ai_Droid Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 Yet again I say, dig deeper into how ID cards are used there, who has access to the information and what they use it for. Wholly different to the proposed UK system and its proposed uses, accessibility, control and monitoring. But you already know, so why don't you tell me the crucial difference between the proposed UK system and the Belgian system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 Who's rattled now Albert A predictable response. But at least you are now fully clear on my position, so please don't go knocking me when I respond to similar naive posts, where my position is consistent. Gosh, you really are utterly humourless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 Yet again I say, dig deeper into how ID cards are used there, who has access to the information and what they use it for. Wholly different to the proposed UK system and its proposed uses, accessibility, control and monitoring. But you already know, so why don't you tell me the crucial difference between the proposed UK system and the Belgian system? It doesn't contain fingerprint and iris scan info for a start. There is also continuing debate in Belgium about what databases it is going to be linked to. More importantly, the first generation and second generation Belgian cards have been proven to not be secure: i.e. first generation cards can be read by appropriate malicious technology in seconds, second generation cards, supposed to be more secure, in about an hour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 Who's rattled now Albert A predictable response. But at least you are now fully clear on my position, so please don't go knocking me when I respond to similar naive posts, where my position is consistent. Gosh, you really are utterly humourless. Try saying something funny and I'll double check Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai_Droid Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 It doesn't contain fingerprint and iris scan info for a start. There is also continuing debate in Belgium about what databases it is going to be linked to. More importantly, the first generation and second generation Belgian cards have been proven to not be secure: i.e. first generation cards can be read by appropriate malicious technology in seconds, second generation cards, supposed to be more secure, in about an hour. So, they're insecure and they don't contain biometrics. That's good is it, vs the UK proposals? Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 It doesn't contain fingerprint and iris scan info for a start. There is also continuing debate in Belgium about what databases it is going to be linked to. More importantly, the first generation and second generation Belgian cards have been proven to not be secure: i.e. first generation cards can be read by appropriate malicious technology in seconds, second generation cards, supposed to be more secure, in about an hour. So, they're insecure and they don't contain biometrics. That's good is it, vs the UK proposals? Why? ...whatever... Go back to go and do not collect £200. I've told you why numerous times, what are you? A goldfish? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai_Droid Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 Go back to go and do not collect £200. I've told you why numerous times, what are you? A goldfish? Eh? That's what you told me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 So, they're insecure and they don't contain biometrics. That's good is it, vs the UK proposals? Why? Just one of the many good reasons for opposing ID cards is that they do contain biometrics. Such information belongs to me and NOT the State which has no right to demand it! Furthermore, as has been seen recently, the 'State' is not to be trusted with citizens personal data. Therefore, the less information they hold on us the more secure our identities are. The very last thing I want is for my eleven year old child to have to give her fingerprints to the UK Identity and Passport Office only for them to be lost to a criminal faction. So, no ID cards, no harvesting of our biometric data and no central databases for civil servants to peep at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 So, they're insecure and they don't contain biometrics. That's good is it, vs the UK proposals? Why? Just one of the many good reasons for opposing ID cards is that they do contain biometrics. Such information belongs to me and NOT the State which has no right to demand it! Furthermore, as has been seen recently, the 'State' is not to be trusted with citizens personal data. Therefore, the less information they hold on us the more secure our identities are. The very last thing I want is for my eleven year old child to have to give her fingerprints to the UK Identity and Passport Office only for them to be lost to a criminal faction. So, no ID cards, no harvesting of our biometric data and no central databases for civil servants to peep at. Don't feed him anymore Cronky - he is either a wind-up merchant, just thick, or more likely both. How many times have both of us told him all this before? It beggars belief the number of people that don't take these issues seriously, and ignoring the consequences of where they are taking both the UK and the island. