The Voice of Reason Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 I didn't think they'd get double figures. Well done. well one of them is just someone taking the piss, so strictly speaking I guess it's 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 One of them is signed as a Mr & Mrs though so we'll be generous and count that as two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodger Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 If the new topic had been allowed to stand it would have got more hits, steampacket is doing well though...... OK shall we look at the UK governments website on this - http://www.ips.gov.uk/identity/benefits-organisations.asp If the data is not going to be readily available to commercial organisations why are the government advising as a benefit the ability to check a candidate on the police register:- "Help employers check the identity and employment status of job applicants The scheme will help employers generally in vetting new employees to ensure they are who they claim to be. For certain jobs it is important to check the applicant does not have a criminal record, for example. In future this can be done by using their Identity Registration Number (IRN) to check police records. Also, since foreign nationals staying in the UK for more than three months will need to register with the National Identity Scheme, potential employers will be able easily to check their employment status." I am not surprised that there are bias people out there, it is better than being on the fence! Can any of you provide good reasons as to the need for this? Why would I need a passport and an ID card? According to the website you would need both if you travel outside of the EU! Cost for the card is a third extra on the top of a normal passport! "Recording your biometric data Biometrics are unique personal characteristics, such as your fingerprints and irises. Examples of biometric technology already being used include facial recognition, which is used on the new biometric passports. Once we have checked your identity, we will record your biometric data. Recording facial and iris biometrics is just like having a high-quality digital photo taken. Recording fingerprints is very simple too and no ink is involved. You just press your fingers against a reader. These biometrics will be ‘sealed to’ or permanently paired with your biographical information to create completely unique and secure identity data." I would be interested to see what information you have been looking at to be so happy with the technology and the UK governments plans for our data in a National Identity Register. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 You really should take some time out to understand what it is you're copy and pasting. Blindly reproducing what others have said just shows how little you know yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai_Droid Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 If the new topic had been allowed to stand it would have got more hits, steampacket is doing well though...... The steam packet petition makes sense, it's something I agree with, and I've signed it. OK shall we look at the UK governments website on this - http://www.ips.gov.uk/identity/benefits-organisations.asp If the data is not going to be readily available to commercial organisations why are the government advising as a benefit the ability to check a candidate on the police register:- That's very different from 'selling the data', that's selling the ability for the government to perform lookups for you. Same as the police checks now, or the companies or deeds registry. You pay a fee, the government does the search and gives you the result. Can any of you provide good reasons as to the need for this? Why would I need a passport and an ID card? According to the website you would need both if you travel outside of the EU! Cost for the card is a third extra on the top of a normal passport! We're moving away from thumbprint scanners in schools I notice, if you want to talk about ID cards why don't you start another thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 If the new topic had been allowed to stand it would have got more hits, steampacket is doing well though...... As much as I agree with much of the wording of the petition, I won't be signing this. I'm sorry to say that you have rushed into writing this, and whilst very many people will stand against biometric state controlled ID cards and databases, the majority of the same people are not against technology per se in aiding with identification - providing they are reasssured that the provision of such information is not compulsory, nor: fed to, monitored and controlled by the state. You are using an argument of the form A implies B; B is true; therefore A is true - where in this case 'A' is your own personal cause (re: school thumbprints) - and unrelated to state enforced biometric ID cards at this stage. IMO, your approach is actually undermining the serious fight against state controlled biometric ID cards and databases, and I would respectfully suggest that you need to rethink this approach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 That's two posts recently where I've largely agreed with you. Which one of us is going mad? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 This whole issue has concerned me so much that I intend to cut off and eat my own fingers, poke out and burn my own eyes, irradiate my body to destroy all DNA and then incinerate the remains by firing them into the sun. Hah! That will stop them getting me on the all new super pervasive state big brother database. As a side effect, it should minimise my exposure to identity theft as well. PS I'll also cancel the milk................