Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

ID cards

48 replies

hunkermunker · 22/02/2006 13:03

Nobody concerned about these?

Why do people believe the "they'll stop terrorism" line?

They're going to cost a fortune.

And it's spying on us.

OP posts:
NotQuiteCockney · 23/02/2006 09:46

Because lots of people don't drive? And if they're making an ID card mandatory, then everyone should have it? (Same applies to passports, I'm sure lots of people don't have those, either.)

uwila · 23/02/2006 10:02

They could issue the same card to everyone, but it could say that non drivers are just that: not licensed to drive. I just think there's room to consolidate these efforts and save money (for individuals and government). Seems to me that there are more important things in need of funding. (i.e. schools)

NotQuiteCockney · 23/02/2006 10:12

It'd be cheaper still to, you know, not have ID cards.

uwila · 23/02/2006 10:18

Yeah, I agree. I was just exploring some middle ground. I'm all for security measures, even at the expense of some (but not all) civil liberties. But I feel very strongly that this country is sooooooo expensive to live in that we (the people as well as the government) really do need to learn to spend less money. And I am definitely not convinced this one is a necessary expense.

prettybird · 23/02/2006 10:46

I remember dh telling em a sotry from when he lived in the States. A collegaue of his - also seconded from Scotland - was unable to buy any alcohol, becasue he didn't have a driving licence with a photo on it - and they wouldn't accpet his Birtish passport as proof of age!

Thier American secretary hit the roof and arranged for him to be issued with a driving licence that wasn't actually valid for driving - but at least was recognised my the local store as "proff of age". Dh's collegaue rang his wife to tell her that he had a "licence to drink"!.

I too am highly suspicisous of the many civil liberties that are being eroded in a so-called "fight against terrorism", even when no-one has come up with any proof that it would help in the fight against terrorism. This is just the nanny state wanting to keep control. Big Brother has arrived - only 20 odd years later than predicted.

Hallgerda · 23/02/2006 10:50

prettybird,

I had a similar experience over drinking in the US - I was 25 at the time. It was suggested to me that I apply for a non-driver's driving licence, but I won the argument to use my passport instead.

uwila · 23/02/2006 10:59

Yes, the dirvers license in the statees is commonly used as official proof of identification and age. It is also often asked for when writing a cheque or verifying a credit card sinature (prior to chip and pin of course).

I do think it's crazy that bars know all the states drivers licenses but they seem to have no concept of what a passport is. Really, some people need to get out more. Travel a bit. Get a passport! (lots of Americans don't have passports)

prettybird · 23/02/2006 11:11

I think dh's collegaue was 30!

They did have the satisfaction of leaving a large trolley of goods that had been already rung through (this was at a supermarket) and saying that they weren't going to buy any of it.

It is scary, the proportion of Amercians who have never been out of their state, let alone out of the country.

But uwila - perhaps you can confirm something for me: am I right in saying that even in America, with all its paranoia about terrorist, there is still no compulsory , or even national, ID card?

tortoiseshell · 23/02/2006 11:13

Haven't made up my mind on ID cards. Do find it amusing when people complain about being spied on, because a mobile phone when turned on tracks your movements and records them which is a far more effective spying tool imo!

prettybird · 23/02/2006 11:41

You're quite right about mobiles! The ulmtiate tracking device, especially in cities.

I have to have it switched on during the working day (it's a work mobile) - but I rarely have it switched on at night and weekends. But that's a whole separate debate about our need to "constantly contactable" and "need it now" syndrom of modern society!

uwila · 23/02/2006 11:45

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

MeerkatsUnite · 23/02/2006 12:20

From the news this morning:-
Ministers have admitted spending £32 million on preparing for the introduction of ID cards before Parliament has even been approved.

£32 million!!!!.

As far as I know we still live in a democracy. ID cards undermine our freedom of movement and privacy. I am therefore opposed to same.

This government are after the database that these cards will contain. There is plenty of room on there for more information to be added.

How much is this ultimately going to cost this country?. No government run IT programme has ever
run to either time or budget. This will make the Passports and CSA debacles seem pretty reasonable in comparison.

Who is going to imput your details?. How will same be protected?. The companies who will get to do this will make a shedload of money.

Also when you move house you will be obliged to inform them or be fined (£1000 has been mentioned).

I am wondering whether some organisation like Liberty will eventually challenge these cards under the privacy section of the Human Rights Act.

uwila · 23/02/2006 12:36

Gosh, we could fund an awful lot of epidurals with £32 million.

peacedove · 23/02/2006 12:42

MeerkatsUnite: "when you move house you will be obliged to inform them or be fined (£1000 has been mentioned)"

really!

uwila · 23/02/2006 12:52

I would have thought they already had all of the information being mentioned here, and that it is simply a matter of putting it all in one central database... one that will be very expensive to maintain. But what about all the other places where that information is currently held? Couldn't they eliminate those in favour of the new central one, hence saving costs for those agencies. Perhaps with the saving, they could fund the new cards.

Yes, I was very undecided when this thread began. But more I think about it the more this is an ill though out plan that is shure to run way over budget and produce littel results.... and not at all efficient.

prettybird · 23/02/2006 13:01

Don't know how exaggerated this is but the web site Say No2ID and the database state makes for interesting reading!

Original poster
hunkermunker · 23/02/2006 13:06

I'm not required by law to carry my mobile phone though.

And does anybody seriously believe that ID cards won't be able to be forged?

OP posts:
prettybird · 23/02/2006 13:12

Absolutely Hunkermunker - nor do you have to have it turned on (which it needs to be in order to "track").

I hadn't realised the stuff about having to pay, or be fined, for notifying about house moves - or having to pay to recify mistakes! If it is true, then and . And that is totally separate from my civil liberties concerns!

Original poster
hunkermunker · 23/02/2006 16:09

From the no2id website:

The last time people in the UK were obliged to carry identity cards it was to guard against Nazi parachutists.

Indeed, when he ruled against the continued issuing of the cards in 1952, Lord Chief Justice Goddard said that with the nation no longer facing a military threat, ID checks were actually hindering the work of the police.

'In this country, we have always prided ourselves on the good feeling that exists between the police and the public, and such action tends to make the public resentful of the acts of the police and inclines them to obstruct them rather than assist them.'

OP posts:
hellywobs · 23/02/2006 19:57

I don't get the issue with ID cards at all - why are they such a problem? I will welcome having one if it means I don't have to take tons of documents every time I want to open a bank account. How about my rights to have an ID card if I want one? Being forced to pay for one is another matter though - but then we get forced to pay for lots of things we might not want, like council tax services we never use.

Seems strange that people worry about things like this when there are far greater human rights issues. I find it extremely unsavoury that people can be publicly named when they are charged with an offence. Remember they are innocent until they are proved guilty - they should only be named when/if convicted. It will become even more of an issue when/if TVs are introduced into courts. But nobody seems to worry about that.

JoolsToo · 23/02/2006 20:07

I had an ID card when I was lickle - no photo on it though and it was after the war - well after

Original poster
hunkermunker · 24/02/2006 17:47

Hellywobs, have you read any of the no2id site?

OP posts:
prettybird · 25/02/2006 17:04

But hellywobs - by your own analogy, we live in a society where you are innocent until you are proven guilty. With ID cards, you could be presumed "guilty" until you can "prove" you are innocent - ie you are who you say you are.

One other thing bothers me - ID cards are to be used once you are 16. Once it is expected that everyone has them, what do "mature" looking 15 year olds do? How do they "access" services for which it wiull be compulsory to have a card? "Honest, I'm just 15"!?????

New posts on this thread. Refresh page