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai_Droid Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 Just one of the many good reasons for opposing ID cards is that they do contain biometrics. In your opinion, not mine. The Belgian card does contain biometrics, by the way, a signature and a photograph. Such information belongs to me and NOT the State which has no right to demand it! They've demanded it for years on your driving license and passport, but you seem to allow that? Furthermore, as has been seen recently, the 'State' is not to be trusted with citizens personal data. Therefore, the less information they hold on us the more secure our identities are. The very last thing I want is for my eleven year old child to have to give her fingerprints to the UK Identity and Passport Office only for them to be lost to a criminal faction. So, no ID cards, no harvesting of our biometric data and no central databases for civil servants to peep at. Oh yawn, we've done this shit to death, and your bollocks isn't any more relevant now than weeks ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai_Droid Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 Don't feed him anymore Cronky - he is either a wind-up merchant, just thick, or more likely both. How many times have both of us told him all this before? It beggars belief the number of people that don't take these issues seriously, and ignoring the consequences of where they are taking both the UK and the island. Ahh, the arrogance is awsome to behold! Just because everyone isn't a government hating tin-hatter, we're thick! I've made my view clear, and you don't accept that, but I don't call you thick. Personal data is out there, masses of it, in both the public and private domain, and much of it is barely secured. We need better protection, which is one area identity cards will be very useful. But you don't accept that, but I'm not arrogant enough to call you stupid, or a troll, because of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 Ahh, the arrogance is awsome to behold! Just because everyone isn't a government hating tin-hatter, we're thick! When we get to lap 6 and you keep asking the same questions, when you have had 5 previous answers - I beg to differ. We'll just have to agree to disagree, and leave it at that. ...and talking of arrogance, as you put it: Dodger I'm done with. You're just repeating the same thing over and over. I've addressed this point several times, and you've done the 'thanks for confirming that' several times, to which I've replied to again. Either you've got a two second memory, or your thick as two short planks. Dunno which, don't care, but I'm glad you didn't get elected. I don't expect you to understand, I'm beginning to see you're not capable, but I tried. Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai_Droid Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 When we get to lap 6 and you keep asking the same questions, when you have had 5 previous answers - I beg to differ.We'll just have to agree to disagree, and leave it at that. You've not answered anything, you just keep sprouting generalist claptrap and 'nu' bollocks. When asked for specifics, you get all precious! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 Let's be fair though, Dodger is pretty thick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 When we get to lap 6 and you keep asking the same questions, when you have had 5 previous answers - I beg to differ.We'll just have to agree to disagree, and leave it at that. You've not answered anything, you just keep sprouting generalist claptrap and 'nu' bollocks. When asked for specifics, you get all precious! This list is pretty freekin specific to most people: The government cannot be trusted when it comes to storing our information (I have my biometrics to hide, but fear they will lose them). The relationship between the individual and state should not be reversed, the state is there to serve the people. The ID card scheme will control British life in ways that most of us can't even imagine yet. Civil liberties should be respected, as should the millions of British lives lost in recent history - fighting and dying to protect what people are so willing to currently throw away these days without assessing the consequences. People should be treated as innocent before guilty. No one party should not have full power with only 36% of the actual vote (and get 57% of seats) - in a system where 39% didn't even vote in 2005, and only 22% of voters actually voted for them. The removal of the rights to: trial by jury in certain cases; the right to silence; the right not to be punished until a court has decided that the law has been broken; the right to demonstrate and protest; the right to travel without surveillance and the details of that journey being retained - all set dangerous precedents. The empowering of the police to arrest someone for any offence (e.g. dropping litter), and being able to fingerprint, photograph and sample DNA for indefinite retention on a police database. ...which are just a few of my concerns, which have become legislation driven through parliament using IMO the fear of: terrorism, anti social behaviour, asylum seekers and benefit fraud. You just cycle around the same old issue and refuse to address this in any detail, other than your usual 'data is already held on us so what does it matter?'. You are thus missing 95% of the debate, especially regarding where this data capture is leading us. Until you seriously address some of these issues, as far as I am concerned any debate with you on this topic will be cyclical, and has all been said before. ...and yes I am precious - my mother and my girlfriend have both told me so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.