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodger Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 If the new topic had been allowed to stand it would have got more hits, steampacket is doing well though...... As much as I agree with much of the wording of the petition, I won't be signing this. I'm sorry to say that you have rushed into writing this, and whilst very many people will stand against biometric state controlled ID cards and databases, the majority of the same people are not against technology per se in aiding with identification - providing they are reasssured that the provision of such information is not compulsory, nor: fed to, monitored and controlled by the state. You are using an argument of the form A implies B; B is true; therefore A is true - where in this case 'A' is your own personal cause (re: school thumbprints) - and unrelated to state enforced biometric ID cards at this stage. IMO, your approach is actually undermining the serious fight against state controlled biometric ID cards and databases, and I would respectfully suggest that you need to rethink this approach. Thanks for the advice, unfortunately wording can't be amended once the petition has been started, it is to do with the possibility of changing the intended meaning, which people didn't sign up to. Both issues are linked as I disagree with minors having their rights erroded and that the future of the use of biomentics is for a National database. It is only personal in that I am a parent fighting for my childrens rights, there are 4 other schools who are already using thumbprints and they had been doing it without complying with Data protection. Namely no opt in consent and no consultation. Even the national database for the UK doesn't start until age 16! I have to say that I am not against technology either, I use it all the time! Would you like to do another petition with your prefered wording? It is easy to set up and it may get a better response than mine. Question 30 in Tynwald 20-11-07 is over this issue, so it may get a debate and hopefully a select committee to look into how all this affects the IOM. I have consistantly looked to get people to look at the available information and form an opinion, it is good to see both sides on this website. ANS, I quote and give links to give others the chance to view the information, I have made up my mind, it is for others to make up theirs and hopefully our government will allow the people to have a say on this. I haven't seen anything from either yourself or AI Droid that would make me change my mind, I have gone through the act itself, have either of you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 ANS, I quote and give links to give others the chance to view the information, The thing is, like most other tinfoil hatters, when someone demonstrates that the 'evidence' you show (which they have don't multiple times in this thread) is factually incorrect, you don't bother to deal with that, you just post something else and effectively say "Yeah but what about this!....". It's almost as if you're just trying to throw enough mud to either get some to stick, or to cover up the fact that you really don't appear to know what you're talking about, you're merely content to post soundbites from websites, usually ones that aren't exactly presenting a balanced argument. People are simply going to distrust what you say when you don't appear to have enough of a handle on the topic yourself to be able to discern what is a real issue and what is conspiracy nonsense with no grounding in fact. We're not talking opinion, angle or arguable points of view here, we're talking basic factual errors in things that are widely published like the DPA. I'm a parent myself, and I know that the urge to protect your own is very strong. You just need to be careful that you're protecting them from something real, not just some trumped up scenario brought about by your own indignant ignorance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 It amazes me that the UK managed to fight the Nazis in World War 2, cope with a 30 odd year terrorist campaign by the IRA etc and yet we now have to be micro documented in full. No tin foil involved but I seem to be developing a distrust of governments and their claims that I will be safer if they have my nail clippings etc on file. Infallible technology? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodger Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 ANS, I quote and give links to give others the chance to view the information, The thing is, like most other tinfoil hatters, when someone demonstrates that the 'evidence' you show (which they have don't multiple times in this thread) is factually incorrect, you don't bother to deal with that, you just post something else and effectively say "Yeah but what about this!....". It's almost as if you're just trying to throw enough mud to either get some to stick, or to cover up the fact that you really don't appear to know what you're talking about, you're merely content to post soundbites from websites, usually ones that aren't exactly presenting a balanced argument. People are simply going to distrust what you say when you don't appear to have enough of a handle on the topic yourself to be able to discern what is a real issue and what is conspiracy nonsense with no grounding in fact. We're not talking opinion, angle or arguable points of view here, we're talking basic factual errors in things that are widely published like the DPA. I'm a parent myself, and I know that the urge to protect your own is very strong. You just need to be careful that you're protecting them from something real, not just some trumped up scenario brought about by your own indignant ignorance. I haven't seen anything that would make me agree with either letting children have their fingerprints taken, irrispective of storage or future use. It is unnecessary for primary school use......... The ID cards and the 2006 Act concerns me in that the wording is too open, they state other biometrics, but do mention fingerprinting already, Iris scanning wasn't specifically mentioned, why leave it ambigous? The data needs to be used for the reason it has been gathered according to data protection, the reasons stated in the Act allow the uses to be amended. Can anyone who is pro biometrics please validate their argument with some positive angles from other websites, media or countries? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 It is a simple fact that UK Government policy is to capture the biometrics of it's citizens for storage on a central database. They are one of very few countries in the world to attempt this and we don't know why they are doing it. In the case of children they are building a huge compulsory database called Contact Point. BBC website for details: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5120524.stm Has there been political pressure for Manx kids to be put on this UK database? I hope it doesn't happen. Government databases are built using a 'little by little' approach. No one minds each stage but no one gets to see the big plan either - except the people who plan the database. Recording biometric information is a highly sensitive business particularly when it involves DNA or fingerprints. It's certainly innapropriate to do this to children for any reason. It is an easy step to download the fingerprint information to a central database. Then it's Government property. There are loads of people on this forum with strong political views. Dodger has the courage of his convictions. How many other people can you say that about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanxfella Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 I think the main thing achieved by all this fuss is the admission from the Board of Ed that they hadn't realised other schools had already brought biometrics in without consulting parents. It shows how soft we all are in not even questioning the things schools do. In my book its 10 out of 10 to those who stood up against it in Peel and forced the debate. I wouldn't trust half the primary schools on this Island to hand out milk properly never mind manage sensitive, private, data about my child in a responsible way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai_Droid Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 I think the main thing achieved by all this fuss is the admission from the Board of Ed that they hadn't realised other schools had already brought biometrics in without consulting parents.It shows how soft we all are in not even questioning the things schools do. In my book its 10 out of 10 to those who stood up against it in Peel and forced the debate. I wouldn't trust half the primary schools on this Island to hand out milk properly never mind manage sensitive, private, data about my child in a responsible way. The only thing that's been achieved in my mind is how you act like a sheep bleating in a line following the guy kicking up a stink. What sensitive data are we talking about with regards to a fingerprint scanner for a school library? As has been said here already, your trusting the schools with the safety of your child all day and you don't trust them with a fingerprint scanner? Don't you see how ludicrous that is? The reason the schools haven't consulted, is becuase they rightly assumed nobody would give a damn about something so trivial. You complain about the government micro managing the population, then complain when it hasn't spent a fortune in a pointless consultation excersise like this. It's just a fingerprint scanner for craps sake! Fingerprint scanners are on usb sticks and they're on bloomberg machines. Nobody gives a damn, this doesn't expose you to anything. You've also not read anything that's gone in this thread, you can't be arsed, can you? You don't understand the issue, yet you're happy to dive in with your agree becuase you see words like fingerprints and biometrics associated with children, and want to pipe up and be outraged like you think you should be. Has there been political pressure for Manx kids to be put on this UK database? I hope it doesn't happen. Stop making stuff up, it makes you look stupid. It is an easy step to download the fingerprint information to a central database. Then it's Government property. My arse it is. Even if it was, so what? What's going to be done with it? What specifically is the risk? And why don't you care about the same thing happening to all the other data the school has about your kid? He got behavoural difficulties? A high level of sickness? That's far more sensitive data than the hash of a fingerprint scanner machine, why aren't you worried about that? I haven't seen anything that would make me agree with either letting children have their fingerprints taken, irrispective of storage or future use. It is unnecessary for primary school use......... We've coverd this earlier in the thread that you haven't been arsed to read. Take a school dinner money system. Parents pay monthly, kid beeps his finger in to identify himself. Kid doesn't have to worry about losing his dinner money, getting it nicked, losing a swipe card, and the system works really quickly for the school. Nice neat solution, and no tin hat scenario. The data needs to be used for the reason it has been gathered according to data protection, the reasons stated in the Act allow the uses to be amended. So you were talking bollocks about the ODPR again earlier then, by your own admission? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.