UK Home Office Set To Scrap National ID Cards 334
mjwx writes "In what would seem to be a sudden outbreak of common sense for the UK, the Home Office has put forward a plan to scrap the national ID card system put into place by the previous government. From the BBC: 'The Home Office is to reveal later how it will abolish the national identity card programme for UK citizens. The bill, a Queen's Speech pledge, includes scrapping the National Identity Register and the next generation of biometric passports.' The national ID card system, meant to tackle fraud and illegal immigration, has drawn widespread criticism for infringing on privacy and civil rights. However, the main driver for the change in this policy seems to be the 800-million-pound cost. Also in the article, indications of a larger bill aimed at reforms to the DNA database, tighter regulation of CCTV, and a review of libel laws."
No surprise (Score:5, Informative)
Re:No surprise (Score:4, Informative)
It was also irrelevant anyway since the vast majority of people in britain now have a photo driving licence that performs the same function. You are already legally required to tell the DVLA where you live, and they immediately inform the police to update on the Police National Computer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_National_Computer [wikipedia.org]
Since we already are required by law to carry our driving licence while driving most people just keep it in their wallet. This allows the police to stop and search you at any time and find out who you are. Stop and search in the UK does not require a warrant.
The ID card scheme was basically a way of legally requiring something which we already have pretty much by stealth anyway for most law abiding citizens. The difference is that they could have used it to hassle illegal immigrants and people who have something to hide more if it was more rigidly codified in law. We all are forced to carry our bankcards and god knows what else that proves who we are so who cares about on more piece of ID being forced upon us. I only objected to being charged for it, via txation or directly.
If the new government really want to sort out the crap Labour passed they need to repeal the Regulation of Investigatory Powers and Terrorism Acts. I have a feeling those are both here to stay though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_Investigatory_Powers_Act_2000 [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_Act_2000 [wikipedia.org]
Re:No surprise (Score:5, Informative)
Since we already are required by law to carry our driving licence while driving most people just keep it in their wallet. This allows the police to stop and search you at any time and find out who you are. Stop and search in the UK does not require a warrant.
We're not required to have it with us while driving. If you don't have it on you the Police can demand that you take it into a Police station within 7 days though.
Re:No surprise (Score:5, Informative)
Road Traffic Act 1988, section 164 (8)
(8) In proceedings against any person for the offence of failing to produce a licence it shall be a defence for him to show that—
(a) within seven days after the production of his licence was required he produced it in person at a police station that was specified by him at the time its production was required
Re: (Score:3)
Stop and search in the UK does not require a warrant.
Am I incorrect in thinking that it does require "Reasonable Suspicion" - random searches are not permitted (apart from under terrorism legislation)?
Re:No surprise (Score:4, Funny)
What? A party got into government and lived up to it's manifesto promises? I find that pretty surprising...
Re: (Score:3)
The simplest explanation is that the ruling party simply represented the interests of the Home Office, and the same now that the excessive cost has been amply demonstrated. Had the price tag not been so high, even a Lib Dem government wouldn't have dismantled it.
The dangers of bad Home Secretaries (Score:5, Insightful)
For all the problems of Blair and Brown, I think a lot of the lasting damage done by the Labour administration was caused by a succession of bad Home Secretaries, each more authoritarian, more fear-mongering, and less connected with real life than the last, whose distorted world views could direct affect everyone. Smith followed Straw, Blunkett, Clarke, and Reid, remember.
wow (Score:5, Interesting)
A government that actually gives up some power over people. I am speechless.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
well, at least the 15,000 folks that bought one won't be getting a refund.
And the project isn't really canned, as it will be rolled out for non-EU foreign nationals wishing to stay (cue thin end of wedge) so most of the contractors will still stay on the gravy train.
Re: (Score:2)
well, at least the 15,000 folks that bought one won't be getting a refund.
