Identity Cards Again.

[Stu Monty]

Spot on. I could envisage those people who've attended a political demonstration the Gov't don't like being flagged and prevented from travelling to other demonstrations for 'public safety' purposes.

 

Would my support for the Zapatistas be flagged as 'support of terrorism' or some such bollocks; I'd guess it probably would. The public will get the laws and the government they deserve and this is a part of that. Not enough people want to wake up and think about issues like this; not when they might have to miss Eastenders or the X-factor to watch a bit of current affairs (or, god help them, read about things).

[Paul]

The concept of proving who you are at national borders has existed for the whole of my lifetime. Why should the introduction of a more definitive way of proving your identity be a problem?

[mattyq]

The concept of proving who you are at national borders has existed for the whole of my lifetime. Why should the introduction of a more definitive way of proving your identity be a problem?

 

Surely this is what passports are for?

ID cards will not necesarily be a more definitive way of proving your id

Also, what gives the police or anyone the right to stop me in the street and ask me to show my id card if i'm behaving in a law abiding way?

We have rights stretching back to the Magna Carta enshrining the concept of privacy from the state and govt. Once that goes we are letting ourselves into something very scary and 1984ish

[Stu Monty]

Governments should be afraid of their people; not the other way round.

[Dirk]

The concept of proving who you are at national borders has existed for the whole of my lifetime. Why should the introduction of a more definitive way of proving your identity be a problem?

 

Why do we need to gather the amount of information that the government propose to, to do this? Why do we need the draconian legislation that accompanies this data gathering process to do this?

[G Richards]

I would tend to agree with the notion that our government does not need more information on its citizens. It is supposed to serve the people, but I think we are getting that a bit confused of late.

 

The government will obviously dress this up in some sort of security/anti-terrorism clothing, but that doesn't really wash with me. ID cards seem unnecessarily intrusive, and their introduction would be a sizeable (though not only) factor in my considering a move abroad.

[Paul]

Why do we need to gather the amount of information that the government propose to, to do this? Why do we need the draconian legislation that accompanies this data gathering process to do this?

 

It's much harder to fake someone's iris than it is a piece of paper.

[Dirk]

It's much harder to fake someone's iris than it is a piece of paper.

 

I don't think you understand what's going on. Logging somebody's life history has got nothing to do with biometrics. The next census is going to have questions asking people their sexual orientation, how often they have sex as well as other personal questions of an invasive nature and those that refuse to answer the census get fined £1000. The id card is not the problem, it's the database. Logging somebody's intimate life history has nothing to do with proving you are who you say you are. People need to see a distinction between the card and the database.

[Guest TK-421]

Man it's gonna take me ages to fill in that Census.

[tokyojoe]

Man it's gonna take me ages to fill in that Census.

 

I never filled in the last one. Neither did about 2 million others.

 

Fuck 'em.

[Paul]

I don't think you understand what's going on. Logging somebody's life history has got nothing to do with biometrics. The next census is going to have questions asking people their sexual orientation, how often they have sex as well as other personal questions of an invasive nature and those that refuse to answer the census get fined £1000. The id card is not the problem, it's the database. Logging somebody's intimate life history has nothing to do with proving you are who you say you are. People need to see a distinction between the card and the database.

 

What's wrong with asking someone which bus they're on? This government has moved this country forward exponentially in terms of outlawing homophobia. Counting the number of homos is a positive thing, in that context - same as any ethnicity questions.

[Strontium]

What's wrong with asking someone which bus they're on?

It's nobody's business!

 

Honestly Paul, it's fine if you don't mind the ins and outs of your life history being public knowledge to, er, people like me who work with such data on a daily basis, but you ought to realise that an awful lot of people really don't want to tell anyone such things.

 

Your attitude at the moment seems to be "It doesn't bother me - why should it bother anyone else?" - a mite self-centred if you don't mind me saying :angel:

[Dirk]

It's nobody's business!

 

Honestly Paul, it's fine if you don't mind the ins and outs of your life history being public knowledge to, er, people like me who work with such data on a daily basis, but you ought to realise that an awful lot of people really don't want to tell anyone such things.

 

Your attitude at the moment seems to be "It doesn't bother me - why should it bother anyone else?" - a mite self-centred if you don't mind me saying :angel:

 

Precisely. What does the word freedom mean? What does liberty mean? What right does a government have to force people to answer such questions? I've said it before, I'm out of this country as soon as I can get out.

[Dirk]

What's wrong with asking someone which bus they're on? This government has moved this country forward exponentially in terms of outlawing homophobia. Counting the number of homos is a positive thing, in that context - same as any ethnicity questions.

 

Do you agree that holding such information has nothing to do with biometrics and identification?

[Michael Howard]

Vote Tory lads !!

[Thomo123]

Nobody who voted for Labour can say they weren't warned. It's an authoritarian party following an authoritarian ideology and it always has been. These days they don't even have the sole saving grace of standing for the interests of the ordinary working man. Bah humbug.

