Posted by IanWhickham on Monday, 19 February 2007 09:57:01

From the transcript of David Cameron's interview on yesterday's (18/02/07) BBC1 Politics Show:

"Well let's take identity cards. I think this is going to be a gigantic waste of money. I think this is going to be Labour's plastic poll tax. We're now reading through parliamentary questions about the police, about the government setting up finger printing centres, all over the country.

Some people are going to have to travel, even the elderly and infirm, who've never done anything wrong in their entire lives, are going to have to travel up to sixty miles to these finger printing centres.

This is not Aldous Huxley or George Orwell, I'm not making this up. This is a parliamentary answer. And this is going to cost a fortune, and the government, this is the government that cannot deliver the child support agency properly, to find thousands of absent parents.

They can't make the rural payments agency work to pay you know, tens of thousands of farmers. And they're expecting us to believe they can have a national data base for sixty million people. Frankly, it is beyond belief and that is why we would pull the plug on the identity cards and we'd use the money for much more sensible things like prisons and drug rehabilitation." - David Cameron

Sounds promising!

Ian

P.S I would link to it properly but WC doesn't seem to like it. The transcript is at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/politics_show/6360275.stm

 

Comment edited by IanWhickham on Monday, 19 February 2007 09:59:00

Posted by Popple on Monday, 19 February 2007 10:36:04

At the present time anyone can apply for a passport and if it appears to be countersigned by a reliable person then you get it. Trouble is you can apply again under a slightly different name and you get another one. The whole system needs tightening up.

The same thing with driving licences. There is no reliable check that the person applying for one does not have another one under a different name.

So we need to improve the systems so that people do not have multipile driving licenses and passports.

We hear much from the Tories about stopping benefit fraud but how can you do that if people can pretend to be Tom, Dick or Harry depending on what benefit they are claiming.

And then we come to election time. How many people vote more tha once using different identities?


I do not know how many people hold driving licences in the UK but it is possiblly 20 million. How do you keep track of driving licences without using a data base.

I do not know how many people hold passports in the UK. 15-20 million? Destroy the computer data base and go back to paper records. So a guy turns up at the improved border controls we are going to get under the Tories. Who is he, he says he is a UK citizen, is his passport genuine, better hold him in the cells until we have sent his passport off to some office while we check it against the files in the cellar. At this stage the next Tory Government being with it decides to put everything onto a computer and while where are at it we might as well put everyone on the record because it helps to stop benefit fraud and the issuing of false driving licences.

David and David should get real. It sounds good saying we are going to abolish ID cards and data bases but they already exist in one form or another. So watch out for a big U-turn sooner or later. Being a cynic it will be shortly after the Tories win the next election!

Posted by Graham on Monday, 19 February 2007 14:08:29

Popple:

Here's a suggestion: Why not go down to the local Job Centre and ask how many benefit claimants have Passports? Or even how many have Driving Licences?

I've had many problems over the years getting credit cards, opening bank accounts etc because I had neither Passport or Driving Licence (didn't want them, didn't need them, couldn't afford them if I did)

How exactly is facing questioning at an "interrogation centre" (the Government's own term!) going to help someone if they don't want a passport? Or are we going to see people claiming benefits also being interrogated and fingerprinted and photographed in order to claim? And how, exactly, is this all going to be validated? What proof of identity is going to be acceptable in the first place? Not to mention just how is this all going to be paid for? Consider the amount of infrastructure (data entry, fingerprint scanners, computer systems, card printers, card readers etc) which is going to be needed. Where is the money going to come from to pay for all that?

And as for your ridiculous example of someone turning up at the UK borders, nobody is talking about destroying the existing records, the point is that they should not all be amalgamated into one "super database" that keeps tabs on *everyone* in the country and considers *everyone* a suspect until and unless they can prove their innocence.

Posted by Graham on Monday, 19 February 2007 18:35:26

I've just received Tony Blair's response to the 28,000 signature petition on the Number 10 Downing Street website calling on him to "Scrap the Proposed introduction of ID Cards"

Here's my response and some questions and points that David Cameron might like to ask on Wednesday at PMQs...

* * * * *

Unfortunately r Blair starts with the same old flannel about how "they will make an important contribution to making our borders more secure, countering fraud, and tackling international crime and terrorism" without any shred of proof of this claim.

He continues: "More importantly, this is also what our security services - who have the task of protecting this country - believe." but have you *ever* heard of security services saying they need *fewer* powers?!

