UK: ID cards 'compulsory by 2008'

[Columbia]

By Andrew Grice, Political Editor
05 April 2004

Everyone in Britain could be forced to have identity cards within five years under a fast-track plan by David Blunkett which is backed by Tony Blair and gaining support within the Cabinet.

Last month's bombings in Madrid and last week's arrest of suspected Islamic terrorists in Britain have persuaded more ministers that compulsory ID cards will have to be introduced much sooner than they originally envisaged. The Government announced last November that it would phase in voluntary identity cards from 2007-08 and decide in 2013 whether to make the scheme compulsory.

But Government sources said yesterday that the "centre of gravity" in the Cabinet was now moving towards a "big bang" introduction of a compulsory system. Last Thursday, Mr Blair told a press conference that cards would be brought in "probably more quickly than we anticipated".

<more>

[iverglas]

1. so

How's that "free speech zone" thing working out? I gather that nobody waited until 2013 to decide whether to make *that* one compulsory.

I don't actually have a particularly firm opinion on voluntary ID cards.

I just get a kick out of pots wandering the internet looking for kettles to call black.

Or ... were you quoting all this approvingly? No opinion at all?

Maybe we should ask some of the people on the train in Spain what their opinion is. Whoops -- no can do. They're dead. But I'll bet that anyone else whose death in future might have been prevented had intelligence services only been in a position to apprehend the would-be killer using the identification methods in question would be gratified to have paid the price for ID card refuseniks' "freedom". Except -- whoops, they'd be dead, so we wouldn't be able to ask them.


I'd love to hear your plan for combatting transborder crime and terrorism. Invade Iraq?

Or maybe just not bother, and look for somebody to blame if the price ever happens to hit too close to home.

.

[Columbia]

2. Won't discuss the issue eh?

Figures.

[iverglas]

4. tell ya what

When I notice YOU "discussing the issue", I'll be sure to let you know what I think.

Surely you had something to say. I'm not seeing it.

.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Superfly]

3. But you do have one solid strawman, there...

"I don't actually have a particularly firm opinion on voluntary ID cards."

So, let's talk about something in another country!

[Me Me Meme]

6. Well...

Whether or not I have an opinion on this and whatever it may be, the fact remains that this is a British issue. They only people who really have a valid and meaningful opinion on the matter would be British citizens. It would be rude and unseemly for me, an American citizen, to comment on this publicly.

[Pert_UK]

8. Ha ha ha........

You're so right.

People shouldn't be allowed to comment on anything at all outside their own home.....

Come off it.

P.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pert_UK]

10. Quiet......Genius at work!

What you mean is that you are unwilling (unable?) to debate with anyone whose view differs from your own, and if they happen to be from overseas then it's a convenient (if utterly ridiculous) way for you to ignore them.

I'm not "confronting" anyone about their government - I'm chipping in my opinion to a debate, and will be happy to have it changed by the presentation of contrary evidence or illustration of my bad logic.

"My opinion of people who do this is that they have large mouths and small lives." - heh heh heh......Nice personal, utterly pointless attack there.

One of the many things that you fail to understand is that by resorting to that kind of thing, rather than addressing issues or comments, just makes your position look foolish. Why not offer me some counter-argument??? I'm not telling you how to run your country, I'm giving you my opinion on a subject which interests me, and unlike you I am happy to discuss it.

What do you suppose my opinion is of people who log onto discussion boards and then abuse fellow members for being "irrelevant blowhards"? Are you sure you wouldn't be happier locked up in a small room with Americans who agreed 100% with your views?

Please put me on "Ignore" - ironically, I'd rather be ignored than subjected to ignorance....

[Me Me Meme]

12. You still don't understand

Look, I don't make DU's rules, nor am I permitted to really comment on them. I don't get a choice, I don't get a voice, I don't get a seat at the table, and my opinion doesn't matter a tinker's damn. If it did, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

And that's exactly how it should be! DU ain't mine! No ownership stake, no vested interest, no vote!

Of course you have a right to an opinion. And my unwillingness to give yours (not "you" personally, but anyone who's not American) any weight or serious consideration has nothing to do with the fact that we're on different sides of this issue. It wouldn't change for me if we agreed completely.

I can't imagine why I would ever care about (insert any country here)'s politics, much less take it upon myself to go to one of their political websites and tell them how I felt!

[Pert_UK]

13. I tried to send you a message but it's not enabled for you...

Anyway, to cut a long story short we clearly disagree about this topic. I think we got off to a bad start and have ended up slinging insults at each other, and I'd rather we just got along.

I'd prefer it if you actually didn't put me onto IGNORE, but there doesn't seem to be much point in you replying to my posts just to say, "You're an outsider and can't understand" - I'm happy to debate the issues with you, but don't want to get back into a slanging match about whether my opinion counts for anything. Personally, I believe that the world would be a better place if the US Government did put more weight on the opinions of its friends, neighbours and enemies, even if it doesn't always agree. If you don't agree with that then it's entirely up to you.

I will also try to avoid any personal attacks on you or anybody else - apologies for any offence caused.

To answer your implied question, the reason that I started posting here is because I've been a close friend of EarlG for about 20 years and he got me into it when Skinner and him started DU up. The reason I continue posting is because a) I like a good discussion b) American politics fascinates me and does actually have a material impact on the world in which I live and c) there's nothing like DU for UK politics as far as I know.