 

Unfortunately the problem we have in this country is the lack of any sort of opposition. People vote labour because the tories are fucking useless and as for the lib dems...whats the point! Its a sad state of affairs but thats how the majority feel. I have to admit i dont think i will even vote in the next election as id rather try and prove a point than vote for any of the fuckwits we have on offer. Maybe if they had an election turn out of less than 50% the parties would see some fucking sense. These people have ideas so far out of touch with reality its insane and tbh pretty fucking scary, i dont have kids but when i do im not sure if i would want them to grow up in this country. We are travelling down a slippery slope where people would rather know what posh spice is eating for her tea than any of the latest government proposals or policies, in the meantime the government will push through one piece of legislation after another with the majority not knowing or caring wtf is going on.

 

Personally i think we are fucked!!

[tokyojoe]

It's nobody's business!

 

Honestly Paul, it's fine if you don't mind the ins and outs of your life history being public knowledge to, er, people like me who work with such data on a daily basis, but you ought to realise that an awful lot of people really don't want to tell anyone such things.

 

Your attitude at the moment seems to be "It doesn't bother me - why should it bother anyone else?" - a mite self-centred if you don't mind me saying :angel:

 

Agreed. People are individuals, not 'groups' or 'types' and should be treated as such. The powers and rights of the individual far exceed the powers of the state, or 'greater good'.

[Dirk]

Some of you may be aware of John Stuart Mill's work On Liberty. Here's an extract from the introduction.

 

Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant — society collectively over the separate individuals who compose it — its means of tyrannizing are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates; and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling, against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development and, if possible, prevent the formation of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence; and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs as protection against political despotism.

[rargh]

Surely it's obvious how forcing somebody to answer "Ven did you laszt get laid!?" is going to stop lunatics from detonating explosives at rush hour?

 

I'm gonna answer "Last night - with your ma" on mine.

[King Emlyn]

I'll bet any of you that questions such as "What's your sexuality" will be on a voluntary basis and not compulsory, too much histrionics on this thread for me, far greater problems going on in my opinion, like the fact that the streets are overrun by wannabe gangsters who are prepared to shoot you or kick you to death if you look at them the wrong way. You can quote obscure extracts from books and such like all you like IMO i just don't see this 1984 scenario everyone's on about....Sorry but that's my opinion, not the popular one on here obviously but there you have it.

[Dirk]

It's nobody's business!

 

Honestly Paul, it's fine if you don't mind the ins and outs of your life history being public knowledge to, er, people like me who work with such data on a daily basis, but you ought to realise that an awful lot of people really don't want to tell anyone such things.

 

Your attitude at the moment seems to be "It doesn't bother me - why should it bother anyone else?" - a mite self-centred if you don't mind me saying :angel:

 

Paul uses homophobia as a point. I am mentally ill (paranoid, I know), for the next census, supposedly, they are going to ask us to state whether we are mentally ill and what that mental illness is. If this is true I object to giving that sort of information. I was taken aback by some of the new mental health legislation but it's only going to get worse not better. How is me telling the world my intimate details going to help them. The people that matter know e.g my family, my girlfriend and my doctor(s). Nobody else has a right to know that sort of information unless I want them to know. What about innocent until proven guilty? Instead we live in a society which harvests suspicion of its minority groups, be they Muslim or mentally ill, God help the poor sod who is a mentally ill Muslim, they'd be fucked in this modern era of tolerance, love and compassion.

[Dirk]

I'll bet any of you that questions such as "What's your sexuality" will be on a voluntary basis and not compulsory, too much histrionics on this thread for me, far greater problems going on in my opinion, like the fact that the streets are overrun by wannabe gangsters who are prepared to shoot you or kick you to death if you look at them the wrong way. You can quote obscure extracts from books and such like all you like IMO i just don't see this 1984 scenario everyone's on about....Sorry but that's my opinion, not the popular one on here obviously but there you have it.

 

Overrun? I think that's a strong word to use.Obscure extracts? The book is the basis for much of modern western society. It's one of the greatest and most widely known political texts.

[Dirk]

On Liberty was an enormously influential work; the ideas presented within it remain the basis of much political thought since. Aside from the popularity of the ideas themselves, it is quite short and its themes easily accessible to a non-expert, although, nearly 150 years later, its written style can be difficult to follow for the modern reader. It has remained in print continuously since its initial publication.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Liberty

[Remmie]

I hear all your convincing arguments and your probably right but I just can't help thinking it's all a little paranoid. A bit 'what's the frequency Kenneth' if you will

 

As for those disillusioned with Politics, instead of not voting you should go and spoil your vote (may I suggest writing another option saying me Da and ticking that) it sends a clearer message

[Anubis]

It's much harder to fake someone's iris than it is a piece of paper.

 

Nonsense. Real iris, fake details. Job done.