Compulsory national ID cards.

[Jman4117]

How is it not controling your life? You need it to travel, you need it to buy/sell, you have to present it on demand or be arrested, etc.

 

Then you'll probably hear about massive counterfeiting and the tracking chip they are already talking about will likely be forced soon after.

 

Everywhere you go, everything you do, watched by the state.

[Ivory]

id say having a control abotu where people are in the world woudl be a bloody good idea after yesterdays attracks...but then thats what prisons for

 

id cards-fine all well and good by me, i dont wanna do owt against the law so it doesnt worry me. Making me pay for it when its going to be complusory is another matter!!!

[FullAuto]

I believe the cost in civil freedoms could end up being more than the cost in money. Bear in mind, I say 'COULD'.

[Strong Bob]

How is it not controling your life? You need it to travel, you need it to buy/sell, you have to present it on demand or be arrested, etc.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Um... That's not control. That's just personal identification. They aren't forcing you to do anything except make yourself known, which is something that's already done in the form of licensing and social security numbers.

 

In fact, if it wasn't for the absurd pricing, I would find it more convenient than controlling.

 

...and the tracking chip they are already talking about will likely be forced soon after.

 

Perhaps. But very few will go for this. (There is actually a Christian prophecy that says a tracking chip is the mark of the beast and will send you to hell. Regardless of whether it is true or not, many Christians believe it and will sooner die than go along with that.)

[Bomb Bloke]

There are quite a few issues with the whole mark of the beast text. Apparently most of the translations of the Bible around these days were abridged by Hitler's right hand man (whoever he was). And some devil worshippers at some point.

 

The main point of note is that apparently original texts say the mark is under the skin.

[Strong Bob]

The main point of note is that apparently original texts say the mark is under the skin.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

True. It is actually a mark under the skin of your hand and your forehead. The purpose of the mark is allegedly to control currency and is also used as a tracking device.

 

A tracking device installed in the cards will likely freighten some people into thinking that day is coming awfully fast...

[Jman4117]

True, all the government really has to say is it is being lost/counterfeited and demand it be impanted.

[Accounting Troll]

I'm definatly not giving the government £300 so it can shove a microchip inside my body.

[sir-roosio]

Could they fuse it into your brain so that you can dowload kung-fu like on the matrix? I'd pay £300 for that!

 

Seriously though, I dont get the whole serious infringment of civil liberties thing!

 

'but the police could ask you to produce it at any time to prove who you are'

surely the police could do that now? they just look at you drivers licence, library card, or whatever else you're carrying at the time?

 

'The government will know everythin about you!'

if they want to know it, they'll find it out anyway.

 

'But they're going to put in a tracking chip'

how many people carry a mobile phone? you can be traced by your network operator.

 

'You'll have to carry it at all times'

technically, your're meant to carry your MOT, Insurance certificate, and Drivers licence with you whenever you drive. if you're stopped and dont have them you get a 2 weeks production notice issued. I imagine the same system will be in place. A democratic government can't arrest people for going out without their wallet.

 

Anyway, I'd rather have an ID card with my name on it then my national insurance number

 

I AM NOT A NUMBER, I AM A FREE MAN

 

Though I personally feel that the whole biometrics thing should be postponed until the technology is cheap, reliable and easy to confirm. They even had trouble a while back with the technology being unable to recognise black people's irises. ID cards are guilty of hate crime!

[FullAuto]

'but the police could ask you to produce it at any time to prove who you are'

surely the police could do that now? they just look at you drivers licence, library card, or whatever else you're carrying at the time?

 

Nope, police can't do a damn thing. I've been stopped without my wallet before. If you don't have ID, you don't have ID.

 

'The government will know everythin about you!'

if they want to know it, they'll find it out anyway.

 

But if we get a tracking chip or ID card, it will make it very easy for the government to do. Yes, if the government want to find out EVERYTHING about you, they can do it, but at the moment they can't do it to everyone because they don't have the time, the manpower or the money. The proposed systems would make it cost-effective for them to do so. Perhaps it wouldn't be likely, but it would make it a lot easier.

