What do you guys think about the idea? Would you support application to the US or even the world? (I realise that, logistically, this would be very difficult but in principle, what are your views).
Posts: 77 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm a little unclear what the difference between the "ID card" and a regular passport is. I don't see how it would be much more effective in stopping terrorism? The article does point out that foreign nationals who intend to stay less than three months need not apply, which leaves a gap for which terrorists to enter.
Posts: 129 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This notion has been proposed in the US, particularly in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.
I don't object to the idea - basically its not much more than creating a uniform standard for driver's licenses. Federal versus State level in the US.
I do question, however, the practical application and functionality of such a system.
Is the ID forgeable? Can it be duplicated? How easily can the Federal system be cracked? Can the system handle the processing demands placed upon it by officers checking IDs all over the country?
If nothing else, it would reduce the ease with which identities can be stolen and misappropriated now.
posted
As for stopping terrorism, it will be beneficial in helping to slow if not stop the flow of the anonymous moving through the system which is how terrorists.
As you noted, its much like a passport and as such, would only be as trustworthy as the initial passport.
However, a national ID would be required to be presented upon request whereas officers and investigators rarely ask for passports when trying to identify people.
Which means the functional use of the ID goes from simply border crossing to daily use.
Which sounds depressingly like big Brother, but I wonder how practical a modern system could be without a similar form of registering citizens.
posted
Most of the reports of the British media on this issue have implied that this plan could be more about dealing with benefit fraud and the employment of illegal immigrants than with terrorism. It will also mean that the government will be more able to find out who is evading taxes. All of which is fine. But it will also mean that the government will be able to find out more about people's lives in general, where they go, what they do, what they spend. Like so many other issues, as soon as you make it seem to be about national security people won't argue as strenuously as they frequently have in the past when this concept has been proposed. I hope this won't ultimately result in people being penalised in some way for leaving the house without their ID cards, or stop card-checks in the street.
To be honest, the whole thing makes me uncomfortable, and I hope that the US doesn't jump on this bandwagon.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The difference between ID cards and passports is that ID cards will contain biometric data. This means that places which require information from your card will need to be equiped with retina scanners and things like that.
What I'm not keen on, is the suggestion that the initially, the scheme will be 'voluntary'. The the scheme basically states that those who do not carry the card are not citizens of GB & therefore are not entitled to the same rights that card-carriers possess. In what sense is it voluntary? Those who are too poor to afford the cards will have to starve in order to gain access to the benefits the state has created to protect them.
"If nothing else, it would reduce the ease with which identities can be stolen and misappropriated now."
Perhaps, but if there's going to be a database where an unprecedented amount of personal information on everyone in the country is going to be stored, it's unavoidable that the forgery, identity theft, information misuse etc that takes place now with passports and other forms of ID, will occur with the new cards.
As for counter-acting terrorism - The ID cards will be similar to schemes such as domestic passports in Russia, ID cards in Hong Kong, France and several other European countries. Terrorism or crime of any sort has not declined in those countries, as a result of these cards. Take illegal working, for example. People who are already willing to break the law and employ people illegally won't change as a result of these ID cards. And as it has already been pointed out - those who won't require a card will be foreign nationals who say they're in the country for 3 months or less.
Anyhow, if people begin to rely, unequivocably on the cards, then it can in fact compromise security.
My last point is that with such a costly, (and hugely impractical), scheme as this, I doubt the government would be able to handle the level of technology with the economic efficiency needed to pull this off.
Incidentally, if ID cards are so important, why are driving license, often without even a photo on it, so widely accepted as ID?
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin 1759
Posts: 77 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry to bump this up, but I'm just checking if anyone has any more opinions on this - I'm researching for my Russian coursework so I need as many different views as possible!
Posts: 77 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Most of the reports of the British media on this issue have implied that this plan could be more about dealing with benefit fraud and the employment of illegal immigrants than with terrorism. It will also mean that the government will be more able to find out who is evading taxes.
I agree with this. National security and anti-terrorism are just the Trojan Horses or sugar-coatings to sell the new passport system to the populace.
Terrorists have gotten increasingly sophisticated and can evade this sytem easily. Besides, has G.B. even had any significent terrorism since the IRA basically disbanded? Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
After the Spanish attack, most Western nations are on high alert if only because they don't want to be caught with their pants down by the media.
You'll notice Jane that I mentioned a number of your reservations in my own response concerning the practical deployment of the project.
I do find it amusing Ben Franklin's quote is used to comment on a British policy.
However, I submit that Franklin's reality was far removed from today's world - I often wonder if the Founding Fathers would have advocated the same right to bear arms if they could have seen the advancements in weaponry.
Your complaint about drivers' licenses is well made, however I don't know of any State in America that permits the issuance of a driver's license without a photo ID of some sort. There was a challenge from a Muslim woman who insisted that removing her veil to have her photo taken was an infringement upon her right to Religious Practices, but I think the courts ruled against her.
The article mentioned some pretty hefty fines for not having the card and I would be concerned with the costs involved of having a card issued - for a minimal fee, non-drivers can have a "state ID card" issued to serve as a legitimate form of picture ID.
As for the ease with which terrorists and potential terrorists could dodge the system - that is a little hard to determine as the system hasn't been implemented yet and this addresses the issues of successful forgeries of similar IDs which, at the moment, is absurdly easy for driver's licenses and whatnot.
posted
So on a more general level, (ie. not specifically trying to deal with terrorism), people seem to be in support of the cards?
Trevor - Yeah I'm just trying to be devils advocate or something, but it's difficult forming decent arguments when I'm actually undecided on my stance. The aim of this threat is to help me to decide on my viewpoint, or at least be able to argue one side strongly. What I need is some overly opinionated person to really slam into this topic, and I didn't think I'd have a problem on this board!
Hehe - What can a girl do? Fluff out some profound statement from an inspirational British Leader? Uhh...
Side-track, but that's interesting about the Muslim woman - Does that mean, if she's ever challenged about her ID and has to show her card, will she also have to remove her veil?
posted
As to generally in favor of cards, I couldn't tell you - I've heard people on both sides of the fence and generally speaking, you can predict a person's opinion based on their attitude towards the Federal government or even government in general, at least on this side of the pond.
posted
Well, I know that Singapore already does it because my brother-in-law travels there all the time and has told me about it.
When he first mentioned it, I said, "there is no way Americans would ever accept such a system that could track you everywhere you go". But that was before 9/11
Now I think if there was a new terrorist threat, a lot of people would be scared enough to lean toward accepting them.
Personally, I have mixed feeling. I don't think such a thing would impact me personally a great deal - I pretty much am routine anyway, and have nothing to hide, etc. But I also hate the idea of more loss of privacy, and I hate the idea that it could bring greater identity theft, etc. Any such system would have its vulnerabilities, and we already have trouble with that now! (people stealing SS#s, IDs, etc. and once it is "tagged" - they people are locked out of their own accounts, etc).
I would probably lean toward being against such a card much more than being for such a thing.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