He claims that "the National Identity Register, [...] will contain less information on individuals than the data collected by the average store card", well Mr Blair, I don't *have* any store cards, they're what's called "voluntary", just as your ID card was supposed to be!!

He goes on to raise all the big, scary threats of terrorism, crime, Al Qaeda and Identity Fraud, but again doesn't explain how these cards would prevent such things (remember that the September 11th and July 7th, not to mention the Spanish Train Bombing terrorist atrocities wouldn't have been prevented by ID cards!)

One of his most glib and worrying claims is "I also believe that the National Identity Register will help police bring those guilty of serious crimes to justice. They will be able, for example, to compare the fingerprints found at the scene of some 900,000 unsolved crimes against the information held on the register."

So what he's actually saying is that *EVERYONE* will be a suspect until they can be ruled out of the investigation. Whatever happened to "Presumed Innocent Until Proven Guilty"? (And don't you think that maybe crooks will just start wearing gloves? Or is that going to be the next thing to be made a criminal offence??)

Another claim is that "Proper identity management and ID cards also have an important role to play in preventing illegal immigration and illegal working." Err, no it won't, unless employers are going to be responsible for checking and monitoring the IDs of everyone in their employ. And, of course, all those Cockle Pickers will obligingly line up to get their ID cards, won't they?

He goes on "These then are the ways I believe ID cards can help cut crime and terrorism. I recognise that these arguments will not convince those who oppose a National Identity Scheme on civil liberty grounds. They will, I hope, be reassured by the strict safeguards now in place on the data held on the register and the right for each individual to check it." Tell me, Mr Blair, why exactly do we *need* safeguards on this data unless this data will threaten our privacy and civil liberties? And, of course, we never hear of people's private information being obtained by illicit methods (or being left on laptops in taxis), do we?

"If national ID cards do help us counter crime and terrorism, it is, of course, the law-abiding majority who will benefit and whose own liberties will be protected." No, Mr Blair, it is the law-abiding majority who will pay the price (and risk being falsely identified when the system registers a false positive) whilst the law-breaking minority will ignore the whole scheme or find ways of circumventing it (and, believe me, they will) thus defeating your purpose.

"I am also convinced that there will also be other positive benefits. A national ID card system, for example, will prevent the need, as now, to take a whole range of documents to establish our identity. Over time, they will also help improve access to services."

This is just naiive and foolish. What will actually happen is that if you want to get a bank account or a credit card or buy a mobile phone or rent a car or buy something on credit or possibly even just *use* a credit card, you will have to present your ID card (you know, the one that's going to be "voluntary" to carry), but unless every bank or credit card company or mobile phone store or car rental showroom or store is going to have a way of validating your ID and fingerprints, they'll just look at it and say "well, that seems ok" and accept it.

Of course if your card has been stolen and is being used by someone who looks like you, the above mentioned will have no way of telling this, they'll just take it as valid ID and when something goes wrong, who's going to get it in the neck? The criminal? No, of course not, it's *YOU* who will because it was *YOUR* ID!!

He finishes "I simply don't recognise most claims of the cost of ID cards. In many cases, these estimates deliberately exaggerate the cost of ID cards by adding in the cost of biometric passports. This is both unfair and inaccurate. As I have said, it is clear that if we want to travel abroad, we will soon have no choice but to have a biometric passport."

Oddly, Mr Blair, not *everyone* in the UK *wants* to go abroad (we don't all have rich foreign friends who lend us their villas!) Not everyone has a passport, nor will ever get one, so to try to claim that the cost will be wrapped up in the passport is more than a little disingenuous, isn't it?

He concludes "Our aim is to ensure we also make the most of the benefits these biometric advances bring within our borders and in our everyday lives." But I think what he actually means is "our aim is to make the most of the opportunities these advances will give, enabling us to keep track of everyone in this country, along with Automatic Number Plate Recognition to monitor where we drive, a massive NHS database allowing many people to access our private medical records, Passport and National Identity "interrogation centres" which require our bank details and many other unwarranted and unjustified intrusions into our private lives.

It used to be a principle of British Common Law that anyone could "Go about their lawful business without let or hinderance". It seems that in the guise of "protecting" our civil liberties, Mr Blair why do you want to *remove* as many of those liberties as possible? Is it because they are simply inconvenient and stop the State from controlling our lives?

