On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 17:10:56 +0100, "Gay Merrington"
wrote:

With the chat about these cards coming out with what happened over the past
36 hours,it drove home to my why these ID cards might be a good idea after
all.Aside from the security angle,which has been discussed to death,

And this incident just goes to prove that there would be no worthwhile
security benefits.

In light of what happened,think of how much easier it would have been for
Emergency services to identify the dead and/or prevent/or treat the injured
if we all had one of these cards which would include such biometric
information such as drug allergies,medical conditions and the like just in
case of such emergency.This could be life saving information.This could also
help relieve the grief of families of the missing when the speed of
identifying the dead is helpful.

Please explain why a £15 billion scheme is necessary for this, when
you could achieve the same aim by e.g. writing the information on a
piece of plain card and putting it in your pocket.

Granted,we should not be using these cards without proper checks and
balances,but for those who are not breaking the law,and are asked for a
lawful reason to produce it,

There can be no lawful reason to be asked to produce it. No law exists
allowing the police to demand an identity card.

[...]
Only criminals will have something to hide.

Nonsense. My private life and personal details are private, and I
would wish them to be kept where practical from people like you,
government officials, and sundry private corporations. And I am not a
criminal (at least until a law is passed making such a desire
illegal).

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 18:09:25 +0100, asdf
wrote:

On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 17:10:56 +0100, "Gay Merrington"
wrote:

With the chat about these cards coming out with what happened over the past
36 hours,it drove home to my why these ID cards might be a good idea after
all.Aside from the security angle,which has been discussed to death,

And this incident just goes to prove that there would be no worthwhile
security benefits.

Even Charles Clarke said that ID cards wouldn't have prevented this.

"asdf" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 17:10:56 +0100, "Gay Merrington"
wrote:

With the chat about these cards coming out with what happened over the
past
36 hours,it drove home to my why these ID cards might be a good idea
after
all.Aside from the security angle,which has been discussed to death,

And this incident just goes to prove that there would be no worthwhile
security benefits.
How do we know that?Last I heard the system isn't in place yet,or have you
already got your card?....Just asking.

In light of what happened,think of how much easier it would have been for
Emergency services to identify the dead and/or prevent/or treat the
injured
if we all had one of these cards which would include such biometric
information such as drug allergies,medical conditions and the like just
in
case of such emergency.This could be life saving information.This could
also
help relieve the grief of families of the missing when the speed of
identifying the dead is helpful.

Please explain why a £15 billion scheme is necessary for this, when
you could achieve the same aim by e.g. writing the information on a
piece of plain card and putting it in your pocket.

Doing that is good,as far as it goes,but biometric info on a chip will go a
lot further without the bulk of carrying scads of documents for a medico to
scan through instead of having a card reader there and all the important
info come up on a screen as quickly as getting money from the 'hole in the
wall',especially those with multiple medical problems (as some people do
have)

Granted,we should not be using these cards without proper checks and
balances,but for those who are not breaking the law,and are asked for a
lawful reason to produce it,

There can be no lawful reason to be asked to produce it. No law exists
allowing the police to demand an identity card.

True,but at this point in time,do we not use photo drivers licenses for
Identification?That should stay for MOST ID scenarios and have the chipped
one for more serious things,like medical/criminal/customs identification.For
the day-to-day stuff we keep on as usual like we do now.

[...]
Only criminals will have something to hide.

Nonsense. My private life and personal details are private, and I
would wish them to be kept where practical from people like you,
government officials, and sundry private corporations. And I am not a
criminal (at least until a law is passed making such a desire
illegal).

So who is saying all that is not still private?With checks and balances this
card should only be used in certain instances and remain private to everyone
except police/courts/doctors/customs or similar people/agencies where
identification is absolutely crucial in certain circumstances.This will not
take the place of everyday identification methods like the NIN or driver's
licence that we've been using since the dead sea was only sick.Far be it
from me to even suggest such a thing.
I hope that clears up my viewpoint.
Glen

And this incident just goes to prove that there would be no worthwhile
security benefits.
How do we know that?Last I heard the system isn't in place yet,or have you
already got your card?....Just asking.

Because ID cards would not have prevented this incident. And they
would not prevent similar incidents in the future. There would be no
shortage of available targets for terrorists to bomb.

Doing that is good,as far as it goes,but biometric info on a chip will go a
lot further without the bulk of carrying scads of documents for a medico to
scan through instead of having a card reader there and all the important
info come up on a screen as quickly as getting money from the 'hole in the
wall',especially those with multiple medical problems (as some people do
have)

You can fit all the important stuff on a piece of card. And what's
quicker if you find a card on someone in (say) a deep level tube
tunnel: reading what's on the card, or taking the card up to the
surface, then finding an ID-network-connected card reader, and
scanning it? Plus you didn't mention how the £15bn (estimated, it
could be far higher) cost was justified.

Granted,we should not be using these cards without proper checks and
balances,but for those who are not breaking the law,and are asked for a
lawful reason to produce it,

There can be no lawful reason to be asked to produce it. No law exists
allowing the police to demand an identity card.

True,but at this point in time,do we not use photo drivers licenses for
Identification?

No we don't, not all of us anyway. I don't have a driving licence. In
fact I'm not required to carry any sort of ID at all.

So who is saying all that is not still private?With checks and balances this
card should only be used in certain instances and remain private to everyone
except police/courts/doctors/customs or similar people/agencies

All I will say is, you are very trusting of the Government and of all
the people and companies who will have access to the (very valuable)
data.

At the moment we have my favourite check and balance in place; it's
called "not having a National Identity Register". Given that ID cards
would have few if any benefits to the populace, I don't see why we
should accept any change to this state of affairs.