It's precisely this reason reason I think many on here would be against it.
Poll: DIGITAL ID - It's coming *** NO GENERAL POLITICS TALK - ONE AND ONLY WARNING ***
- Thread starter subbytna
- Start date
It's precisely this reason reason I think many on here would be against it.
To some extents it is, others not so much.
Humour me: at what point would anyone have issue with digital ID, if it was required for any of the following?
-Access to work? (sorry, this company has enough people of your demographic, no openings currently, try again another time when the vacancies line up with the percentage breakdown of the current population for your demographic group)
-NHS? (then again, should you really qualify for that heart bypass with all that junk food we know you've eaten...)
-Benefits? (but it has to know all your details first and as a result auto enrols you, easy, hang on, you just sold some of your old items to make some extra cash - we'll be docking that from your state payments this week, thank you for your contribution to the nations finances)
-Purchasing of unhealthy items (booze, fatty foods, certain publications, porn etc)?
-Travel? (you quota for leisure travel has been used up, net zero compliance requires citizens to share carbon usage fairly.)
-Voting? (you seem to be voting against us quite a fair bit, maybe some political adverts fired in your face non-stop could encourage you to see our way of thinking...)
-Having children? (your decision making is questionable, based on numerous datapoints it is not in the nations best interest that you re-produce, please re-apply for a procreation license in future)
-Access to certain parts of the internet? (non big anime tiddies for you this month!)
(i know these are all outlandish scenarios, but well within technical reach once the ball starts rolling.)
Where would you stop and go "this has gone too far"? When you reach that point, what are you going to do about it?
There will be NOTHING you can do at that point.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 9,575
- Location
- Southampton, hopefully not too hot, or too cold
Another day, another data leak, not by government this time but by Harrods.
www.bbc.co.uk
Some data simply shouldn't be connected to the web.
Harrods says customers' data stolen in IT breach
The luxury department store says stolen information includes names and contact details.
www.bbc.co.uk
Some data simply shouldn't be connected to the web.
Another day, another data leak, not by government this time but by Harrods.
Harrods says customers' data stolen in IT breach
The luxury department store says stolen information includes names and contact details.
Some data simply shouldn't be connected to the web.
Plenty of well-to-do folk will likely get spammed by ne'er do wells.
Oh ****, I had forgotten that they tried to strong arm Apple into putting a backdoor in icloud. I guess with an app they won't need a backdoor, they would just have front door access. Makes it far more efficient to find people who have been talking **** about the government privately.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 8,521
there are multiple reasons why people may be against it. it's not like there isn't a huge amount of hacking and shenanigans going on at the moment with people's person details being leaked to potentially unsavoury types.
it's not all about big brother and 1984 fears.
I wonder what would have happened after 7/7 or 9/11 if ID cards had been in place?
I can imagine a world where a major security threat very rapidly leads to requiring ID to travel on public transport for example.
Attending a concert after Manchester? ID please.
Protestor? ID.
Then biometrics are added to the ID, such a facial recognition. ....
Slippery slope.
I can imagine a world where a major security threat very rapidly leads to requiring ID to travel on public transport for example.
Attending a concert after Manchester? ID please.
Protestor? ID.
Then biometrics are added to the ID, such a facial recognition. ....
Slippery slope.
With the exception of having children, every single one of the "bad examples" you list is is a good thing!
Most people already have driving licences and/or some form of photo ID and everyone has an NI card (or did before they lost it), with a full digital backed ID card system we could do away with them.
One card that proves without a doubt if you are/aren't old enough to buy alcohol, if you have the right to work in this country, if you have free access to the NHS, if you should be able to access an 18+ website, if you are currently licenced to drive X vehicle type, if you are old enough to buy X item, etc. We could phase out so many existing cards/schemes the new system would pay for itself.
Then there's the digital aspect, if the police stopped a person they could ask to see their card and immediately confirm if they were/weren't the person they were looking for, no card on you then give your name and their tablet will bring up all your details including photo, massive time saver and would greatly reduce race related mistaken identity issues.
Just like last time people are being whipped into a frenzy by the media to rally against something beneficial to them, it's sad.
The counterpoint to that is that zero new information would be collected for the system, it's all information the government already has on people.
The amount of proposed data held and eventually reach
There isn't one really, most EU countries introduced national ID cards decades ago it was just here where the right wing media whipped the unwashed masses into a frenzy against it.
No it’s an abhorrent take and always will be.
It’s already required to prove your right to work in the U.K. (an NI number doesn’t do this). It’s illegal to discriminate against race, sex, age etc. and that isn’t changing nor do you need an ID card to undertake mass discrimination, see pre-equality act U.K.
You already have to prove you have the right to free care in the NHS.
For most people that means your details are checked against the system to look for a patient record, if you have one job jobbed. If you don’t, you have to prove it.
You have to prove you have the right to public funds when you claim any welfare already, hand over countless bits of ID and I for nation to the DWP before they will process your claim. Nothing changes here.
The things you describe already happen in the current system. If your bank balance goes over a certain value for almost any reason, you get your benefit docked.
