Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

UK Government Passes ID Card Bill 306

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the putting-off-the-inevitable dept.
cowbutt writes "The two houses of the UK government, the elected House of Commons and the House of Lords have agreed a compromise on Labour's ID cards bill, after Conservative peers accepted a Labour amendment. Under the new amendment, anyone renewing a designated document (e.g. passport) will be able to opt-out of getting a card until 2010, but will still have their details put on the National ID Register immediately."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UK Government Passes ID Card Bill

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 29, 2006 @06:37PM (#15021479)
    Get stuffed number 6.
  • by ScrewMaster (602015) on Wednesday March 29, 2006 @06:37PM (#15021480)
    Great Britain, meet Totalitarian State.
    • by takeya (825259) on Wednesday March 29, 2006 @06:44PM (#15021543) Journal
      America is coming dangerously close to this.

      Several states have challenged the Real ID act and plan not to adopt it.
      • What do you mean America is close to this? I need a driving license to do anything in the US (at least in most states). Not only do I need a license to drive a car but I seem to need a license for countless other things too, like using a credit card in many stores or buying alcohol. So much so that in the US you can get a driving license that doesn't allow you to drive - making it clear that a license is in fact an ID card. I never had anything like this when I lived in the UK. The old UK license was as far
        • like using a credit card in many stores or buying alcohol.
          Sounds like businesses, rather than the government, imposing that limitation.*

          * technical exception in Pennsylvania, in the case of the alcohol.

        • Actually in most States they are merely ID Cards, rather than non-driving licenses. In any case, they are State IDs....not National government IDs. When the National government starts screaming, "Papers! Your papers citizens! Where are your papers?! You have no papers? You must be one of THEM!" You are in serious trouble. Fortunately, there's some heavy opposition to the attempts to by the Federal government here in the US to impliment that.
        • You don't need a licence to exist though.

          Also, you don't need to spend an additional £90+ for another piece of plastic to cover what you already have.

          I don't mind having things like credit cards or passports. I do object to being forced to have an ID card, to the immense cost, and being put on the database that goes with it.
        • "I need a driving license to do anything in the US (at least in most states)."

          State-issued, state-controlled, state-maintained form of ID. Standards literally vary from state to state, what with federalism and all. The parent was alluding to a national ID system, the closest to which we have are Social Security cards.
        • This isn't such a big deal. In my country, it's mandatory to have an ID card, at least since I can remember. I live in a democratic country, that's part of the EU.

          The ID card paranoia is an Anglo-Saxon thing. I guess it goes against your traditional concept of personal freedom. In my personal opinion, ID card is quite a useful thing. You'll end up to get used to it, eventually.

      • Oh sure. I didn't mean to single out Great Britain as the prime example of encroaching totalitarianism ... everything that England has done the U.S. government has either already followed suit or is trying to. In some respects we're actually worse off, civil-liberty-wise. Video cameras, for example, are the "next big thing" here, they're showing up everywhere. Everntually we'll have more per-capita than Britain does. I recently read that the city of Chicago is putting in a giant fiber ring for the express
      • Do you have a link that lists the states in question?
    • by MightyMartian (840721) on Wednesday March 29, 2006 @07:41PM (#15021990) Journal
      I just love the post 9-11 world. Attach "terrorism" to any bill, and walla, it passes.

      "The Bank Deposit Tax Bill is invaluable in the war against terrorism."

      "The Pick Up Your Own Dog's Shit Bill is necessary in light of terrorist plots."

      "Declaring May 23rd as Large Testicular Cysts Day is a bold strike against the forces of evil!"
    • What, they haven't changed the name to "Airstrip One" yet?
  • by khasim (1285) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Wednesday March 29, 2006 @06:39PM (#15021495)
    How, exactly, is any of that supposed to help against crime / terrorism / illegal immigration / whatever?

