ID cards.

Comments

Sign in or register to comment.

• Previous
• Next

• 1. At 4:56pm on 30 Jun 2009, Lady_Sue wrote:

  Is his face naturally that colour?

  Complain about this comment

• 2. At 5:01pm on 30 Jun 2009, invisibleatheist wrote:

  He wouldn't have compelled me.
  
  

  Complain about this comment

• 3. At 5:09pm on 30 Jun 2009, Fearless Fred wrote:

  Maybe you can ask the HS how this card will be any better than any other form of plastic card for proving ID to Police, Banks, etc. After all, unless a Police officer has access to the Biometric data on the database, the card, and a way of checking the biometric data of the person with the card, then the card can't be any better than, say, a Driving Licence. If someone is only able to check the data in the card matches the data on the database, then all it does is validate the card, not the person handing it over. Likewise, if the biometric data of the person is checked against the data of the card but not the database, then it is very possible that the person could be using a false card that has been loaded with the data of the person.
  
  Also, I believe that there is a BIG gap in the costings here that has never been explained by HMG. Can you ask the HS whether the costs that have been published and are quoted by ministers include the cost for the required biometric card and data readers that would be required by all those who would be using the card for proof of ID (Police, NHS Trusts, Benefits Systems, Local Government, etc). This hardware (as well as the secure communications to link it to the national database) are never referred to. Is HMG expecting those organisations to have to fund the equipment themselves? If so, then this is a massive hidden cost that has not been disclosed to the public. The public will in the end have to pay for this either though central government spending or things like increased Council Tax, higher banking charges (assuming banks want to implement the system), etc. We need to know the ACTUAL figures for the whole scheme, not just the cherry-picked sound-bite figures...

  Complain about this comment

• 4. At 5:11pm on 30 Jun 2009, Mrs Effingham wrote:

  Eddie - Hi-de-Hi!

  Complain about this comment

• 5. At 5:11pm on 30 Jun 2009, DTraynier wrote:

  While there may never be any official element of compulsion (for UK nationals) that doesn't mean we may not end up in a situation in which, while technically voluntary, life may simply be made impracticable/impossible without one. Compulsion in all but name.
  

  Complain about this comment

• 6. At 5:13pm on 30 Jun 2009, Prof John Locke wrote:

  nice one Eddie you got the home secretary to admit they have a "spineless policy"....

  Complain about this comment

• 7. At 5:13pm on 30 Jun 2009, U13774588 wrote:

  Could tax be non-compulsory? .. and what is the new tactic to laugh when you do not have an answer to the question!

  Complain about this comment

• 8. At 5:23pm on 30 Jun 2009, anthony1powell wrote:

  amazing interview. suddenly compulsary id cards no longer govenment policy. did not the government force the issue through the house of commons causing the shadow home secretary to resign & cause a bye election. perhaps this is the first public acceptance of the labour government introducing spending cuts

  Complain about this comment

• 9. At 5:24pm on 30 Jun 2009, JockDahnSaarf wrote:

  Well, well, well! U-turn? Nein! The polizei move forward!
  
  The gentleman from no_to_ID offered a very convincing explanation: "This is sneaky ID. You don't need it if you don't want to travel."( I paraphrase)
  
  What do we need to do to kill this once and for all? The development cost is much the same whether the cards are compulsory or not. How can we stop development and save the money?
  
  Answers on a post card please
  
  

  Complain about this comment

• 10. At 5:24pm on 30 Jun 2009, Lady_Sue wrote:

  I already have one of those ID cards. I was stopped on my way back through Dublin Airport about six years ago and told that I wasn't allowed in on my Ozzie passport.
  
  As I'd lived in Ireland on and off for 25 years, I thought it a bit strange to be suddenly confronted with this 'new law'.
  
  Eventually I was given permission to enter the country (by a most officious young man) but had to go to the nearest Garda station within the week. I had my passport stamped, was photographed and had to fill out forms for an ID card which I now must carry with me if I travel. I wrote to The Ministry of Justice, who in response, kindly gave me permission to remain for five years.

  Complain about this comment

• 11. At 5:31pm on 30 Jun 2009, Myristyl wrote:

  These days there seems to be a lot that the Labour party don't get. They obviously are having trouble understanding that many people (including 100% of people I have spoken to on this subject over the years) don't want it.
  