You already have to prove your age to buy age restricted items. The rest of it is a stupid argument and you wouldn’t need a ID card to implement such a thing.
Stupid argument. No one is proposing this and it wouldn’t matter if you can an ID card or not to implement such a thing.
You don’t need an ID card to implement such a thing - another stupid argument.
An ID card doesn’t even make it easier, they just record your ballot number against your name on the electoral register. Oh look they can see who you voted for.
Again, such a thing could be easily implemented without an ID card. It’s also a ridiculous strawman that holds no bearing on reality in this country.
Doesn’t need an ID card to implement such a thing, it could be implemented tomorrow if needs be. Another silly strawman.
Almost nothing you have listed requires an ID card to implement. That in itself makes them ridiculous stawmans and are not worth the time I’ve spend responding to them.
And yes the original post comparing an ID card to the holocaust is still deeply offensive.
It's strange how Labour are pushing the argument that this will help reduce illegal immigration and prevent illegal migrants being able to work? As far as I can see there's no evidence that's the case? For example there are literally hundreds of people clearly working illegally in my city doing delivery jobs on unregistered ebikes. It's obvious they're working under someone else's identity. How would ID cards prevent this?
If anything it would be more prudent to promote it as a method of reducing benefit fraud and tax avoidance. Those seem like areas where it could potentially make a meaningful difference.
On balance I'm still against it as once we have uniquely identifiable digital ID cards tied into every state and private sector system/process the level to which that could be used by authorities to monitor and control every aspect of a citizen's life is terrifying.
If anything it would be more prudent to promote it as a method of reducing benefit fraud and tax avoidance. Those seem like areas where it could potentially make a meaningful difference.
On balance I'm still against it as once we have uniquely identifiable digital ID cards tied into every state and private sector system/process the level to which that could be used by authorities to monitor and control every aspect of a citizen's life is terrifying.
Last edited:
Starmer’s ID plan has caused upset, but in the EU the debate has long been settled
ID cards have become an essential part of life for many across the bloc, with digital versions already launched in many member stateswww.theguardian.com
It's interesting how the only EU country without a national ID card is Ireland - an Island that's not part of the Schengen zone.
We've had ID cards in the past in the UK during WW2 and through to the early 50s - they're not really seen as a very British thing to have, we're an Island and in theory we ought to have checks at our points of entry - ports and airports. Obviously during wartime that changed and we needed to be wary of infiltrators etc.. Aside from Ireland, Cyprus is the only other EU state not in Schengen Zone and notably they're technically still in a frozen conflict with the other half of their Island (and separated from each-other by UN troops) - they do have a national ID card.
In principle I'd very much prefer that we didn't have ID cards, it seems like an expensive bureaucratic exercise that I suspect has a non-trivial risk of some sort of failures, data issues etc.. and it feels like a very un-British, authoritarian thing to have put in place. We can't discuss politics in here so I'll just allude to the fact that I'd rather we solved the underlying issue/reason for the porous nature of our borders ergo made the apparent main selling point of these things moot - we are, after all, an Island. But on a practical level, given that we haven't solved the problem and we clearly do have a big problem then I've voted for the "pancake" option in the polls - I'd rather not have these things but I'll begrudgingly accept it given we haven't solved our border/security problem - I'm not into any conspiracy theories about conscription and nor do I think we're jumping into 1984 or whatever any times soon, though we shouldn't be too complacent.
Essentially we're an Island nation that, for practical purposes, because of our own state's failure in a particular area, now has to act as if we're on the continent with open or porous land borders.
I didn’t think so. The government already has mountains of digital data kept on me. I fail to see how this will make much difference to anything.
Unless the risk of a security breach is significantly more for these new digital IDs than all the existing government IDs and accounts i have (ie passport, driving license, etc etc)
Last edited:
You've failed to comprehend. That persons statement did not compare, I read that as a warning that it can easily happen again and made a lot easier if we all walk around needing to provide a digital ID to comply with the states wishes.
Also, why respond to my crazy 'predictions' as if I'm saying that's definitely going to happen? It isn't, but can you 100% say it won't? With everything fragmented as it is at the moment there is a level of security and privacy baked in by accident - as soon as you join it up you sacrifice that. I hope you're right in your judgement, but I'm not buying the "trust me bro" approach when it's my data and the government is involved.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,819
- Location
- Falling...
I just realised I do already have a digital ID card from my home country. Its actually quite common but also non compulsory. It's actually something I use when I go to the bank or go to vote etc. Hadn't actually thought about it as I've had it for ages.
Last edited:
If the bit in bold was legislated and proved could never change, then I'd happily take all the positives you listed above. I agree that there are potential positives, but that doesn't mean all the negatives are also ignored.
The issue with a digital system like this is the joining up of all the data points and then all you need is a little imagination of what a future government may/could then do with that data. It's risky. Just look what happen with the Facebook/Cambridge Analytica data scandal and what that data was used for and to influence, albeit that data wasn't used with consent. Do we consider the Government to always be acting with our collective consent?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 30,216
Can you translate this for me please?