    This is going to cost the government some money. That money comes from taxes and fees. What is the British citizen getting for that expense?
    • by handelaar (65505)
      >How, exactly, is any of that supposed to help >against crime / terrorism / illegal >immigration / whatever? Well, obviously, it won't help at all with any of these things. It's the same sort of misdirection that the US PATRIOT Act exemplifies. And, again like the US, once you have a form of ID (Americans use driver's licenses) which everybody assumes is reliable, identity fraud increases exponentially. Because they can be faked, and more sensible checks then fail to happen. I'm still constant
      • Why can't the Slashdot's HTML formatting just insert the
          when the user presses enter twice? BBCode and a million other web forum apps support this with HTML editing. Welcome to 2006 CmdrTaco.
        • So use "Plain Old Text" formatting instead, it's always worked perfectly for me.

          See?

          (Ok, so no you don't, but trust me when I say that both those blank lines were inserted with nothing more than two carriage returns each)
    • by MaceyHW (832021)
      Even if you assume that this system will help fight terrorism, how exactly is this a meaningful compromise?

      Don't the concerns of British civil libertarians (and presumably Liberal opposition to this bill), center around the giant national database, not the cards themselves? I know mine would. Not having to carry the card might hinder identity theft via wallet-theft and privacy invasions by anyone with brief access to your ID card scanning/swiping it, but this doesn't address potential abuse of the d
      • by jez9999 (618189)
        I suspect the rationale was something like, "if we vote against this again, the government will ram it through with the Parliament Act; at least if we accept this, we get a tiny concession."

        The Parliament Act [wikipedia.org] is an evil piece of legislation, enacted about 100 years ago. It allows the house of commons for force through legislation that the lords, usually sensibly, tell them to drop. Why did the lords allow this Act itself to get through? Because the assholish king at the time, George V, threatened to repl
    • How, exactly, is any of that supposed to help against crime / terrorism / illegal immigration / whatever?

      It won't. It, like so many other repressive laws that politicians who ultimately are scared to death of the citizens they allegedly represent, is a law that sits around waiting for a convenient disaster or crisis to be enacted.

    • by kraut (2788) on Wednesday March 29, 2006 @07:50PM (#15022060)
      > This is going to cost the government some money. That money comes from taxes and fees. What is the British citizen getting for that expense?
      Screwed.

      It's a huge expense, with no discernible benefit in the areas it's touted against - Immigration, Terrorism, Benefit Fraud. At the risk of repeating myself, but in the vain hope that MPs who clearly have trouble following a simple logical argument may understand, let's break it down:
      * Immigration:
      a) You get across the border with your foreign passport. ID cards don't help.
      b) In a country where, when you get stopped by the police while driving, you have a choice of going to a police station of your convenience within 7 days to show your driving license and insurance details or simply giving a fake name and address, what chance do you have of people actually carrying the ID around? And if you don't get arrested for not having it, it will be ineffective.
      * Terrorism:
      AFAIK, nobody who has or has attempted to commit an act of terrorism in the UK in history, including Guy Fawkews, would have had a problem getting an ID card. So the net effect on terrorism will be - zilch. nada. nothing. nichts. zero.
      * Benefit Fraud:
      IIRC, benefit fraud is estimated at GBP 2 billion p.a., and according to government figures, in excess of 95% of that is "misrepresentation of circumstances" (a.k.a. as "my bad back stops me working, but doesn't trouble me on the golf course"). And ID card will help in that area by....magically diagnosing fake back pain? Sounding alarm sirens on malingerers? No, they will help - not at all. So we'll spend at least 8 billion on the governments own estimate to combat 5% of 2billion... Even Gordon Brown should be able to spot the flaw in THAT argument.

      Now, if the government does something so patently nonsensical, one has to suspect them of terminal stupidity or having ulterior motives. Neither is a pleasant explanation.

      What really galls me about this is how they've threatened the House of Lords, which has done an admirable job of protecting us, even if it's clearly fighting a loosing battle. The irritating thing is that Tony and his Cronies claim to have a democratic mandate; and while the Lords, of course, traditionally lack a democratic mandate, at least they, unlike the PM, weren't actively opposed by two thirds of the voters.

