Albert Tatlock Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 I see the merit in that, in preventing identity fraud, if it really is the case that it will make it far more difficult. But there is still the issue of the state centrally holding this information. That is the problem I have with this. Why? IMO the track record of the 'state' in managing data - will it improve? The issue to me is not central 'holding' of data. But central holding of data actually means the selective decentralised use of data. How will this be controlled and who will do the 'selection'? The UK Public Service has not got a great track record in its ability to manage data confidentially. As we know the UK now has councils using anti-terror legislation to check whether people are living in school catchments, putting rubbish out properly, dog pooh etc... No objection to bye-laws officers doing their job - but anti terror legislation seems a bit OTT to achieve this end. I use this as an example of how one set of laws is progressively used to do other things because it is 'convenient'. Why wouldn't the same happen with 'central data'? The management of data is only as good as the people doing the managing. 'Mission Creep' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mollag Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 Why we could have different colours and symbols to indicate religion, sexuality, whether we have a criminal record, what club we belong to. Backed up with a no armband or wrong arm offence it would mean the bobbies could monitor us from the comfort of their cars. This terrifying idea was used in Nazi Germany with the Jews: Holocaust Badges Reinhard Heydrich recommended that the Jews be forced to wear badges following the Kristallnacht pogrom in November 1938. The German government first introduced mandatory badges in Poland in November 1939. Jews who failed to wear them risked death. On July 26, 1941, the Judenrat (Jewish Community Council) of Bialystok announced that "the authorities have warned that severe punishment — up to, and including death by shooting — is in store for Jews who do not wear the yellow badge on back and front." The German government's policy of forcing Jews to wear badges, and then confining all who wore them to ghettos, was a tactic aimed at isolating the Jews from the rest of the population. It enabled the German government to identify, concentrate, deprive, starve, and ultimately murder the Jews of Europe under its control. In 1942, Helmut Knochen, the German government's chief of the Security Service and the Security Police for occupied France and Belgium, stated that the yellow badge was "another step on the road to the Final Solution." I have always been opposed to ID Cards. One of my main concerns is that such schemes migrate into forms of state racism. Also used for the forgoten victims, gypsies, gays etc, an effective method from the states point of view, a totalitarian society does love its cards and permits, "papers please" but of course, if you have nothing to hide? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 I see the merit in that, in preventing identity fraud, if it really is the case that it will make it far more difficult. But there is still the issue of the state centrally holding this information. That is the problem I have with this. Why? Well largely because the State cannot be trusted at all with such information. There is no reason why I think it can be trusted. And I don't have any control over that chunk of information on me is used. I am also averse to the idea of this leading to a more computerised bureacracy where services society now depends on have to be accessed through non-social processes. It is de-humanising and degrading. Then of course there is the massive issue of mission creep. There is a strong possibility that the ID cards will become necessary for such things as proving identity to the police upon request. And what of the involvement of the private sector - which has to be distrusted in its motives and intentions. Given the private sector's involvement with State matters it is certain that many companies will be handed all of this information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellyup Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 Why are poeple so scared about being indentifiable?? No reason unless they are criminals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellyup Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 I see the merit in that, in preventing identity fraud, if it really is the case that it will make it far more difficult. But there is still the issue of the state centrally holding this information. That is the problem I have with this. Why? Well largely because the State cannot be trusted at all with such information. There is no reason why I think it can be trusted. And I don't have any control over that chunk of information on me is used. I am also averse to the idea of this leading to a more computerised bureacracy where services society now depends on have to be accessed through non-social processes. It is de-humanising and degrading. Then of course there is the massive issue of mission creep. There is a strong possibility that the ID cards will become necessary for such things as proving identity to the police upon request. And what of the involvement of the private sector - which has to be distrusted in its motives and intentions. Given the private sector's involvement with State matters it is certain that many companies will be handed all of this information. How is it dehumanizing ? if you have a passport they have all this data anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 Why are poeple so scared about being indentifiable?? No reason unless they are criminals Really?! So you think all those who object are either objecting for no good reason or are criminals? I'd advise to read some of the websites that go into details about why people are against ID Cards and the National Register. How is it dehumanizing ?if you have a passport they have all this data anyway. I am talking about the inevitable use of an ID card to authorise and gain access to State services through the use of computer systems alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 Really?! So you think all those who object are either objecting for no good reason or are criminals? I'd advise to read some of the websites that go into details about why people are against ID Cards and the National Register. I think people are objecting out of misguided principles and ignorance of what, in reality, is happening with information about themselves. I think you've only got to look at posts here comparing an ID card with nazi germany to see that. I am talking about the inevitable use of an ID card to authorise and gain access to State services through the use of computer systems alone. Don't you see that that could also be an improvement? It's better protection of your information, but people only seem to see the sinister. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 I think people are objecting out of misguided principles and ignorance of what, in reality, is happening with information about themselves. I think you've only got to look at posts here comparing an ID card with nazi germany to see that. I am talking about the inevitable use of an ID card to authorise and gain access to State services through the use of computer systems alone. Don't you see that that could also be an improvement? It's better protection of your information, but people only seem to see the sinister. I do not agree with the Nazi Germany, Stassi, Stalinist ussia analogies at all. But it is interesting that on the BBC this morning it was mentioned that local councils and the Police between them apply every 60 seconds for the power to conduct surveillance operations on citizens - and without authorisation from Magistrates which was the traditional public safeguard. That is 525,000 times a year that they are given authority, usually by a 'senior officer', to check into individuals' emails and phone calls etc...If there really is a strong case to conduct covert surveillance IMO this needs the same kind of authorisation as search warrants. On a broader front Slim, I have yet to be convinced that that it is good to centralise all data and then to distribute it out to government departments - there is a danger that they will ask for more and more without the public being told. The other thing I definitely have not seen is how many hundreds of thousands of public service jobs will be abolished if data is managed so effectively - now that argument might just make me take notice... If the IoMG does not believe in Freedom of Information about themselves and the Public Service why should we believe that centralised data collection by the PS is a good thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellyup Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 If the IoMG does not believe in Freedom of Information about themselves and the Public Service why should we believe that centralised data collection by the PS is a good thing? Freedom of information is all a con anyway. The Governments allows you the information it wants to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 Don't you see that that could also be an improvement? It's better protection of your information, but people only seem to see the sinister. An improvement in information security? State efficiency? It just might be. But it isn't that people only seem to see the sinister, it is rather that they have to consider it given the agenda of British governments in the past decade to increase the role of the State and given our understanding of how ID cards are used in many countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 If the IoMG does not believe in Freedom of Information about themselves and the Public Service why should we believe that centralised data collection by the PS is a good thing? What do you mean by them not believing in it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 What do you mean by them not believing in it? Well if they believe in it (FoI) where is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.