 

'You'll have to carry it at all times'

technically, your're meant to carry your MOT, Insurance certificate, and Drivers licence with you whenever you drive

 

Which is reasonable and fair, because you are doing something that not everyone is entitled to do. I don't think we need a licence to 'be' people, so I see no reason as to why we should have to produce an ID card upon demand.

 

We have driver's licences and NI (SS) numbers, and that system is quite sufficient, thank you.

[sir-roosio]

Thats a very good last point fullauto, but I dont think it amounts to being 'licenced' to be a person. If you're walking down the street, minding your own business and generaly not appearing to contravene any law, the police are fery unlikely to stop you for no good reason and ask you to prove you're a human. I honestly think ID cards are intended as a safe and reliable way to ID people quickly and effectively.

 

That said, there's obviously a large percentage of people who arent happy with the proposal. which means it's the UK government's responsibility to address these concerns.

[FullAuto]

Thats a very good last point fullauto, but I dont think it amounts to being 'licenced' to be a person. If you're walking down the street, minding your own business and generaly not appearing to contravene any law, the police are fery unlikely to stop you for no good reason and ask you to prove you're a human.

 

Depends what you look like, what street you're on and what the police are like.

[sir-roosio]

If you are a dodgy looking bugger, stick to crowded areas then! Strength in numbers!

[FullAuto]

Now you're saying that, based solely on another's perception of my appearance, I should change my behaviour, which I may not be able to do depending upon where I live/work/plan my next attack. I'm pretty sure that contravenes several big chunks of the EU Human Rights Act, which has been ratified and is a nice healthy part of UK law.

The defence rests, m'lud.

Look at it like this. If the police stop you, they (are supposed to) have good reason and hence won't need an ID, as they will be arresting you shortly. If they've stopped you for no reason at all, then they have no need to know who you are.

[sir-roosio]

Now you're saying that, based solely on another's perception of my appearance, I should change my behaviour, which I may not be able to do depending upon where I live/work/plan my next attack.  I'm pretty sure that contravenes several big chunks of the EU Human Rights Act, which has been ratified and is a nice healthy part of UK law.

The defence rests, m'lud.

Look at it like this.  If the police stop you, they (are supposed to) have good reason and hence won't need an ID, as they will be arresting you shortly.  If they've stopped you for no reason at all, then they have no need to know who you are.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

OK, Hypothetical situation. The police have been told that a man has been picking pockets on the High Street. They have a very basic description which (unfortunately) you fit. That gives them a good reason to stop you, without arresting you.

 

Now they have a good reason to stop and search you, they may as well check your ID card to ensure that you aren't contraveining bail conditions or have any outstanding fines etc.

 

I've watched 'Traffic Cops' on BBC1, I know that sometimes they stop someone on a random stop & search and find out that this person is wanted by another police force, or shouldn't be this far away from their home because of Bail. The police dont need to arrest you to be able to stop you.

[FullAuto]

I know, but neither can they do anything but piss and whine if you don't have ID. Leaving your house without your wallet is not, and should not be a crime.

It's been long acknowledged that random stop and search just doesn't work. Yes, it does result in arrests, every hundred stops or so. Which is a waste of police time and manpower, and there are much better things they can be doing. It's an inefficient process. Especially when the majority of arrests end up for something as trivial as possession of a class C substance, which gets you sod all these days unless it's major weight, and no one carries that sort of weight around with them.

 

Suppose you were misidentified as a pickpocket, and the police stopped you. Why do they need to know who you are? They don't. If you're searched, and they find nothing (most people will gladly turn out their pockets without being nicked, I've noticed) why do they need to know who you are? They don't.

If they search you and find something illegal, likewise, they're arresting you. They don't need to see your ID card.

Such a process would assume that the person being stopped is guilty, rather than innocent. They 'may as well' get to search your home, or have you fitted with a tracking device, because you MUST be guilty of SOMETHING, because the police stopped you.

Right?

[sir-roosio]

I dont agree. The ID card would just be a reliable method of proving that a person is who they say they are. It's no different then if the police asked you for a bus pass, library card, driving licence, or other form of ID and checked your name and address. The ID card just makes it that much more difficult to fake.