  There is a very strong feeling that this government is creating the mechanisms for a total surveillance state.
  
  It is not just the ID cards. Over the years there has been a whole raft of intrusive, unnecessary and unpleasant policies from new Labour.
  
  That we have to suffer any more of this odious shower after the damage they have done to this country leaves me livid.
  
  It is quite clear that long term the ID scheme would become compulsory and ultimately you will need to carry the card every day in order to access services and to trade.
  
  Quote:
  "Section 7.3:
  
  As examples, they understood that situations requiring a low level of verification, in which the card only could be shown might include age related purchases (alcohol and tobacco) and use of services such as libraries, leisure centres and video shops. Situations requiring an intermediate level of verification (showing their card and using the PIN), could be such as joining a library or leisure centre etc, paying for goods up to specified level - £100/£200, and signing on for benefits.
  
  Examples of high level verification (showing the card, biometrics checked by scanner) were expected to be when making higher level purchases (more than £200), opening bank accounts, setting up long term financial arrangements such as direct debits, registering with a GP, having hospital treatment and applying for benefits."
  
  From the Home Office special_issues_research.pdf
  
  The Options, Analysis, Outcome paper presents more unpleasant detail:
  
  Quote:
  "Universal compulsion should not be used unless absolutely necessary. It cannot be delivered quickly due to the need for inevitably controversial and time consuming legislation and would pose serious political, enforcement and resource challenges"
  
  Quote:
  "Various forms of Coercion are an option to stimulate applications in a manageable way."
  
  I will stand up and say NO.
  
  

  Complain about this comment

• 12. At 5:38pm on 30 Jun 2009, townsleyb wrote:

  I like how the huge costs of the ID card were dismissed as "self funding" - because we would be paying another £30 each.
  
  How many £30 will it take to pay for it? Lots.
  
  And will some of these will end up being paid for the state? Probably - if the person is in jail, on benefits, has no income, etc. etc.

  Complain about this comment

• 13. At 6:33pm on 30 Jun 2009, James Baring wrote:

  There has never been any possibility for ID cards other than introducing them on a voluntary basis for British citizens, for a great number of reasons.
  The identity system and cards (however voluntary) will most certainly be the backbone of any anti-terrorist system. The backbone is not the body, not is it analogous to a panacea.
  Without this backbone, the work of any security system is mathematically and ergonomically impossible.
  The incorruptibility of the system is not entirely technology dependent.
  There is no way individuals can participate in the advanced power of modern transport and communication systems without having a verifiable identity.
  People who do not wish to participate will no doubt use both passive and active methods to resist,with the usual narrative taking place as with trade unions, religious movements, reductionist political theories. The dogs will bark and the caravan will move on.
  Is it a gigantic fudge? Of course it is. Anything done with the approval of the British public has to be a fudge, mainly because we haven't been invaded and occupied since 1066 but also for other reasons. Same goes even more so in may countries where they have a different history. Consider Italy for a moment...

  Complain about this comment

• 14. At 6:49pm on 30 Jun 2009, PhilHands wrote:

  So a group of well educated, presumably thoughtful and interested people with a strong interest in effective anti-terrorism measures, and a deep understanding of security measures (i.e. Airline Pilots) were going to be the guinea pigs, and rather than reacting with joy, they threaten industrial action -- despite that, the fool from the home office claims that this is still going to be a useful element in the fight against whatever they're trying to scare us with this week. Pathetic.
  
  If they're so sure that it is going to have a useful effect on ID theft, then perhaps our banks will be willing to fund people to sign up, allowing the banks to make massive savings in their anti-fraud departments, or perhaps not.
  
  Also, why is this news? They said from the start that it wouldn't be compulsory (although it was clear that they were lying). So, now they're saying: "OK, so we were lying about that, but now it _really_ won't be compulsory", and we're supposed to believe them now? Why?
  
  In what sense won't it be compulsory if they've made it such that having a new passport puts you on the database whether you have a card or not? They're bound to try to tie government services to one's card at some point, so eventually, it will be a choice of dropping out of society, or carrying a card. With the result being that the only people that will be able to exercise their freedom not to be a number will be the people that the scheme was apparently designed to persecute in the first place.

  Complain about this comment

• 15. At 6:54pm on 30 Jun 2009, steelpulse wrote:

  Eddie. I am ALLOWED to think? Is this a first?
  
