The point I was making about my real name is people do, for a variety of reasons, have multiple identities. I was trying to get to the security issue. Once people are on the database creating a second identity would be very difficult, but I deliberately no not say impossible, the weakness is how people are entered into the database. It is at this point the question arises if we can't be certain of identity now that uncertainty is transferred (but fixed?) into the database. I concede that it does create a unique identity, but is it an accurate one ? You might say, does it matter ?, and it probably doesn't as long as the database is absolutely secure which, given the history of IT and particularly government IT, is unlikely to be the case for very long. A libertarian view is that the state should be subservient to the individual and we collaborate with the state through choice. It would seem that under the current regime we are subservient to the state to do with as they please. Which brings me to another Benjamin Franklin quote “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” . Note I am not suggesting that the opposition should take up arms, this is internet chat not a policy document.
You have a passport, driving license and NI number. Why then do you need further confirmation of your identity by means of an ID Card? Plus where will it stop? We can, for a small fee, arrange for a traffoltye badge with your name emblazoned on it should you forget it. :biggrin: It is the slow and insidious erosion of my liberty as a man who knows his own identity that bothers me and the way that we somehow seem to sleepwalk into these without concern or checks. As soon as something is written down, the only winners will be lawyers. Everyone else will just wonder how the hell we got here. Some things are right because they are right, not because it is written. An ID Card erodes my freedom to choose anonymity. To be just another person on the street. This is what freedom is. To be me and to be what ever I want to be. To be free to change. I cannot be free to change from what is written by others nor can i freely write what I am myself. I would likely have to apply to be myself.
So let us say that somebody out there has created a fake identity in your name, and they proceed to commit offences, incur debts, falsely claim benefits, and get disqualified from driving - in your name. They then disappear. You are left with responsibility. You protest that it wasn't you, it was somebody else pretending to be you. In the absence of an effective and secure ID scheme, you have no way of proving this so you have some big, big problems. This is by no means a hypothetical problem - identity theft is common.
By this reckoning Pete, then the failures of the systems put in place to store and control information and identities is thus unburdened upon the individual and not those responsible for their upkeep and/or monitoring? Will you so easily let them off and allow the blame to be shouldered onto us? How will an ID card make identity theft any less? We will just provide a more robust theft of the full ID. Or erasure of the said ID and all the problems that will ensue as a consequence. Its just more layers of confusion.
Will a genetic (dna) code ID (however that may be done) be the answer , after all surely that will prove an individuals identity being totally unique.
The ID card is linked to your fingerprints, and the other forms of identity doc are linked to that. So the person who committed the offences and incurred the debts etc is linked to specific fingerprints. If that fingerprint is not yours, the actions were not yours. QED Well OK, it's hypothetical at the moment since the scheme was scrapped - but it could be real.
Traditional forms of identity, starting with birth certificates, are not and never have been linked positively to the individual person they supposedly relate to. This is a reality we have inherited from the past. Do you really want to start assigning blame for the shortcomings of the past? Computerised databases are a fairly recent innovation. Converting old, insecure paper systems into modern forms is a complex multi-stage process. I would like to see Identity in the UK modernised into a stable, consistent form. I'm quite surprised anybody is (or claims to be) opposed to this.
But Pete, you are already attributing blame by saying the responsibility for the thefts used by stolen data falls upon the individual. You cant have it both ways. Plus I do not for one minute believe that you think our ID data would be secure and not subject to abuse. You are evidently not a stupid man. This is the equivalent of putting all our eggs in one basket and ignoring the fact that the basket will be circled by foxes. Computerised databases of all individuals ID's will be a magnet and ID theft will only increase as a result. There is no such thing as a secure computer. Nor shall there ever be until such things as quantum encryption rears its head. Even then some clever bugger will circumvent it. Never, never give governments and its minions the tools to shephard you to their will. How then can we be free to reach for our pitchforks and rally against oppression? Sure things are fine today but can you guarantee a free tomorrow?
The ID card is linked to your fingerprints, and the other forms of identity doc are linked to that. So the person who committed the offences and incurred the debts etc is linked to specific fingerprints. If that fingerprint is not yours, the actions were not yours. QED You hypothesise is that fingerprints will always be available to those trying to solve misdemeanours. This is simply not the case today - how will ID cards change that? What had not yet been fully dragged into the light of day in this discussion is that, of course, the UK's population would all have to be fingerprinted in this vision of the future, something we'd previously reserved for our criminals.
Of course responsibility for thefts lies with the person who committed the thefts - nobody has ever said otherwise. It was being suggested that blame for the possibility of identity theft lies with the officials who operate the old systems which they have inherited from the past. I said that was unreasonable - it makes more sense to try and move forward to a better system. All our eggs are already in weak, vulnerable baskets circled by foxes, and always have been. I want stronger baskets, but you (it seems) oppose that. "Tools to shepherd you to their will" - what on earth are you talking about? This seems to have no connection to the topic under discussion.
I hypothesise no such thing. Try this: What I have hypothesised is that offenses have been committed (or debts incurred, or whatever) by a person under a certain identity - the offender doesn't need to have left fingerprints at a scene of crime. You are accused of being that person, but you deny it was you. Your fingerprints are what they are - and either they are the same as that identity or they are different.
He who controls the identities controls the person. That is the tool. Sorry if I was vague. ID cards are not the recipe for stronger baskets. They are just another thing IN the basket. Until such time that security is no longer an issue then it is a very unwise move to gift criminals with a cast iron identity to commit more theft. You may as well leave all yours doors and windows open and invite the local toerags round. I am more than happy to strengthen the basket but I am not convinced the tools or the inclination is there from above to do so. Neither am I convinced on the competence of the civil service to carry it out without it costing us billions. Needless to say backdoors will be left open. The NHS computer debacle should tell you all you need to know about this kind of misadventure.
You are innocent until proven otherwise. It is up to the authorities to prove that the guilt lies with you. So are we going to fingerprint babies?
DNA recorded and barcoded at birth. Thats what we are leading up to so lets by-pass everything else security wise and go straight there.
Assuming that the person who committed the offences had their fingerprints recorded at the time of the offence ? Would the next step be providing a fingerprint scan at every transaction or no NIC then no transaction ?
Pete, you always seem to assume that your interests and the interests of those in power coincide, and maybe they do, but not everyone feels that way.