For the record, I didn't ALERT on your post that got deleted, although I can understand why it did - some of mine have gone the same way over the years.

[Me Me Meme]

14. Hmmm...

Personally, I believe that the world would be a better place if the US Government did put more weight on the opinions of its friends, neighbours and enemies, even if it doesn't always agree. If you don't agree with that then it's entirely up to you.

Interesting...no, actually, I don't agree with that at all, but I believe something else entirely which gets us to almost the same place. I'm not interested in America basing it's actions on external opinions. But at the same time I do so wish my government would learn to shut the fuck up and mind it's own business. Endless meddling in the affairs of others is what brought us to the place we are in the world.

I'm terrible with quotes, so somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it was Jefferson who said something about "commerce and goodwill toward all, entangling alliances with none". I believe that with all my heart. It is wrong for us be the world's bully. It is also wrong for us to be the world's policeman, savior, banker, healer, or anything but just a sovereign nation protecting it's citizens and not interfering in the the affairs of other sovereign nations.

[Pert_UK]

15. I think that if I make mine a conditional statement....

then we do agree almost 100%.

I.E. IF the US government is going to appoint itself World Policeman and also engage in significant international business, military and cultural alliances THEN it needs to pay more attention to the beliefs, politics, opinions and culture of the rest of the world.

You believe that the US should be entirely internally focused, and that therefore an international perspective is unecessary.

Personally, I can't see how the US could ever be sufficiently self-isolated that it wouldn't need at least some understanding of the outside world, but that's where we disagree on this one.

And for the record, mine would be a pint of Ruddles County Bitter!

:toast:

P.

[Spentastic]

7. I'm not going to get one

It didn't stop the bombings in Madrid and it won't stop one here.

This is an excuse to make money for someone.

Those "Islamic terrorists" were all British citizens so how the fuck would having an ID card scheme have helped?

Theoretically I'm not overly fussed at the idea of compulsory ID if it would work. It won't.

[Romulus]

11. all of the 9/11 dirtbags

had valid ID cards.

Fat lot of good it did us.

Relying on "proof of ID" to protect us is a false hope.

How We Are Fighting the War on Terrorism
IDs and the illusion of security
Bruce Schneier
San Francisco Chronicle

In recent years there has been an increased use of identification checks as a security measure. Airlines always demand photo IDs, and hotels increasingly do so. They're often required for admittance into government buildings, and sometimes even hospitals. Everywhere, it seems, someone is checking IDs. The ostensible reason is that ID checks make us all safer, but that's just not so. In most cases, identification has very little to do with security.

Let's debunk the myths:

First, verifying that someone has a photo ID is a completely useless security measure. All the Sept. 11 terrorists had photo IDs. Some of the IDs were real. Some were fake. Some were real IDs in fake names, bought from a crooked DMV employee in Virginia for $1,000 each. Fake driver's licenses for all 50 states, good enough to fool anyone who isn't paying close attention, are available on the Internet. Or if you don't want to buy IDs online, just ask any teenager where to get a fake ID.


*snip*

Identification and profiling don't provide very good security, and they do so at an enormous cost. Dropping ID checks completely, and engaging in random screening where appropriate, is a far better security trade-off. People who know they're being watched, and that their innocent actions can result in police scrutiny, are people who become scared to step out of line. They know that they can be put on a "bad list" at any time. People living in this kind of society are not free, despite any illusionary security they receive. It's contrary to all the ideals that went into founding the United States.

*snip/more

[MrSandman]

16. Doesn't this exist in the U.S.?

Without a driver's license or state issued ID, what can one accomplish? State IDs are numbered in the same sequence, at least here, as driver's license.

With the driver's license number, any agency(ALL) with access to interstate data banks can retrieve the record.

The only non-compulsory component is carrying the ID when not exercising any of the rights/privileges it confers. So how is it mandatory if one is not required to carry it? IIRC, one may be required to display reasonable proof of identity.

With name and date of birth, the database will trigger. Only then, one is more likely to be the John Q. Public, thug than the John C. Public, citizen.

[FeebMaster]

17. The Supreme Court was hearing a case

last week about being required to show the police your papers when ordered to.

Hey I was looking for some news about it and it turns out there's a whole website dedicated to it. I'm going to risk linking it despite the fact that I haven't read it yet.

http://www.papersplease.org/

[MrSandman]

18. I did not read it yet, but...

II remember hearing about this case, now. Bad case to set precedent for the rest of us. Was't he acting like a child abuser/pedophile?

[FeebMaster]

19. Apparently he was smoking a cigarette

and talking to his daughter. I guess some people would consider smoking around your daughter to be child abuse. There's a video of the whole incident. I haven't watched it yet, but I read the transcript.

"I'm investigating an investigation." Sounds like probable cause to me. :eyes:

[MrSandman]

20. Thank you again RR for Ms. O'Connor...

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said: "One's name is just a neutral fact. It's not incriminating, one way or another." Under Dolan's argument, the government could not adopt a national identification card, she said.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=4628666&pageNumber=1

Hope her opinion does not prevail

[FeebMaster]

21. I'm not optimistic.

Just think. All these years the police have been telling people they have the right to remain silent. Now they want to arrest you if you remain silent.



"Under Dolan's argument, the government could not adopt a national identification card, she said."

The horror!

[MrSandman]

22. In effect, we have national ID...

Sorry, Romulus
:-(