  Poor Mister Johnson. So bright and asked to explain the unexplainable. Sad or what?
  
  I do not want or need an Id card and watching the Government backing away from imposing same on me is not a bit surprising.
  
  My missus used to hold a form of Id from Finland you know? Yet we are talking 40 years ago and more - although she is of course only just 30 years old - it is a Doctor Who Time and MySp[ace thing!
  
  Think I got away with it on my wedding anniversary Eddie? lol
  
  Your colleagues - Robinson Minor - first name Nicholas and Ms S Flanders were just heard. One said "it could be a long hard slog" and the other "about what the Government will spend"
  
  Ok. Understood but why is my Id being withheld?
  
  I thought it was because I needed an Id card stamped with the USA's approval - that is going to happen. lol
  
  But if that aint true anymore - Id card I mean - let us get the fight started. We are too kind to the incredible stupid.
  
  A yes or no would be appreciated some time this millennia
  
  Hughes Sykes was it Eddie? Whitehall 12 12?
  
  Thanks mate. It helped. Huw or rather Hugh.
  
  Testing - testing! lol

  Complain about this comment

• 16. At 7:41pm on 30 Jun 2009, mrcynict4 wrote:

  Dear Sirs
  I have just been listening to your interview with "the Home Secretary" Mr. Johnson about ID cards convulsed with laughter.
  
  Basically, cutting through all the boloney, there is no cash so it has to be scrapped. This so called government is just unreal.
  
  Best regards.
  

  Complain about this comment

• 17. At 7:43pm on 30 Jun 2009, mrcynict4 wrote:

  I don't think Alan Johnson should give up the day job. Can we hear the interview again as it was genuinely hilarious.

  Complain about this comment

• 18. At 8:01pm on 30 Jun 2009, belovedJollyEngland wrote:

  
  
  Dear PM
  
  Why are so many people afraid of ID cards?
  
  I was given (as a baby in 1944) an ID card, which I still have. An ancient relic, I know.
  
  I agree that there should not be compulsion about the new ID cards but personally, perhaps, I could still use the hand-written, in elegant copperplate hand writing the buff coloured card given to me in 1944?
  
  But on as historical note, can PM check why, once upon a time everyone did actually have an ID Card?
  
  It makes me wonder why everyone is so incensed about it now (apart from the cost of issuing them).
  
  It might be an interesting historical FACT to inform the current rantings.
  
  Best wishes.
  
  Jolly (as ever)

  Complain about this comment

• 19. At 8:19pm on 30 Jun 2009, Chris Ghoti wrote:

  Lady Sue @ 10, is that an Irish ID card? If not, why did you need it at Dublin airport, for goodness' sake, and to stay in Ireland?

  Complain about this comment

• 20. At 8:44pm on 30 Jun 2009, Sid wrote:

  bJE @ 18
  
  When you got your ID card, it had three purposes. By the time it became unnecessary, it was used for 39 different purposes. They call it function creep.
  
  It's not the card that's the worrying thing, in any case - it's the national database with everyone's details on it.
  
  
  
  

  Complain about this comment

• 21. At 9:49pm on 30 Jun 2009, unclesocial wrote:

  Thank you Alan Johnson for waking up to the reality that this was just another hairbrained scheme that will do nothing to reduce terrorist in this country. As someone with a driving licence, passport, credit cards, library card, birth certificate, national insurance No card and photo ID for work I don't have any more space in my wallet for another one. Furthermore, it would only be copying information the state already holds on me. Why would they want anymore if they have it already?

  Complain about this comment

• 22. At 9:52pm on 30 Jun 2009, DaddyTadpole92 wrote:

  In the late 1960s we were renovating a house in the Scottish borders that had been abandoned for many years. The local cop turned up and said hello. By the time we had chatted in a friendly way for a few minutes, he knew who we were, where we came from, and had enough information to check on the information he'd gathered.
  
  A few years later, we were in a similar situation somewhere in France (we're an Anglo-French family). The gendarmes turned up in their blue meany van. There were 2 or 3 of them; the number of cops it takes to verify your identity is an old cold war Polish joke. They demanded in an officious manner our "papiers". They spent a long time studying them in their van, but they eventually returned them and went off, without a word of thanks of course.
  