Good. I have absolutely no problem with financial penalties for people who voluntarily opt in to a surveillance state. Hopefully this will provide some negative reinforcement and make them less likely to do it again.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:wow (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
How did they do that? The UK was never part of the Schengen system.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
You cannot cross from the UK to anywhere (except Ireland) without a passport, EU or not.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Wouldn't the data be stored on a database rather than the card?
And even if it wasn't.. if you really didn't want people to have your "biometric data" then you'd have to walk around in a hazmat suit all the time, otherwise you're just leaving your DNA and fingerprints all over the place. The only slightly awkward one to get would be a retina scan, and were those even on the ID cards?
Re: (Score:3)
Many probably don't feel they wasted their money. They'll have bought the ID card because they had a need for an easy way to identify themselves. E.g. Proof of age for buying alcohol. For such uses, the card will no doubt continue to be accepted just as before.
Re: (Score:3)
There [we|a]re other ways to prove your age and ID though: drivers licence for one. True not everybody has a need for one of those though.
The ID card itself was never the issue as far as (and most of the people I know) were concerned. We've had ID cards here before: during and after the second world war for example and carrying some form of ID is common place for many. The main issue was the national registration database behind the cards (which is also about to be scrapped).
Re:wow (Score:5, Interesting)
The wonder of a coalition government. Neither side has the support to hammer through anything too extreme. So they're forced to actually do their jobs, rather than repeatedly kicking the electorate in the nuts and claiming they have a mandate to do so.
It probably won't last, but as long as it does, this current lot may actually accomplish some good for the country.
Re:wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone get out there and vote YES for AV in the referendum to make this kind of thing more likely in the long-term. Then if we get a referendum on STV, vote YES to it to make it almost certain.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
AV isn't about proportional representation! It's about removing the frustration of tactical voting.
It will probably still result in a more representative parliament though, and it is a complete lie to say it is 'less proportional the FPTP'. FPTP is about the worse voting system possible.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The big picture matters when it comes to government and electoral reform. For example, an elected second chamber based on PR, and an elected first chamber using AV rather than FPTP, would still be a big step up for democracy compared to what we have today.
As others have noted, the point of AV is not to achieve proportional representation, it is to negate tactical voting. Right now, anyone who claims to know what effect that would have in the long term is deluding themselves. There is no way to predict what
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It has nothing to do with it being a coalition government. Both Conservative and Lib Dem parties had scrapping the ID card in their manifestos. If either one had formed a majority (single party) government, the news today would be the same.
Re:wow (Score:4, Insightful)
Or, you know, the Tories could have put the measure on the back burner for three years and eventually announced that the situation had changed and the ID scheme was suddenly vital for national security.
Just because it's in their manifestos does not mean they have any intention of doing it. It just means it's something they thought would help get them elected.
Re: (Score:2)
A government that actually considers this amount of money to be too much to spend on something. I am speechless.
Re: (Score:2)
I just finished reading A History of England [amazon.co.uk]. If there is really anything which stands out in its history, it is the fact that English rule did not really have much power until the 19th century.
Re: (Score:2)
They are also going to stop storing the DNA of innocent people in their database and to introduce legislation restricting CCTV cameras. I'm starting to like these guys.
Phillip.
Hardly "sudden" (Score:5, Informative)
In what would seem to be a sudden outbreak of common sense
Hardly a "sudden" outbreak. We had an election that was hardly a surprise (it was held at basically the last minute it could be, as everyone expected). As a result the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have formed a coalition governement. Both coalition parties have pledged for a long time to scrap ID cards. It was also set out in their initial coalition agreement and it's one of the "freedom" things they feel they have a common platform on. Anyone who is surprised by the suddeness of the plan to scrap ID cards is... well, foreign. Not that there's anything wrong with that of course.
Shame (Score:4, Funny)
I like mine . . . no really, I do.
Re: (Score:2)
I like mine . . . no really, I do.
I don't think they will be making it a crime to keep one if you already have it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not officially, but there's nothing stopping any business or person from accepting it as proof - it's just unlikely that anyone will.