      The bottom line is that Tony and his Cronies have comprehensively fucked us over. And unlike George W, they don't even have the excuse of not knowing any better. But they got into power on the premise of protecting human rights, introducing freedom of information, and making the country more democratic; let's not mention of sorting out the health service and education, since they have patently failed on those.

      Yes, they introduced a human rights act, only to "opt out" of the important bits as soon as they could; all the terrorism legislation they have introduced has shown that - a lot of them being lawyers - they either slept through the human rights lessons, or just don't give a fuck about people. The latter is more likely, although of course there's the third alternative: Tony creates patently illegal legislation, and Chery and Matrix chambers take the government to court, creating a perpetual money machine for the Blair family. Of course that would be far too sinister for reality, but Dan Brown might take this theory into account for his next plagiarism trial )

      They did introduce a freedom of information act. With all the relevant teeth removed. "Commercial Sensitivity" is apparently a valid reason for not giving information. Excuse me, but if you're spending MY tax money I have a right to know how.

      They promised to reform the unelected House of Lords. Yes, they did, but by replacing most of the hereditary peers with a bunch of people appointed by an "indepenedent" commitee appointed by the government. Who's going to be more independent, the great-great
      • nobody who has or has attempted to commit an act of terrorism in the UK in history, including Guy Fawkews

        I resemble that remark. Guy Fawkes wasn't a terrorist, he was a patriot. After all, he was attempting to blow up the houses of parliament. It doesn't matter what your political leanings are, your world would be vastly improved if it didn't have all those politicians in it.
    • by Morgaine (4316) on Wednesday March 29, 2006 @08:43PM (#15022428)
      What is the British citizen getting for that expense?

      First a correction: we're not citizens of our country, we're subjects of the Queen. In theory she can send us to the mines on a whim, although in practice our royalty are pretty nice folks that just want to be left alone.

      Not being citizens is not the problem though. The real problem is that we're just slaves of our politicians, who are all total scum.

      We didn't vote for any ID cards or biometrics on passports, since it wasn't put to the vote. The scum in power want more power though, so it was bound to come without a public vote.

      No of course it doesn't help anyone, except Bush of course, who uses Blair as a policy support bitch all the time. In this case the War on Drugs was getting a bit flat, so the War on Terror had to be fed the blood of virgins, or of the innocent public in this case since these measures do nothing against terrorists.

      It's a sad world, especially this corner of it. Britain will be the first totalitarian police state among the G8, no doubt about that. We're already tracked in our vehicles, monitored on CCTV, recorded at our phones, and spied on at our ISPs. And now we're going to be fingerprinted and retina-scanned.

      It's clearly 1983. Not long for 1984 now.
      • My passport says quite clearly "BRITISH CITIZEN".

        I think the human rights act would stop the queen from sending people to the mines pretty quickly aswell (and yes, it's law) so no, the queen can't send people to the mines on a whim. Even royalty has to abide by the law (although the queen *can* step in to parliament business).
    • All the ID card will achieve is extra money for the government (we'll have to pay for the privilidge of being made to get a card) and a nice way for the government to keep better tabs on everyone.

      In other words, a stealth tax and a way for the powers that be to invade my privacy.

      The funny thing is, it's the illegal immigrants and criminals that will be getting fake ID and are going to be less burderned by it all than the average citizen.
    • What is the British citizen getting for that expense?

      Why, a brand new national ID card, silly. Probably with holograms, too. Everyone loves holograms. Whoopie!
    • by Builder (103701)
      What is the British citizen getting for that expense?

      Shafted. Royally.
  • Rule Britannia! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Dog Chapman (942321)
    Britons never, never, never will be slaves!

    Except to their own government!

    You get waht you pay (or vote) for.
    • ...the gunpowder treason and plot. I know of now reason why the gunpowder treason should ever be forgot.

      Next time I'm sure will be much more successful.
           