  Fortunately, everyone had their papers on them, or the consequences would have been a bit nasty (a few days in the cells, strip-searching, finger up the b*m etc). This happens regularly to youngsters who have the wrong skin colour, live in the wrong place and are scared of losing their id documents when they go out to play football.
  
  It used to be argued that if ID papers don't exist you can't have false papers, so good policing has to depend on intelligent cops. Now that it's more difficult to falsify your documents one can fear the worst.
  
  I guess that all this antisocial nonsense started in the UK when they scrapped street sweepers and bus conductors and put in cameras.

  Complain about this comment

• 23. At 9:58pm on 30 Jun 2009, PhilHands wrote:

  belovedJollyEngland @ 18, I'm very grateful to my parents' generation for the sacrifices they made to protect future generations from fascism. At the end of the war The Allies were worried enough about the potential resurgence of fascism in Germany that they imposed a constitution that prevents the government from doing things like centralised accumulation of too much information about their citizens. Sadly, they didn't think to write similar clauses into their own laws. The database that sits behind the ID cards like a brooding spider would be unconstitutional if proposed in Germany today.
  If it was just a card, I wouldn't have a the same deep philosophical objection to it, since I tend to carry my passport and driving license around in my wallet anyway. I'd still question the cost of course.
  What I really object to is the centralised collection of data for undefined purposes, which will be kept forever, and which could, for example, provide future governments with the opportunity to dig up dirt about the (possibly long dead) relatives of people whom they wish to discredit.
  I also worry about their real justification. It's clear that every single one of their published justifications have been discredited, some multiple times, first it wasn't just about terrorism, then it was, now it isn't but it still is. It's been immigration at times, and social security fraud, and even. bizarrely. ID theft -- I imagine they'd try saying that it would help against swine flu if they thought anyone would buy it. All of these have been shown to be either largely irrelevant, or the oposite of the truth, so why is all this money still being spent.
  What is the real reason?

  Complain about this comment

• 24. At 11:06pm on 30 Jun 2009, lordBeddGelert wrote:

  This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

• 25. At 11:14pm on 30 Jun 2009, Cossackgirl wrote:

  3. FF
  You have given 2 options: comparing a card to the biometric base, or a person to a card.
  I am pleased to see in (11) a quote from the Home Office research, with reference to BIOMETRICS CHECKED BY SCANNER. That can imply comparing the person to the base.
  Several months ago, in a post that went quite unnoticed, I quoted David Blunkett, the former Home Secretary, saying a few years ago on Today that, once the biometric database is established, the cards will be to a degree redundant, as anybody stopped by the roadside and claiming to have left the card at home, would in fact be carrying their biometric data around their person at all times. All a policeman would have to do is ask the forgetful citizen to place his finger on the hand-held scanner, which will communicate with the biometric database and confirm in seconds the name and other details of the citizen while he is still present.
  I found it totally chilling, and never heard any more references from politicians to this childishly simple trick, until today, when Myristyl in (11) gave the very useful Home Office quote, for which I thank him.
  I hope the Big Brother has run out of money to the end of my lifetime, anyway...

  Complain about this comment

• 26. At 1:16pm on 01 Jul 2009, DTraynier wrote:

  In fact, ID will still be compulsory -unless you don't want to be able to leave the country, that is:
  
  "The home secretary emphasised his personal commitment to a voluntary scheme, saying it should be a personal choice for British citizens in the same vein as obtaining a passport.
  
  However, this would mean the only way for ID card opponents to avoid being included on the databases would be to not apply for or renew their passport.
  
  Thus critics of the scheme will effectively be unable to leave the country.
  
  As about 80 per cent of the population currently hold a passport, the Identity and Passport Service believe that take-up of the "voluntary" scheme would be high.
  
  Isabella Sankey, director of policy at the human rights group Liberty said: "The identity scheme will be compulsory in practice. However you spin it, big ears, four legs and a long trunk still make an elephant". "
  
  http://www.politics.co.uk/news/legal-and-constitutional/id-cards-coming-in-through-back-door--$1308163.htm

  Complain about this comment

• 27. At 06:30am on 20 Jul 2009, dennisjunior1 wrote:

  Eddie: i think that the id cards sounds like a wonderful idea but, in reality, it will not reduced the "fraud" affliiated in the id cards system...
  
  ~Dennis~

  Complain about this comment

• 28. At 10:08am on 23 Jul 2009, U14079256 wrote:

  This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

• Previous
• Next

View these comments in RSS