Quaint system... (Score:4, Insightful)
To travel to Europe you need to fork out the full fee for a "real passport" rather than the cut-price national-ID card -- most other Europeans can just make do with a national ID card. Or wait -- that might be because Britain is one of the few countries that still does border controls for travel within Europe. Travel north-south from Germany to Holland to Belgium to France to Spain to Portugal and the only thing you notice is the language on the road signs changing, the borders are notionally still there but no checks are done. Im not sure the current system really is that much better.
Re:Quaint system... (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course this will leave in place the quaint system thats currently there -- theres no national register of who lives where. So opening a bank account requires you to bring in a random assortment of water bills, phone bills, as proof of address, getting a passport requires you to get the reverse of your passport photograph signed by "a person of standing" i.e. your doctor or a certified engineer or a company director. Hardly waterproof, really.
As compared to what? How did you think they were going to verify who you are for purposes of issing an ID card? You've ruled out anything that evidences your address, you've ruled out passport, you've ruled out testimony of reliable seeming person who knows you. So what's your plan? What is "waterproof"? The whole biometric thing comes AFTER you've established your identity to them, not before.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The point is that once you have an ID card you can just flash it, instead of having to produce all of that documentation just to open a bank account.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How often you take money out of a bank account? Or get a loan? How do you show the account 112233-445566 is yours to empty?
While ID cards are far from "waterproof" and have a lot of weaknesses they are significantly better than the alternative.
Re: (Score:2)
I have to prove my identity several times a day.
To whom?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes there is, it's called a Driver's Licence and most people have one anyway. They cost only slightly more than the now old ID card. I really didn't see the point of it anyway when nearly everyone has a licence (whether they can drive or not - even a provisional licence would be fine).
Re: (Score:2)
As it stands, not everyone can apply for even a provisional driving license. e.g. People under age, people with poor eyesight, people who have had a driving ban. That's discriminatory.
Maybe there could have been the opportunity to modify the driving licence system to also properly function as an ID card. One card instead of two. But that may have been problematic as driving licenses are relevant internationally too - what it means to hold a driving license needs to be clear.
Re: (Score:2)
I have to prove my identity several times a day.
What are you doing? I've only ever had to prove my age, and there's already a much less intrusive national scheme set up for that: http://www.brc.org.uk/pass/default.asp [brc.org.uk]
Re:Quaint system... (Score:4, Informative)
To travel to Europe you need to fork out the full fee for a "real passport"
That's nothing to do with ID of any sort, it's because the UK is not a member of the Schengen Agreement [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding is that (some?) countries in the EU who are in Schengen still expect some sort of ID to be carried by people from other Schengen countries - not for crossing borders but for going about your daily life in their country. Maybe I've got that wrong though?
Yes, some other continental countries have ID card systems, but they are almost all decentralised & none hold anywhere near as much data as the proposed UK one (IIRC ~50 different pieces of info) on a "national identity register" (NIR).
Had a continental style scheme been set up, their would have been far less opposition as the main arguments were against the NIR, not the cards themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Had a continental style scheme been set up, their would have been far less opposition as the main arguments were against the NIR, not the cards themselves.
Absolutely. And the pro-ID people have consistently failed to grasp the gripes all along, and are still missing the point in this discussion! It must be either genuine malice, or terminal ignorance.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You seem to have forgotten the birth certificate requirement for passport applications.
Re: (Score:2)
You're wrong.
Re:Quaint system... (Score:5, Informative)
I need a random assortment of water bills, phone bills, as proof of address when opening a bank account in France, which does has ID cards. You need to somehow have somebody identify you to get a passport, but then you would to get an ID card too. Most other Europeans do not "make do with ID cards" to travel but are obliged by law to carry one on them at all times (whether traveling or not). You may not notice any border controls but you can be stopped at any time within those borders and asked for no reason to produce an identity card. I have American friends here in France that were thrown in jail for the night for not having their passport on them whilst walking in the street. Britain neither wants nor needs ID cards, and since we are traditionally rubbish at doing large IT projects it would have been an expensive flop anyway.
Phillip.
Nothing to do with cost.. (Score:5, Informative)
It had long been thought by everyone (other than the last government, who just got sent packing) that the ID cards just wouldn't work the way they were meant to (i.e. they don't protect anyone, and are just infringements on privacy and civil liberty, costing the citizenry money they shouldn't have to pay).
The £800 million was supposed to be recouped by the Government by charging to have the card (they were intended to be mandatory eventually with every passport). In other words, another tax to fund a scheme that wouldn't work as advertised and gave the populace no benefit while giving even more personal info to the government.
It'd been a promise since the early days (years back) by every other party to scrap this waste of time and money if they ever came into power. Labour were hoping to have it in place and active (making it much harder to scrap) before they were voted out. Thankfully they failed.
Not about the cards (Score:5, Insightful)
Scrapping the plan was never really about the cards; most people weren't really bothered about the card itself, it was the vast amount of data that was to be linked to the card via the National Identity Register that was cause for concern - especially as the previous government had a truly shocking record on both data security and large-scale IT projects.
Mostly why I voted for them (Score:2)
Granted, the Tories might well screw up the country - but at least we'll have our freedom.
(Hopefully the Liberals will keep them in check anyway, thanks to the coalition. Couldn't be much better really!)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Granted, the Tories might well screw up the country - but at least we'll have our freedom.
(Hopefully the Liberals will keep them in check anyway, thanks to the coalition. Couldn't be much better really!)
The last time the Tories took power from Labour they inherited a monster debt too, and managed to re-pay it and hand over a healthy economy to nuLabour who have sold the family silver (and Gold at the lowest price possible remember!). (nu)Labour have never been able to cut funding to all their left-wing union buddies and so have ALWAYS borrowed heavily when in power, whilst I am confident the Tories (and esp. now they have the Lib Dems as their Jiminy Cricket conscience!) will have the balls to cut back wh
Re: (Score:2)
The last time the Tories took power from Labour they inherited a monster debt too, and managed to re-pay it and hand over a healthy economy to nuLabour who have sold the family silver
I seem to remember the Tories selling a lot of the family silver (the national rail network, most utilities) before they handed power over. Making up for a short fall in revenue by selling off infrastructure is generally not good fiscal policy. Hopefully the LibDems won't let them do the same this time.
In fact, most of Labour's problem was that they didn't sell the family silver. They just paid for everything they wanted on credit, then left before it was time to pay it back.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That would be the monster debt that Labour inherited from the previous Conservative government that presided over the three day week. Most serious historians blame the mess at the end of the 1970's on the Heaths government and the oil crisis.
I would also point out that the last Labour government presided over the longest period of sustained economic growth in the history of the United Kingdom, and even going back further to include the history of Great Britain. Now you might claim that was the legacy of the
Link to source, and my favourite quote of the week (Score:4, Interesting)
Blunkett wants to sue (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What made me laugh was the report that David Blunkett (the Labour Home Secretary that gave birth to the scheme) wants to sue the Government for the thirty quid that the card cost him: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/i-might-sue-over-scrapped-id-card-says-blunkett-1985447.html [independent.co.uk] Oh, and it's worth remembering that the Tories wanted to introduce an ID card system (sans database) back in the 90's.
You mean he didn't claim it on expenses! Well I am surprised.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and it's worth remembering that the Tories wanted to introduce an ID card system (sans database) back in the 90's.
An ID card without the database is just a more convenient passport. It's the database that I object to. Amusingly, a couple of weeks after I was born, there was an episode of Yes Minister on television about the creation of a 'Big Brother' database with inadequate privacy safeguards. Plus ca change...
Re: (Score:2)
a couple of weeks after I was born, there was an episode of Yes Minister on television about the creation of a 'Big Brother' database with inadequate privacy safeguards. Plus ca change...
You really do have a remarkable memory. The earliest thing I can remember is "Baa Baa Black Sheep".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I watched a repeat as a teenager and thought 'this is amazingly topical'. I watched the episode again on DVD over Christmas and thought 'this is still amazingly topical, when was it made?' Turns out, it's as old as me. I wish the BBC would repeat Yes [Prime] Minister more often...
It's regularly on one of the Satellite channels (GOLD, I think), and it remains as topical & insightful as ever.
New Labour (Score:5, Interesting)
Who would've predicted 20 years ago that a Conservative government is now more liberal than a labour one. What did labour bring the UK in respect to civil liberties?
- Huge amounts of CCTV - one estimate claims the it's the highest in the world
- Useless passports that don't work in most airports
- An illegal war or two
- Sponging off the state is more attractive than working
I voted labour in 1997 and was fairly anti-conservative back then. Since that time something happened to the party (Tony Blair) that has completely transformed them in my view.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The Conservative-Liberal coalition is more liberal than Labour ....
The Conservatives proposed an ID card before labour, introduced widespread CCTV originally, the precursors of a war or two (technically legal ...but they would have done it anyway)
The Lib-Dems were against ID cards, against the war, against CCTV ....
Together they moderate each others extreme policies ....
Re: (Score:3)
Who would've predicted 20 years ago that a Conservative government is now more liberal than a labour one.
I would. My gut feel is that the Conservatives are more comfortable being in charge than Labour, and therefore don't feel the need to micromanage the country. You could look at it another way; they don't really care what the plebs are getting up to, so don't feel the need to keep a close eye on them.
Certainly they claim to believe in free market, laissez faire economics, and small government, which would be incompatible with the surveillance state that Labour was building.
As the summary says (Score:3, Insightful)
A big of the reason for doing this was cost, but not the only one. The Conservatives have been opposed to this scheme since forever. Middle England Tories tend to get very hot under the collar about ID card schemes for some reason, though they don't seem to have any problem with CCTV, repressive "anti-terrorism" legislation, or any of the dozens of other ways in which British civil liberties are being curtailed.
As to the current Con/Dem government doing anything about these wider abuses, I remain very sceptical. Previous Tory governments have been equally as big on repressive legislation as the last Labour government was. And as everybody knows, politicians are generally loathe to give up any powers unless forced to by the population.
Re: (Score:2)
Middle England Tories tend to get very hot under the collar about ID card schemes for some reason, though they don't seem to have any problem with CCTV, repressive "anti-terrorism" legislation, or any of the dozens of other ways in which British civil liberties are being curtailed.
Of course not. The other things that you list only effect the freedoms of the lower classes...
Re:As the summary says (Score:5, Informative)
As to the current Con/Dem government doing anything about these wider abuses, I remain very sceptical. Previous Tory governments have been equally as big on repressive legislation as the last Labour government was. And as everybody knows, politicians are generally loathe to give up any powers unless forced to by the population.
Well, the coalition document promises a "great repeal\freedom bill" and more regulation on CCTV and a review of the libel laws (as a side note, Lord Leicester has just introduced a libel reform bill - http://www.libelreform.org/news [libelreform.org] - in light of their pledge, I'm hoping that it will get government backing) amongst other things - full text: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8677933.stm [bbc.co.uk]
The relevant section for those who don't want to click on the link:
10. Civil liberties
The parties agree to implement a full programme of measures to reverse the substantial erosion of civil liberties under the Labour government and roll back state intrusion.
This will include:
A freedom or great repeal bill;
The scrapping of the ID card scheme, the national identity register, the next generation of biometric passports and the Contact Point database;
Outlawing the fingerprinting of children at school without parental permission;
The extension of the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to provide greater transparency;
Adopting the protections of the Scottish model for the DNA database;
The protection of historic freedoms through the defence of trial by jury;
The restoration of rights to non-violent protest;
The review of libel laws to protect freedom of speech;
Safeguards against the misuse of anti-terrorism legislation;
Further regulation of CCTV;
Ending of storage of internet and email records without good reason;
A new mechanism to prevent the proliferation of unnecessary new criminal offences.