  • A work-around (Score:5, Interesting)

    by cogg (864885) on Wednesday March 29, 2006 @06:41PM (#15021516)
    Living in Northern Ireland, with dual nationality I'll be going for an Irish passport, instead of a British one. If a British Driving license is a "designated document", I might just have to shenanigan enough to be able to get an Irish Driving license too, come renewal time.
  • by timothy (36799) on Wednesday March 29, 2006 @06:43PM (#15021540) Homepage Journal
    When I'm at the airport, I want to have the following T-shirt:

    FRONT TEXT: I'm carrying a picture of myself.
    BACK TEXT: Do you feel safer yet?

    "Proper" ID (that is, rigorously checked, hard to fake, and accurate), for all of the good civil liberty arguments against it, might actually prevent certain types of crime. Them's the breaks.

    Would it deter people who don't mind dying in order to obtain a religo-political goal? Well, it didn't deter the September 11 hijackers, at least not all of them.

    The only way to travel free of possible terrorism is if everyone agrees to be schlepped around nude, drugged, and packed in Jello. Including the terrorists.

    timothy

  • by chill (34294) on Wednesday March 29, 2006 @06:46PM (#15021553) Journal
    What data will ID cards store?
    Fears have been raised by opponents of identity cards about the amount of information which could be stored on the database. Here is the full list of the 49 types of information which the Identity Cards Bill says should be on the register.

    Personal information

    * full name
    * other names by which person is or has been known
    * date of birth
    * place of birth
    * gender
    * address of principal place of residence in the United Kingdom
    * the address of every other place in the United Kingdom where person has a place of residence.

    Identifying information

    * a photograph of head and shoulders
    * signature
    * fingerprints
    * other biometric information

    Residential status

    * nationality
    * entitlement to remain in the United Kingdom where that entitlement derives from a grant of leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, the terms and conditions of that leave

    Personal reference numbers

    * National Identity Registration Number
    * the number of any ID card issued
    * allocated national insurance number
    * the number of any relevant immigration document
    * the number of their United Kingdom passport
    * the number of any passport issued to the individual by or on behalf of the authorities of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom or by or on behalf of an international organisation
    * the number of any document that can be used by them (in some or all circumstances) instead of a passport;
    * the number of any identity card issued to him/her by the authorities of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom
    * any reference number allocated to him/her by the secretary of state in connection with an application made by him for permission to enter or to remain in the United Kingdom
    * the number of any work permit relating to him/her;
    * any driver number given to him/her by a driving licence;
    * the number of any designated document which is held by him/her and is a document the number of which does not fall within any of the preceding sub-paragraphs
    * the date of expiry or period of validity of a document the number of which is recorded by virtue of this paragraph.

    Record history

    * information falling within the preceding paragraphs that has previously been recorded about him/her in the Register
    * particulars of changes affecting that information and of changes made to his/her entry in the Register
    * date of death.

    Registration and ID card history

    * the date of every application for registration made by him/her
    * the date of every application by him/her for a modification of the contents of his entry
    * the date of every application by him/her confirming the contents of his entry (with or without changes)
    * the reason for any omission from the information recorded in his/her entry
    * particulars (in addition to its number) of every ID card issued to him/her
    * whether each such card is in force and, if not, why not
    • Gender?!? Why does anybody not intending to have sex with you have a need to know your gender? And what is the procedure for updating this information if it should change?
      • Because it is a positive identifier that can be used when describing an individual.

        When asked to describe a person, if you witness a crime or even just trying to pass the info onto someone else, some of the easiest and best info to give is:

        gender
        skin color/racial type
        hair color & style
        height (even if approx. like "short" or "tall")
        build (skinny, medium, chubby, fat, muscular, etc.)
        eye color
        tattoos, scars or other identifying marks

