders, 45 attempted murders, 116 rapes and 62 sexual offences. would have been solved without DNA. Ah well just as long as the civil liberties of the scum of society are not being offended in any way and we can forget about the civil liberties of the families and victims of the crimes. A real reason for celebration, I'm sure I wonder how many of them would have been matched against the DNA taken from those convicted of offences. Do they split the data out that way to allow a fair analysis of the situation. Does anyone complain about the matching and storing of the DNA of convicted criminals? They do however complain about innocents getting caught up in the trawl. So not great news for criminals - they are still on the database. Great news for people who have been wrongly arrested by police. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villal Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 I have little doubt that the sample may be destroyed however I can't imagine that the digitised DNA profile is deleted, left on a train perhaps but not deleted :winkold: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 Peter Tobin found guilty of murder of schoolgirl - DNA evidence a key part ...A post-mortem examination carried out on Vicky's remains found evidence of Tobin's DNA. 'Modern technology' Police searchers also discovered a dagger hidden in the loft of the Bathgate address, which contained traces of Vicky's skin. DNA evidence belonging to Tobin's young son Daniel was also discovered on her purse, which was found at St Andrew Square in Edinburgh 11 days after she went missing. Tobin claimed that he had been in the Portsmouth area when Vicky disappeared, but witnesses reported seeing him in Bathgate. .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted December 4, 2008 Author Share Posted December 4, 2008 Peter Tobin found guilty of murder of schoolgirl - DNA evidence a key part ...A post-mortem examination carried out on Vicky's remains found evidence of Tobin's DNA. . ....And he would still have been caught if innocent peoples DNA was removed from the database - so the point being made is lost a bit really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 Not really - just a perfect example of the good use of DNA. What you are happy about is the fact that the police will have reduced numbers of people to check DNA records against now so adding to the odds of people getting away with crimes. As said the civil liberties of the victims are often forgotten Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villal Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 I can see a future where everyones DNA is taken at birth. There will be lots of bollocks excuses and media manipulation as per usual... Remember innocent people have nothing to fear, apart from being fitted up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 Ah well just as long as the civil liberties of the scum of society are not being offended in any way and we can forget about the civil liberties of the families and victims of the crimes. A real reason for celebration, I'm sure Daily Mail rant? So not great news for criminals - they are still on the database. Great news for people who have been wrongly arrested by police. Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts