ID cards legislation examined

Indy500 · 12 Jun 2009 at 17:01

BigT said:
My only consolation in all this is how well the Government is skilled at stuffing up large IT projects, particularly those with complex system integrartion requirements. I can't think that they'd actually have the ability to manage anyone to make all these things talk to each other. That's why information sharing between Government departments is pretty much non-existant. The Government Gateway is sort of OK, but for practical purposes is restricted to HMRC for anything useful and the only others who do well are the intelligence agencies, but then they don't really do "sharing", they sort of suck data out of other Government Departments, and always will do. However their prime source of information on the populous, DVLA, is now becoming restrictive for their needs and they need NIR.

Hmm, can't say I thought that about the DVLA. Government departments are exempt from the Data Protection Act anyway.

DVLA sells details to car clampers

DVLA provided drivers' personal details to criminals

DVLA's 5 million driver details giveaway

DVLA sells personal details (yet again)

That's over a period of 7 years.

Since we touched upon the police database:

Police allow commercial access to DNA database

Perhaps Meridian or someone else in the field would like to explain why companies would buy "useless data"?

sixty · 12 Jun 2009 at 17:05

GTFO while you still can, guys...

Dolph · 12 Jun 2009 at 17:06

Yay, further proof that they still plan to waste £5-£10bn on this pointless exercise, when our country is already creaking under the massive and bloated public sector and government debt levels (especially predicted ones).

Why? Seriously, does anyone have any objective figures as to what confirmed benefits this scheme will provide?

BigT · 12 Jun 2009 at 17:08

sr4470 said:
Hmm, can't say I thought that about the DVLA.

Oh absoloutely. Imagine you are a terrorist in a sleeper cell here in the UK. Probably not a UK national so you don't have a passport. But if you're cultivating a clean record over the years, the last thing you want to do is get stopped and get a criminal record for not having a license when driving. So you do as all good citizens do and go and get one. Its the best source of information for matching names to faces of non-UK nationals in the UK since DVLA introduced the photocard license.

Why do you think you have to sit in a certain way with no smile on your face, no glasses etc. etc. for the photos? Makes facial recognition by machine much easier. It measures such things as distance from nose to mouth, length of mouth etc. All requires much less processing power if the pictures of faces are uniform in terms of facial expression.

Nix · 12 Jun 2009 at 17:33

Dolph said:
Why? Seriously, does anyone have any objective figures as to what confirmed benefits this scheme will provide?

Which sadly only points to the suggestion that there is some alterior motive behind this.

Von Smallhausen · 12 Jun 2009 at 18:00

Dolph said:
Yay, further proof that they still plan to waste £5-£10bn on this pointless exercise, when our country is already creaking under the massive and bloated public sector and government debt levels (especially predicted ones).

Why? Seriously, does anyone have any objective figures as to what confirmed benefits this scheme will provide?

Prove you are 18 to buy alcohol is a justifiable reason for £5-10 billion .... isn't it ?

Meridian · 12 Jun 2009 at 19:50

sr4470 said:
Since we touched upon the police database:

Police allow commercial access to DNA database

Perhaps Meridian or someone else in the field would like to explain why companies would buy "useless data"?

I love the fact the Reg points out that Cellmark and LGC are private companies, but fails to point out that both have something else on common: they both supply forensic services to the police. Once you understand that, it should be pretty easy to think of reasons why they may want access to the databse. And the main one is: money. Once they have full access the main commercial advantage of the FSS (currently the only people with full access) is lost and they can continue to get work away from the FSS. That's it - that's the conspiracy.

There are any number of uses of the NDNADB, but only to people interested in forensics, or to universities (who I assume make up the bulk of applications but are not named) who teach it as a course. For instance, perhaps you might search for that holy grail: "The Criminal Gene", and thus make yourself a friend of the Daily Mail forever.

M

etom · 12 Jun 2009 at 20:06

wish they would keep quiet about this idea until they have at least money to spare, how can they afford 5billion or whatever on bit of plastic in these times...beyond me

Indy500 · 12 Jun 2009 at 20:32

Meridian said:
I love the fact the Reg points out that Cellmark and LGC are private companies, but fails to point out that both have something else on common: they both supply forensic services to the police. Once you understand that, it should be pretty easy to think of reasons why they may want access to the databse. And the main one is: money. Once they have full access the main commercial advantage of the FSS (currently the only people with full access) is lost and they can continue to get work away from the FSS.

The police can't do the forensics in-house? And yes, there is an obvious financial motivation for data mining.

Meridian said:
There are any number of uses of the NDNADB, but only to people interested in forensics, or to universities (who I assume make up the bulk of applications but are not named) who teach it as a course. For instance, perhaps you might search for that holy grail: "The Criminal Gene", and thus make yourself a friend of the Daily Mail forever.

M

Then why are they undisclosed? You've time and again told us that the data collected is "junk DNA", but this doesn't have any relevance to the fact that millions that are not convicted of a crime have a profile on the database. Cost doesn't appear to have been a barrier so far.

If it is useful for research or teaching purposes as you state, then people who have volunteered to give that data would be a better source.

But getting back to the ID scheme, what is your stance on that?

Meridian · 12 Jun 2009 at 22:13

sr4470 said:
The police can't do the forensics in-house? And yes, there is an obvious financial motivation for data mining.

The do some, but their current abilities are based in certain areas, mostly screening exhibit to see what to send in for proper analysis.

Then why are they undisclosed? You've time and again told us that the data collected is "junk DNA", but this doesn't have any relevance to the fact that millions that are not convicted of a crime have a profile on the database. Cost doesn't appear to have been a barrier so far.

If it is useful for research or teaching purposes as you state, then people who have volunteered to give that data would be a better source.

But getting back to the ID scheme, what is your stance on that?

It was only undisclosed in that article - I'm not aware of any secret about who might be interested. And yes, it's junk DNA. But there's still money to be made from forensic science, if not much, so people would be interested for just that reason. Universities would also be interested because loads of them offer FS courses (useless though they are) and a few papers on the subject might get them extra students, aka money.

My understanding of the NDNADB was that the government forked out about £120 million over the last ten years or so to expand it, but that figure has now been drastically reduced. Hardly a huge spend - that's about twice what they collect in speeding fines.

As for the ID scheme, I consider it a waste of time and money.

M