          -Charles
      • Transexuals are to be given 2 ID cards, although the Govt are still making this up as they go along...
    • Fears have been raised.... after reading that list I am more frightened. One example - forcing a declaration of dual nationality on the card means details of dual nationality can be shared between governments. In many countries Brits with dual nationality keep their British passport 'under the pillow' in case of government collapse - as in Zimbabwe where journalists proven by the regime to have dual nationality have been stripped of their Zimbabwean papers and expelled. Also this: the information provide
    • * National Identity Registration Number
      * the number of any ID card issued
      * allocated national insurance number
      * the number of any relevant immigration document
      * the number of their United Kingdom passport
      * the number of any passport issued to the individual by or on behalf of the authorities of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom or by or on behalf of an international organisation
      * the number of any document that can be used by them (in some or all circumstances) inste

      • Next up, the Democracy Bypass Bill

        At the risk of invoking Godwin, I've taken to calling that one "Reichskanzler Blair's Enabling Act [wikipedia.org]". Because that's pretty much what it is.

        I wrote to my (Conservative) MP about it. He assured me that his colleagues are pushing for restrictions to the bill, but stopped short of saying he'd vote against it. Which makes me wonder if the Tories are under party orders to back it if it doesn't look too onerous.

        The question is, will the Tories include repeal of the ID card/data
        • Nah, the Civil Contingencies 2004 Act is the Enabling Bill. Pretty much the same one Hitler invoked by burning down the Reichstag.

          Because we still have a Queen, it's debatable how far Herr Blair would push such emergency powers.

          Blair's modus operandi is to sneak through totalitarianism without anyone noticing. Hence LRRB.
          • It started several years ago. Since then we've had Regulation of Investigatory Powers; Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security; Civil Contingencies; and now this.

            I'm not sure what the legal basis was, but one of the political satire shows on TV the other day was implying that you can now be tagged, placed under curfew, or made subject to an ASBO, all without even being charged with committing a crime, never mind given due process. If you break the relevant condition then you can immediately be sent to prison w

            • All sadly correct, although until yesterday I was hoping that Mr Cameron would repeal these laws.

              Initially, the Belmarsh detainees were locked up under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. It has subsequently been reported that many of them were never even questioned.

              The Law Lords rightly ruled that this contravened the Human Rights Act.

              The Govt then hastily drafted the Prevention of Terror 2005 Act aka Control Orders and forced it through on the threat that, without it, dangerous people would
    • the date of every application by him/her confirming the contents of his entry (with or without changes)

      Is this on the card or the register? Even if it is on the register, you could really increase their storage costs by checking every day that no one has messed with your details...

      I mean, think of what would happen if someone were to change something without you knowing? Where would you be then? The only way is to constantly check that the government is doing a good job of keeping your details correct.

      O

    • " * other biometric information"

      And this could cover how ever much "other" information to do with your person the government decides they want. It's ambiguous and dangerous :/
  • Uh oh (Score:2, Interesting)

    by RyoShin (610051)
    I pray that there is a major change in the order of Congress this election year, or this kind of thing may not be far behind here in America.

    Yes, we'll still have Bush, but if we can a Democrat majority in Congress, especially a democrat majority with a fucking spine, Bush and them will spend the next two years fighting until we can hopefully replace all of them in '08 and start the long path of recovery...

    You know it's bad when pleas like this are coming from a Republican.
    • Re:Uh oh (Score:4, Interesting)

      by RexRhino (769423) on Wednesday March 29, 2006 @07:07PM (#15021730)
      Yes, we'll still have Bush, but if we can a Democrat majority in Congress, especially a democrat majority with a fucking spine, Bush and them will spend the next two years fighting until we can hopefully replace all of them in '08 and start the long path of recovery...

      You are joking, right? I am no Republican supporter, but you realize that Clinton and the Democrats proposed a National ID Card in the 1990s, and it was the Republicans who opposed it? And the National ID in the UK was pushed by the Labor Party, who would be far-left by U.S. standards.

      Seriously, how twisted by your own propoganda do you have to be to think that Democrats are not rabid supporters of the police state? The Democrats and the Left love the idea of a police state just as much as the right.

      Perhaps if the Libertarians, or the Greens, or someone else got into congress, we could begin reversing the trend. But don't try to pretend for a second that your party doesn't 100% support Totalitarianism, without reservations.
      • And the National ID in the UK was pushed by the Labor Party, who would be far-left by U.S. standards.

        Not any more, they're not.

        The Labour Party used to be fairly left-wing, friend of the common man, strong links to the unions, more socialist than capitalist in direction, etc.

        New Labour under Tony Blair have gone so right-wing they're no longer recognisable as the same party. They have all but severed their former union ties, often supported businesses over workers in their economic policy, and quite

      • I am no Republican supporter, but you realize that Clinton and the Democrats proposed a National ID Card in the 1990s, and it was the Republicans who opposed it?

        Well yeah, but that was because it was Clinton. As you may recall, the Repiblicans spent the bulk of Clinton's presidency trying to undermine him. Hell, in 1994 the young republicans that got elected in Congress shut the federal government down for a month over some budgetary pissing match.

    • by Tackhead (54550) on Wednesday March 29, 2006 @07:09PM (#15021744)
      > I pray that there is a major change in the order of Congress this election year, or this kind of thing may not be far behind here in America.
      >
      >Yes, we'll still have Bush, but if we can a Democrat majority in Congress, especially a democrat majority with a fucking spine, Bush and them will spend the next two years fighting until we can hopefully replace all of them in '08 and start the long path of recovery...

      Pop Quiz: On January 20, 2009, the leader of Democratic wing of the party, having retaken the House and Senate in '06, and the Presidency in 2008, will take a look at the powers available to it, and say:

      a) "Look at all this power we just had dropped into our laps! Just in case we're ever tempted to use it, we'd better pass laws to prevent us from using it."
      b) "Thank you very much, Republicans! It's just what we always wanted. Let us know what additional powers you'd like in place for 2016 when it's your turn."

      It doesn't matter whether you work for the Democratic wing or the Republican wing. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake.

    • Well it would definitely be better, and is in fact ALWAYS better, if there is grid lock in the U.S. political system by having both parties in power in different branches so they can check, balance and investigate each other.

      But it is extraordinarily naive to think the Democrats would be any better or different from the Republicans on national security related power grabs and oppression. Both parties are in a desperate contest to out do each other on making American's safe, and stripping their civil liber
  • by heretic108 (454817) on Wednesday March 29, 2006 @06:50PM (#15021593)
    To fight terrorism effectively, what the UK needs is mandatory RFID implants in all existing residents and newborn babies, where the RFID chip sends back a key into a central database containing fingerprints, nuclear and mitochondrial DNA sequences, 3-D facial image and iris scans. RFID scanners monitoring movements of all people would need to be installed on every street, in every shop, home and workplace.

    Next, mandatory RFID chips in all banknotes, and a law that cash cannot be handed from one person to another without registering the transfer (which can be done conveniently at government-installed ATM-like or EFTPOS-like machines on every street and in every shop) which scan the cash and the ID cards of giver and receiver and register the transfer.

    Yep, that'll stop the terrorists. Sure.
  • by headkase (533448) on Wednesday March 29, 2006 @07:00PM (#15021678)
    Papers please.

    (Not to be confused with the East German version)
    • Papers please.

      (Not to be confused with the East German version)


      Actually the East German Version and British versions would be quite different:

      East German: "PAPERS NOW, DUMPKOFT!"

      Bristish: "I say chap, but could I trouble you for your papers? Terribly sorry to intrude, but you see, ah, we're looking for these terribly unsporting chaps called terrorists, although I suppose they consider themselves freedom fighters. Miserable blighters, always blowing things up with out warning anyone first. Can't
  • Right that's it! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by goober1473 (714415)
    So I have to pay £90 for one of these things next time my passport runs out? And not forgetting the family, for what exactly? I have a new style driving licence with the photo of me on it, just like the Euro one, the only difference is that if I need to use the licence as ID I have to bring the paper part WITHOUT my photo. So, my driving licence isn't good enough ID, my passport isn't good enough (so why do the US accept it) and I have to have a new form of ID; which I have to pay for. I for one h
  • by TheNoxx (412624)
    "V for Vendetta" is making millions at the box office, what a cute little coincidence.
  • by delirium_9 (26055) on Wednesday March 29, 2006 @07:12PM (#15021768) Homepage
    Here's a Guardian link with every article and editorial they have on the issue. Lots of good stuff here.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/idcards/0,,1373591,00.ht ml [guardian.co.uk]
  • I have come to the view - and I'm quite serious - that EVERY piece of legislation which is passed "in the public good" does the exact opposite.