 

And like you said before, if you have no form of ID on you then the police can't see it. I honestly don't think that not having it on you will be a criminal offence, if you aren't the pickpocket and have nothing illegal on you they'll probably just let you go, theres not really much else they could do?

[FullAuto]

Seeing as they are going to try and make it 'compulsory' (which a driver's licence/bus pass/library card/passport is not) I imagine it most likely will be an offence not to carry it.

 

The ID card would just be a reliable method of proving that a person is who they say they are

 

A driver's licence already performs the same function, for a fraction of the cost. Also, it's not compulsory to have one.

If the police checked someone's ID every time they stopped them, it's assuming guilt. The policy would assume that you have to know who everyone is, to ensure that they're not guilty of something. If the police have stopped you and found no reason to arrest you, then they have no need to know your identity.

[sir-roosio]

Seeing as they are going to try and make it 'compulsory' (which a driver's licence/bus pass/library card/passport is not) I imagine it most likely will be an offence not to carry it.

A driver's licence already performs the same function, for a fraction of the cost.  Also, it's not compulsory to have one.

If the police checked someone's ID every time they stopped them, it's assuming guilt.  The policy would assume that you have to know who everyone is, to ensure that they're not guilty of something.  If the police have stopped you and found no reason to arrest you, then they have no need to know your identity.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Its compulsory for me to carry my MOT, insurance details, and drivers licence whenever I drive. I didnt have the first two when I was stopped so i was issued a 2 week notice to produce them at a police station.

 

The police dont have the resources, time, or inclination to detain EVERYONE without an ID card.

[FullAuto]

Its compulsory for me to carry my MOT, insurance details, and drivers licence whenever I drive

 

Yes, exactly. WHENEVER YOU DRIVE, which not everyone is entitled to do, you need to show your licence. You don't need a licence to walk down the street, which is what this amounts to.

 

The police dont have the resources, time, or inclination to detain EVERYONE without an ID card

 

They don't have the resources or the time, no, but they don't have the resources or the time to do a lot of things, like arrest people for cannabis possession, which is also illegal. That's not the point. The point is, it shouldn't be illegal. The fact that the police won't be able to enforce it is irrelevant. As for the inclination, from the policemen I've met, I think a substantial percentage certainly do have the inclination.

[Jman4117]

I've watched 'Traffic Cops' on BBC1, I know that sometimes they stop someone on a random stop & search and find out that this person is wanted by another police force, or shouldn't be this far away from their home because of Bail. The police dont need to arrest you to be able to stop you.

 

Random stop and search is even remotely legal now? damn..... O.o

[Kret]

The way you're comparing the drivers license and the ID card makes it sound like they're similar things, when they're not.

 

A license of any sort is for when the person written down on it has permission to perform certain activities under regulated conditions. It is in no way a form of identification as many may use it, even if it contains details pertaining to the individual.

 

The ID card, on the other hand, is not meant to be a license or permit of being who you are nor grants/deny you the freedom to go wherever you would like to go. It is merely a confimation of who you are. Also, unless it's an "uncarryable" size, there's no inconvenience to just carry it in your wallet/purse other than possible theft. The ID card here is the size of a credit card while the size of a drivers license is the size of a bank book when folded (unfolded has 3 pages).

 

About the paranoia of being constantly watched. Do you really think they have the human resources or the infrastructure to keep track of all those ID's at the same time? And this is if they'll have any sort of electronical device attached to it, if it's going to be a plain piece of plastic, that's going to be even harder.

 

About the illegality or not of carrying the ID card is mostly limited to the level of alert of the region. In high alert status the ID will probably be required when reaching keypoints locations or acceses to them while in a low alert status it would just be required only under odd behaviour.

 

In addition, compulsory possesion of an ID card doesn't have to mean compulsory carrying of the same. Further more, I personally would find it ridiculous to classify it as a criminal offence not to carry it. But it could be considered an agravation if you're caught under criminal conduct.

[FullAuto]

It is in no way a form of identification as many may use it, even if it contains details pertaining to the individual

 

That's odd, because everyone (including the police) say it is a form of ID. Banks gladly accept a driving licence as proof of ID if you go to open a new account. A driver's licence is NOT ONLY a licence to drive, it is also a form of ID, and so fulfils two functions.

