urko

Andy I don't mind telling the TV licence, Revenue and Customs etc, where I live. I don't see where this gets extended to the government needing my Iris scan and fingerprints, and selling verification of my identity to commercial organisations, and keeping records of every time this happens. Taking your electricity company example, I don't regard the failure of successive governments to provide effective enforcement of the Data Protection Act as a recommendation to give the government more data. As I have said I have a lot to hide from people who I don't think have any legitimate right to know it - I believe a degree of privacy is a basic human riight. Some people will stop at nothing in allowing the government to run their lives - no doubt those with nothing to hide will allow the government inspectors to visit them regularly to check over their houses, or won't mind being regularly stopped by police and told to trun out all their pockets - after all, if you have nothing to hide..... This proposal changes the balance in that it is effectively a government issuing me with a licence to exist.  I don't need a card or a database to prove who I am.  I think the huge costs should be targetted on the problems this card scheme is supposed to be solving rather than involving everyone. Regards Urko

[quote]But why assume that the opinion of a journalist is, in some way, more profound or better informed than anyone else's?[/quote] I don't.

Before I post this let me say I'm not a Guardian reader any more than I am a Mail reader - but this was drawn to my attention form Saturday's Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/idcards/story/0,15642,1519619,00.html It's one of the best cases I've seen yet for why it's perfectly valid to have "something to hide".  

Dick Thanks for that - I think you make an excellent point about cliches - very thought-provoking for me - you have got me bang to rights and I didn't even realise I was doing it.  I think (perhaps rather obviously!) we'll have to agree to disagree about ID cards - but there's no point in my only debating with people who agree with me. As to majority support - time will tell - latest polls suggest about 45% in favour - if we follow the Australian experience this will continue to fall and the scheme will be dropped - however a case may yet be made and in any case polls don't really prove very much. I don't agree with everything Liberty campaigns for, and as I said, I certainly never expected to find common cause with Mrs T - but there is a reassuring cross-party nature to the opposition to ID cards that means I don't have to align myself with one narrow strand of society. As it happens, becoming a French citizen probably wouldn't be a way to avoid it, as the French are currently considering something very similar. Thanks for you replies and regards Urko

[quote]Sorry, Urko, whoever you may be. It isn't a tax and it isn't stealthy. It's the dim use of Daily Mail clichés that I object to. And no evidence of corruption either. Whatever happened to 'Put up or sh...[/quote] Dick That's all fair enough.  I probably shouldn't have jumped in on a question destined for someone else anyway.  I do feel pretty strongly on this issue.  I don't know if I'm paranoid.  I don't read the Daily Mail and it pains me to think I might be in tune with them on anything (nearly as much as it pains me to know Mrs Thatcher and I agree on ID cards - I never expected to agree with her on anything!). I accept that I offered no concrete proof of corruption - nor could I.  There is a ceratin closeness between the proponents in and outside government - I'm not entirely comfortable with that but I'm sure it's not illegal. I certainly do have plenty to hide though, I don't trust this and all future governments with so much information, and I don't believe they need it.  As I think a few others have observed, a simple ID card scheme is one thing (although I don't personally see the need for it) - the scheme proposed is something else.  I am not a criminal (apart from occasional speeding), but I don't want the government to be in control of my identity. On the matter of the tax I accept what you say - it's not a tax in the direct sense, just a charge I will be compelled to pay (or if they make the card "free" I'll pay out of general taxation) and it's certainly money I feel could be better spent in other areas. A database of the type proposed is, I understand, forbidden by the German Constitution.  I wonder why a Constitution drawn up after the last war with the partial aim of preventing a totalitarian regime such as the pre-war one should have been so specific on this matter? I don't wish to fall out with anyone - just to debate the issues. As for the original question, the Bill allows for the Secretary of State to require specifc groups to register - this has led to speculation that ex-pats could be required to register in advance of other groups - however this is of course only speculation.  

Anyway I can't think why the fuss about a little bit of plasticized carton with your mug shot on it. What is your driving licence? your club membership card? your security card to enter your place of work? etc... No one seems to complain about those that they are an infringement on one's liberty...etc... What a load of twaddle!... The UK government proposal is for far more that.  Everyone would have their photo (3 views), fingerprints and Iris scanned.  All of this data and 50 other pieces of data (and possibly more in future) would be stored in a central database.  You will have to visit a government centre to give this data and be interviewed about who you are - at a time and place determined by them. If you move house you must tell the government - but of course they will have to verify it's really you - so presumably just filling in a form, or telephoning them won't do - you'll have to visit an official. Commercial organisations will be able to pay the government for access to the data (not the whole thing but just enough to verify you are who you say).  Every time this is done, record of who asked and why, and where will be kept. Now imagine you are the violent and abusive partner of someone who has run away from you.  You bribe an official who can easily find out where your runaway partner has been recently. Or maybe you are a clever computer hacker - you devise a way to steal large parts of the database with people's real data including their address history and "usual" patterns of behaviour. How secure does this make you feel?

[quote]Dog - if you know about it, how can it be a stealth tax? Do you have any evidence to back up the 'politicians' mates' accusation? Any names, for example?[/quote] Excuse me for stepping in (I have no connectoin with Dog)  It's a stealth tax because it effectively a hypothecated tax but is being represented as a charge for a document.  Since it is a de-facto tax on identity initially for the 80% of us who want a passport and later for all, it would be more honest to call it what it is - an identity tax.  We weren't offered the figures to base a choice on during the election (and we still aren't getting a straight answer) The contract hasn't officially been awarded.  Some "pre-Bill" work has been done by ATOS Origin (a French IT firm).  The Chairman of ATOS UK is Lord Barnett (a former Labour cabinet minister).  ATOS also helps fund the Labour-friendly IPPR - backing its forthcoming "digital britain" manifesto.