Posted by DaveGould on Monday, 19 February 2007 19:23:32

This echoes my recent question, hopefully better timed wrt the new system:
https://www.webcameron.org.uk/blogs/form.aspx?id=2561

Popple, the problem is not with databases, but people abusing data that they shouldn't have access to. The ID database or National Identity Register is no ordinary database. It is designed to steal data from all the different Govt departments and organise it so as to create a picture of your life. The extent of such data goes far beyond anything any totalitarian country has.

http://www.bristol-no2id.org.uk/blog/?page_id=5

The Govt call it data-sharing, but it's really data-betrayal. You saw your GP understanding that your medical records were confidential and would not be shared with every official who had a grudge against you.

But the bigger picture is that such surveillance makes it far easier to oppress Govt opposition (campaigners, journalists, politicians).

In addition to the other totalitarian laws this Govt has passed, it's rather alarming:
http://www.waronfreedom.net/

Posted by KitFox on Monday, 19 February 2007 20:10:37

These kind of systems and data-rape of citizens breeds the dissent that leads to civil unrest & possibley war. Are you willing Mr Cameron to plunge us into such a situation by not fighting agaisnt these issues now while we still have a chance to stop them?

Posted by robinoi on Monday, 19 February 2007 20:24:16

This disgusting rip-off Stasi-ist plot is anathematic to everything this country stands for and what its soldiers and civilians have died for. Blair is a TRAITOR from his DNA.

Posted by blackpikex on Tuesday, 20 February 2007 13:03:53

If these ID systems are implemented then Al-Qaeda will have one the war of terrorism. Al-Qaeda indirectly will have taken our freedoms and right to privacy, They will have scuppered our democracy. Who would ever stand for election in a fringe political group if that political group had views that were diametricaly apposed to the current government. I am no big supporter of the BNP but in a democracy, they should have the right fo stand for election. Yet this government goes out of its way to persicute them. They will be able to carry out this persicution more effectivley with the total awareness network. With our close links with America there is a good chance our ID information will end up in THIS :-
http://www.defenselink.mil/Releases/Release.aspx?ReleaseID=3625

Posted by blackpikex on Tuesday, 20 February 2007 13:50:19

the Americans are going the same way to:-
http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/nat_id_cards_by_2008.htm

welcome to the matrix

Posted by Paine on Tuesday, 20 February 2007 17:30:18

Has this question not already been asked with last week's questions? (rank 3 or so?) If so, it seems a bit of a shame to ask it again...

Posted by Popple on Tuesday, 20 February 2007 18:09:04

On the move

48m British citizens hold a passport

6m passports are issued annually

450,000 passports are issued at Foreign and Commonwealth posts abroad

£66 The cost of a standard adult passport

£1,300 Cost of a passport reader

Source: National Audit Office"

I picked this information from another blog on this site. With 48m passports isued already we only need another 12m people to apply and we have got everyone on the passport data base!

Posted by DaveGould on Tuesday, 20 February 2007 18:27:35

Popple - why shouldn't I be allowed 2 passports? The idea of a passport is to authenticate my credentials (as a British citizen), not to track my every move.

Secondly, why would you want everyone on the passport database as that's the fast-track to 1984?
http://www.bristol-no2id.org.uk/blog/?page_id=5

Posted by blackpikex on Wednesday, 21 February 2007 04:22:46

This is the future. maybe!

http://infowars.net/articles/february2007/190207Osama_tape.htm

welcome to the matrix

Posted by Popple on Wednesday, 21 February 2007 09:25:41

I have taken the paragraph below from a transcript of David Camerons quoted in this blog.

"This is not Aldous Huxley or George Orwell, I'm not making this up. This is a parliamentary answer. And this is going to cost a fortune, and the government, this is the government that cannot deliver the child support agency properly, to find thousands of absent parents. "

Now I would suggest that if we want to make the Conservative invented CSA work properly it would be a good idea if everyone had an identity card. Then the goverment would at least have an idea where people lived so that they could find thousands of absent parents.

Or is there a better way of finding thousands of absent parents - I look forward to reading about your better scheme!

Posted by DaveGould on Wednesday, 21 February 2007 16:29:38

If the Government knows where people live, then wife-beaters, child abusers and rapists can.

Are you in favour of battery, sexual abuse, rape and life-long torment of vulnerable people?

Not to mention, the £20+ billion could hire ten million private detectives to find "thousands of absent parents".