 

The ID card, on the other hand, is not meant to be a license or permit of being who you are nor grants/deny you the freedom to go wherever you would like to go. It is merely a confimation of who you are

 

Why does anyone need to confirm who they are? Use the 'stopped by police' example. If they have the power to demand your national ID card, surely they're assuming guilt? Because they're checking to make sure you haven't done anything, right? I could have sworn a main tenet of justice was 'innocent until proven guilty', so why would the police need to assume everyone was guilty of something? The paranoia, in this case, is on the other side, I'm afraid.

 

About the paranoia of being constantly watched. Do you really think they have the human resources or the infrastructure to keep track of all those ID's at the same time? And this is if they'll have any sort of electronical device attached to it, if it's going to be a plain piece of plastic, that's going to be even harder.

 

I addressed this point in a previous post, but never mind. Yes, I really do think they should have the infrastructure (love that word, cheers Carlos) to keep track of EVERY card. Because if they can't the entire system is pointless.

Hypothetical situation. The new national ID card system is tasked to find out where someone lives, where he works, everything the system is supposed to keep track of.

It can't, because the system can't keep track of all those IDs. Hence, it is completely pointless.

If it does get built, then it would need to be able to find every single ID, otherwise, there's no point in having it in the first place.

 

In addition, compulsory possesion of an ID card doesn't have to mean compulsory carrying of the same. Further more, I personally would find it ridiculous to classify it as a criminal offence not to carry it

 

I personally, find many laws ridiculous, but nevertheless, they are still laws. I can't see the point in making the card compulsory and then deciding no one has to carry it.

[Kernel]

Its compulsory for me to carry my MOT, insurance details, and drivers licence whenever I drive. I didnt have the first two when I was stopped so i was issued a 2 week notice to produce them at a police station.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It's not compulsory for people to carry their MOT, insurance details, or drivers licence whenever they drive. But you must be able to show them at a police station within 2 weeks of being stopped, just like you had to.

 

MOT and insurance details they can get from the cars registration number so they can still arrest you on the spot if the check shows no insurance or MOT, but they can't arrest you for not having your drivers licence with you.

 

I beleve it's also linked in with the 'innocent until proven guilty' parts of the law. IE, THEY have to proove you don't have a valid drivers licence and just because you don't have it on you at that point in time isn't proof enough.

 

If it WAS compulsory you would have been arrested.

 

Edit: typo... I'm too tired. :dead:

[Kret]

That's odd, because everyone (including the police) say it is a form of ID. Banks gladly accept a driving licence as proof of ID if you go to open a new account. A driver's licence is NOT ONLY a licence to drive, it is also a form of ID, and so fulfils two functions.

 

That is only because you have no true ID cards, so anything close enough is considered valid. One think you'll notice if this gets implemented in the UK is the drop in the acceptance of these and the extrict requirement of showing the ID card and probably a fotocopy of it depending on the burocracy.

 

If they have the power to demand your national ID card, surely they're assuming guilt?

 

So, isn't just stopping you and asking who you are assuming guilt? If no, then why would it be different from stopping you and asking for your ID with is basically asking who you are be assuming guilt? And if yes, then that won't change thing. Anyway, the "Innocent until proven guilty" is for courts of law, not the police, police deal with infractors and suspects.

 

Regarding tracking ID's, are we talking active tracking or passive tracking?

Passive tracking is easely done, since it's basically a database with your data and nothing else and it can be in a distributed database form rather than centralised, this would be quite normal and yes, it can lead to innacurate info in the database as people change addresses, get married, change names, etc...

On the other hand, if it's active tracking, that would be complete mahem and true paranoia as that would actually mean keeping track of every IDs location at any given time of day. This is the one I'm saying would be impossible to have.

 

I personally, find many laws ridiculous, but nevertheless, they are still laws. I can't see the point in making the card compulsory and then deciding no one has to carry it.

 

There's no need to enforce by law, in can be enforced via burocracy, by making you have to present the original ID with any paperwork or denying access to certain services that require you to show the ID card.

 

 

 

Additionally, the ID card main purpose when used correctly is to identify you when you can't do so yourself, like when you're unconcious for example. Think of dog-tags