Trying to grip the issues involved... (Score:5, Interesting)
I Finland everyone has a national identification number. Censuses haven't been done in my lifetime, no need. A drivers license, passport, social security card or ID card identifies the citizens with this number. I'm not sure if there's a law that says you have to posess one of the above, it's just something everyone has anyway.
Still there haven't been any major issues. Is this because the Finnish government is simply less corrupt that many others? I don't have a problem with having a number assigned to me. In fact that number ensures I can use all the services my taxes pay for, like working health care.
So am I living in some socialist police state, or is it just a matter of what kind of government implements this kind of a scheme?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The issue was data protection, not the cards themselves.
UK data protection law (I think this is an EU-wide thing now?) says (among other things) thst you can't use personal information gathered for one purpose for another purpose without the consent of the people involved. This means you can't link databases together. The TV licence database can't be linked to the healthcare database or the police database or ... well, anything really.
Two things help enforce this separation. First, it's illegal (heh), a
How naive. (Score:5, Insightful)
When Augusto Pinochet came to power, one of the first things he did was to round up the offices of the Socialist party and get their membership records.
With that list they just went, knocked to the doors of their political oponents, and dealt with them with the brutality characteristic of right wing extremists (when Pinochet died Chilean youngsters saluted the departed leader with Neo Nazi salutes, how ironic that Maggie Thatcher was such a good friend of this bastard).
Europeans, having experienced totalitarian regimes in the last 100 years ( Stalinists in most of Eastern Europe, Fascists in Central and Mediterranean Europe, Ultra Nationalists in the Balkans) one would have thought would be the most reacious people in the world to any form of such political control (which is what it is: no ID, no services. Neat.)
With all its faults, the UK, one of the few countries that escaped totalitarian regimes in recent history, has a sizeable amount of the population with whom this kind of policy seats uncomfortably, even if that means a bit less conveneince during dealing with official business of any kind.
It was only the prominence of Labour (many of its ministers former Left Wing nutcases, i.e. proponents of an overpowering overview of the state of everything) what permitted the idea of ID cards being a good idea. One or two of them actually became closely associated with companies with interest in promoting ID cards after they left office in disgrace.
There is no reason you should not have a number to access your services, the problem is it being unique and the government, not you, having control about who can access the personal information associated to it.
Re: (Score:2)
I Finland everyone has a national identification number. Censuses haven't been done in my lifetime, no need. A drivers license, passport, social security card or ID card identifies the citizens with this number. I'm not sure if there's a law that says you have to posess one of the above, it's just something everyone has anyway.
Still there haven't been any major issues. Is this because the Finnish government is simply less corrupt that many others? I don't have a problem with having a number assigned to me. In fact that number ensures I can use all the services my taxes pay for, like working health care.
So am I living in some socialist police state, or is it just a matter of what kind of government implements this kind of a scheme?
No, we all have a National insurance number in the UK as well, the problem with this scheme wasn't the card but the database behind it; it was going to keep ~50 pieces of personal data on all of us and wanted to charge everyone £30 for the privilege of having one. More info here: http://www.no2id.net/IDSchemes/FAQ/ [no2id.net]
Re:Trying to grip the issues involved... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I Finland everyone has a national identification number. ... ...
I don't have a problem with having a number assigned to me.
I Gattaca this motion.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Finnish government is based on proportional representation and coalitions, so my Finnish mother tells me, which I imagine means less scope for governments to sieze tyrannical power without someone to keep them in check. The country is indeed also very socialist, but somehow it works and you don't appear to piss money up the wall on stupid things in the same way that Britain does.
I'd move to Finland in a heartbeat if I could learn the language and persuade my wife and kids, and the political system is o
They need to make ONE change to Libel law (Score:2)
All they need to do is to require that the person who is being sued, the person who is doing the suing or both must be a resident of the UK.
That will stop 99% of the "libel shopping" where someone/some company not located in the UK sues someone else/some other company not located in the UK using UK courts just because it happens to be possible to access the alleged libelous content from a computer located in the UK.