    It harms the public good, but greatly benefits a very small number of individuals.

    • "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face -- for ever." -O'Brien (from George Orwell's 1984)
    • There are a few great quotations that always come to my mind when this subject comes up.

      Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. - Pitt the Younger

      When men talk about defense, they always claim to be protecting women and children, but they never ask the women and children what they think. - Pat Schroeder

      The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule. - H. L. Mencken

      And perhaps the most a

  • No2ID (Score:5, Informative)

    by UpnAtom (551727) on Wednesday March 29, 2006 @07:33PM (#15021924) Homepage

    No2ID [no2id.net] is the main opposition to the ID Cards scheme. These guys are truly wonderful people though currently somewhat gutted that the Tories sold them out & didn't even have the decency to warn them.

  • anyone renewing a designated document (e.g. passport) will be able to opt-out of getting a card until 2010, but will still have their details put on the National ID Register immediately.

    What a brilliant plan! Get most of the drawbacks of a National ID card, without the card itself! You've heard of "buy now, pay later"? This is the opposite!

    Maybe the MPs can get reelected by fooling the voters into thinking that somehow this plan doesn't harm their privacy nor move the UK ever closer to being a poli

  • that requires ID cards for anything and everything.

    Now where did I put my passport and social security card so I can cash a check to get change for a locker so I can store all the stuff I'm not allowed to take when I go flying?
  • One curious thing. If you are a UK citizen but living outside the UK you will not be required to have an ID card when you renew your passport because of the lack of biometric readers in every town on the planet... you normally renew your passport by post with the embassy. So the whole scheme is a big waste of money, probably introduced because Tony Blair is getting backhanders from the American IT companies that will build the system.
  • by Wonderkid (541329) on Thursday March 30, 2006 @02:53AM (#15024273) Homepage
    If you live in the UK and have ever received a fine (citation) from a speed camera (everywhere in the UK) or even from a minimum wage automaton (virtually all traffic wardens in the UK are minorities) you will know that no matter how well meaning a person you are, your professional reputation or that you were only 5 mph over the limit, or simply rushing around trying to find some lose change for the ticket machine while the parking fine was issues, when you attempt to challenge 'the system', it is time consuming, stressfull and of course, if you fail in your protest, expensive. Like the introduction of iD cards, all of this simply profits the government, local authorities and the manufacturers of the technology. This is all the realisation of the distopian nightmare of having freedom, the right to make mistakes and the right to revolt ('wither revolution?' taken away from us by a corporate sponsored government who keeps tabs on it's citizens using technology. I'm British and find this far more abhorant than any terrorist threat and prey the people of the freedom loving USA reject the lot of it. The best way to fight terrorism and other crime is for us all to keep a fair eye on suspicious activity. We have souls so can judge accordingly.
  • by Quizo69 (659678) on Thursday March 30, 2006 @07:19AM (#15025096) Homepage
    I guess the next revolution is one step closer.

    It's instructive to watch history repeat itself, because it allows me to see just how Hitler and the Third Reich were able to achieve what they did without people stopping them. It's one thing to learn about it in school, when you seldom understand the full spectrum of what is being taught.

    I can now safely say that it's not that people didn't know back then. Just as now, the people just DID NOT CARE enough to do something about it. So in sixty years we have learnt exactly.... nothing.

    It's just sad that so many new people will have to die needlessly before we realise our error yet again. As an "intelligent" race we really don't deserve our place at the top of the food chain, because intelligence denotes reason and so far I don't see any.

    I won't weep for our destruction, because we deserve it.

Get hold of portable property. -- Charles Dickens, "Great Expectations"

Working...