It's the database, silly (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You should check out the plans for exactly what went on the ID card and in the National ID Register before you make comparisons to superficially similar schemes in other countries.
In any case, identity theft makes this whole concept a bad idea. You should never have to prove your identity, you should have to prove that you have the right to be doing whatever you are doing - role based access control. This makes it much harder to steal someone's identity, because you have to steal a large set of mostly-in
as well as (Score:2)
However, the main driver for the change in this policy seems to be the 800-million-pound cost.
That, and the fact that it doesn't really add anything that they don't have already somewhere else, so what's the point?
Finally Slashdot. (Score:5, Interesting)
You post a story about the new British regime.
For those unaware, Britain has had a new coalition government for the past 3 weeks, and it's been active in stating it's goals of rolling back many of the civil liberties infringements in the UK that came about under Labour.
There have been countless stories on Firehose, but positive stories about a final change of state of British politics that has massive meaningful benefits for improving the state of civil liberties here in the UK are apparently not newsworthy, it's better to stick to negative stories about how the world is going to end. Apparently.
It's a shame because Slashdot could use some positive news on the civil liberties front, and there has been a lot from the UK this last few weeks. To sum most of them up, the stated intentions of the new coalition government are:
- The removal of the DNA database
- The removal of the national identity register
- Cancelling the go ahead of enhanced biometric passports
- Cancellation of the contact point database
- Removal of restrictions on right to peaceful protest
- Stronger restrictions on the use of CCTV cameras
- Ban fingerprinting of children in school without parental permission
- Increase the scope of the freedom of information act
- Remove innocent people from the DNA database
- Restore trial by jury as a right in all criminal cases
- Review and hopefully rework libel laws to prevent stifling of freedom of speech
- Introduce more legislation to prevent abuse of anti-terror laws
- Ban interception and storage of e-mail and other digital communications without good reason (i.e. a specific warrant)
Now, you wouldn't realise any of this if you simply read Slashdot of course, but there you go. Hopefully the UK is seeing a bit of a turnaround now that totalitarian Labour have been kicked out, and for the first time in about a hundred years, the Liberals are part of government again.
It's not all perfect of course, no one can like everything their government does. The new coalition has also said that they will allow citizens to put forward bills for repeal, whether the digital economy act can be included is yet to be seen, but right now, the things there are cold hard plans for are extremely promising and look set to get the go ahead.
It's just a shame Slashdot didn't post the full list of changes when Nick Clegg the new deputy PM did a speech on restoring civil liberties in the UK last week when there were like 20 firehose submissions on it, but oh well, I suppose we should be glad now that at least the fact a tiny miniscule portion of the goings on over here has been posted, albeit a week late.
That's a big gorilla (Score:5, Funny)
However, the main driver for the change in this policy seems to be the 800-million-pound
Gorilla? Please be gorilla. That's a big gorilla.
cost.
Disappointing close to that sentence.
Re:800-Million pound cost (Score:5, Informative)
The UK military expenditure currently costs about 2.5% of the £1.8 trillion GDP. That's about £45 billion. Therefore ID cards for every citizen in the country cost, in total over the last ten years, approximately 1.7% of the total military (peacetime) budget for *this* year. Call it 2% to actually finish the scheme and issue the cards for free.
Depending on how you look at it, that can be read as ridiculous in any number of ways. Or to put it in perspective - £800m is approximately 25% of the EU farming subsidies that we pay each year, or twice the amount we pay in "R&D for Environmental protection" each year, or 1% of the old-age-pensions for this year. Now consider that the £800m is the TOTAL for the whole scheme from start to finish to create a national ID card, and that's not actually that much. It's just because it's stated in big numbers, but you're taking those from HUMONGOUS numbers to jump to conclusions. £800m over ten years is £80m a year, which is about £2.70 per working taxpayer per year, roughly. Now consider that the average working UK citizen probably pays about £4000 per year in income tax alone, from a salary of £24k. In actual fact, having http://www.goal.com/en-india/news/2171/premier-league/2010/04/18/1883371/liverpool-owner-tom-hicks-wants-800m-for-the-club
(PS: Got my data from World Bank / ukpublicspending.co.uk / HMRC statistics / other reliable sources).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Mmm... post got cut off halfway:
The UK military expenditure currently costs about 2.5% of the £1.8 trillion GDP. That's about £45 billion. Therefore ID cards for every citizen in the country cost, in total over the last ten years, approximately 1.7% of the total military (peacetime) budget for *this* year. Call it 2% to actually finish the scheme and issue the cards for free.
Depending on how you look at it, that can be read as ridiculous in any number of ways. Or to put it in perspective -
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Firstly, 800 Million is the implementation cost. There would still be running costs long term. Also, this seems to be a low number; No2ID identified a billion worth [no2id.net] of contracts.
There are also other costs; e.g. organisations which would be required to check the ID card would have to link into the scheme. And finally, this isn't the only one in this set of pointless database schemes. If they also cancelled the scheme to link the whole NHS together that would save really lots.
As they say, a billion he
Re:800-Million pound cost (Score:4, Funny)
(PS: Got my data from World Bank / ukpublicspending.co.uk / HMRC statistics / other reliable sources).
I work for a research science group and I so, so wish I could cite reliable source when writing up!
Re:800-Million pound cost (Score:5, Informative)
The cards were never going to be issued for free; they were going to be forced on us and we would have had to pay for them (in fact the 15,000ish who had purchased the cards before the election have been told they will not get refunds but, instead, will have a souvenir of "historical" note).
The purchase price of the cards was meant to cover the operating costs of the scheme; government don't pay - we do. They take our taxes, then want more stealth taxes.
Re:800-Million pound cost (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:800-Million pound cost (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:800-Million pound cost (Score:5, Informative)
Hang on, try reading TFA. It says:
That's considerably more than 800 million quid.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't understand the privacy issue. I like the lib dems, I'm glad they are in power, and I think ID cards are expensive - but I don't understand why this is such a massive issue for so many people. I'm not afraid of CCTV and I'm not afraid of ID cards. I can't say I'm an expert in the issues (the wiki article is pretty lame, for example), so please feel free to educate me.
I realised your lack of expertise (or thought) from the rest of your post. As for educating you, I'm sure others will help me out here...
The reason I want ID cards, is not really for ID cards. I want my identity to be electronic, to make real world transactions, authentication etc as easy as internet authentication. On the internet I can access any site and make any payments with just a username and password. In the real world there are a bunch of ass backwards tools - coins, keys, access cards, phone sim cards and other bull. One of the reasons I can't shed this crap is because of "privacy concerns", which I don't worry about. For example, I share almost all of my personal information with google - and I don't worry about them trying to misuse it. I also share all of my wealth with the Bank Of England - I don't worry about them either. Germany also has a system of ID cards, which works.
You're doing better than me, I need several userids and passwords - Verrified by Visa and the Mastercard equivalents or paypal spring to mind. And please tell me that you really expect to replace coins and keys with an ID card. These things would soon have been cloned you realise. And how are you going to get mulinational phone companies to use a national ID card as a sim?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They're getting rid of the ID *CARDS*, not the database.
Yes, they are; the database will be deleted.
The coalition programme says "We will scrap the ID card scheme,
the National Identity register and the ContactPoint database, and halt the next generation of biometric passports." (http://www.conservatives.com/News/News_stories/2010/05/~/media/Files/Downloadable%20Files/coalition-programme.ashx?dl=true)
The BBC reports: "Once the cards are illegal, the National Identity Register will be "physically destroyed",
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So they are getting rid of the database too, which is the more important thing, but the combination of card and database was the really bad news.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I always found this strange as we'd been fighting terrorism for some decades before the ID card scheme was started and had managed without them. This is especially impressive as for most of those decades the terrorists were well funded, well organised, well equipped professionals that came within a hair's breadth of killing the Prime Minister and cabinet. Modern day "terrorists" are nothing but a random assortment of malcontent God botherers