UK ID Card Bill

The ID Card Bill has been unveiled on Tuesday during the Queen's Speech. I am very against this, because I do not think it's going to combat Terrorism or Immigration in any way. I think it's just a waste of money that the government to spend on. To be honest, I would rather spend millions of pounds on the NHS than this.

More here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4554827.stm

*boo!* *hiss!*

It's not a waste of money, it's a backdoor way of creating a centralised database of biometric data that in the future the police will be allowed to access for whatever purposes they see fit.

I think forcing people to have an ID card is cheek in iteself, but I wouldn't get too hot under the collar about that. It's the database that bothers me. I haven't seen any justification for this database in any of the proposals. A centralised database is not necessary for an ID card scheme to work. The card identifies me as a citizen. What's needed on top of that is a means to ensure that I am the rightful holder of the card. Plain old photographs are good enough most of the time - you'd encode a copy of the photograph onto the chip in the card to prevent tampering. If biometrics were deemed necessary then again, all that's needed is to encode the data on the card itself in a way that can't be tampered with. There's no need to have all that data in a central database although I'm sure the police would love to have the fingerprints of every citizen on file for instant recall.

I was speaking to a CID guy I know and he says he can't wait until we all have these ID cards because then they will be able to figure out who anyone they arrest are and arrest anyone without valid ID.

All things considered, I think a national DNA database would be a good thing, what with solving crimes and preventing miscarriages of justice.

I'd be happy for the government to have my DNA, but why do I get the feeling they'll outsource it to some private company who'll then use it for less-than-ethical purposes?

W3bbo wrote:

I'd be happy for the government to have my DNA, but why do I get the feeling they'll outsource it to some private company who'll then use it for less-than-ethical purposes?

DNA privacy is interesting when you start thinking about health insurance.

W3bbo wrote:

All things considered, I think a national DNA database would be a good thing, what with solving crimes and preventing miscarriages of justice.

I'd be happy for the government to have my DNA, but why do I get the feeling they'll outsource it to some private company who'll then use it for less-than-ethical purposes?

Are you worried about W3bbo clones?

I know I am

Maurits wrote:

DNA privacy is interesting when you start thinking about health insurance.

Yeah. My GP told me that health insurance companies have access to your record after I asked him about having a HIV test done (after I got jabbed by something!!)

Doesn't seem right, does it?

W3bbo wrote:

All things considered, I think a national DNA database would be a good thing, what with solving crimes and preventing miscarriages of justice.

I'd be happy for the government to have my DNA, but why do I get the feeling they'll outsource it to some private company who'll then use it for less-than-ethical purposes?

That's just one of the concerns. DNA is the last thing the govt. should have on file. It's the most revealing and the only bit of biometrics you can't change at all.

Sure, like fingerprints, the police would love to have a database of everyone's DNA but don't you think even for a minute this will lead to conviction by computer? The presence of your DNA at a crime scene will having the police breaking down your door soon enough (esp. as they're going to want up-to-date addresses for everyone as well) and god help you if you're the only suspect for the crime.

At the moment forensics are used mainly as evidence against suspects. In the future forensics will be used to produce the list of suspects. That will lead to far more miscarages of justice, not fewer.

of course it's right, if you want health insurance they need to know the risks, they're not gonna insure you for millions of pounds not knowing that you'll drop dead tomorrow.

I really cannot understand how this will improve security. I really can't see the link between identity and whether you are an evil-doer.

MichaelT wrote:

I really cannot understand how this will improve security. I really can't see the link between identity and whether you are an evil-doer.

Er...I don't agree with the concept, but here goes:

You blow something up.

Someone finds evidence that has your dna on it.

They look you up.

W3bbo wrote:

All things considered, I think a national DNA database would be a good thing, what with solving crimes and preventing miscarriages of justice.

I'd be happy for the government to have my DNA, but why do I get the feeling they'll outsource it to some private company who'll then use it for less-than-ethical purposes?

I agree. I don't care if the police want it, or the government for that matter but my issues stem from if private companies or *government employers (e.g. the police, army, MOD, BBC etc) have it. It is unfair if they ID for example a gene that is a genetic disease and thus you can't join the army for example...

And what happens if tomorrow they find a common gene in murderers are they going to start putting tags on all people with this gene? You see where I’m going with this?
 
It is the ultimate discrimination. It makes racism seem light because this isn’t *just* skin colour, this is personality, hair colour, brain chemistry, everything...

Lets say that 60% of what a person is personality wise is DNS based … That means one day in the near future the government will have 60% of what you are stored, cross referenced and before you know it you are banned from driving because of your pre-requisite for speeding. 

If it was *just finger prints, irus scan and other public information (e.g. hair colour, skin colour, eye colour, gender etc) then my only issue would be that it is a waste of public money. Not any privacy concerns.
 

Manip wrote:

W3bbo wrote: All things considered, I think a national DNA database would be a good thing, what with solving crimes and preventing miscarriages of justice. I'd be happy for the government to have my DNA, but why do I get the feeling they'll outsource it to some private company who'll then use it for less-than-ethical purposes?

I agree. I don't care if the police want it, or the government for that matter but my issues stem from if private companies or *government employers (e.g. the police, army, MOD, BBC etc) have it. It is unfair if they ID for example a gene that is a genetic disease and thus you can't join the army for example...

And what happens if tomorrow they find a common gene in murderers are they going to start putting tags on all people with this gene? You see where I’m going with this? It is the ultimate discrimination. It makes racism seem light because this isn’t *just* skin colour, this is personality, hair colour, everything... Lets say that 60% of what a person is personality wise is DNS based … That means one day in the near future the government will have 60% of what you are stored, cross referenced and before you know it you are banned from driving because of your pre-requisite for speeding. 

 

OK, but what if they find that a certain gene in your DNA gives you a 99.9999999% chance of speeding?

Besides, from what I've read, all genes do is tell your body how to create proteins.  They don't set your mood or change your lifestyle, but the proteins that get created give you a better or worse chance of having a trait. 

ScanIAm wrote:

OK, but what if they find that a certain gene in your DNA gives you a 99.9999999% chance of speeding?

So you are suggesting these people be banned from driving? Or given a ticket every week? Or shot and killed so they are taken out of the DNA pool? WHAT ARE YOU SUGGESTING HAPPENS?

*cough* Hitler *cough*

Manip wrote:

ScanIAm wrote: OK, but what if they find that a certain gene in your DNA gives you a 99.9999999% chance of speeding?

So you are suggesting these people be banned from driving? Or given a ticket every week? Or shot and killed so they are taken out of the DNA pool? WHAT ARE YOU SUGGESTING HAPPENS?

*cough* Hitler *cough*

*cough* overacting *cough*

Use some logic in this:  In order for it to 99.999999% likely that you will speed, it will have been researched in such a way that everyone with this gene will speed.  If speeding is a behaviour that cannot be tolerated, then you lose your license. 

If I have a 99.99999% genetic disposition towards taking a dirt-nap if I eat seafood, do you think it would be wise for me to be given free reign at the seafood bar?

Manip wrote:

I agree. I don't care if the police want it, or the government for that matter but my issues stem from if private companies or *government employers (e.g. the police, army, MOD, BBC etc) have it. It is unfair if they ID for example a gene that is a genetic disease and thus you can't join the army for example...

That would be a good thing... Plenty of people get turned away from the Army anyway, but the detection of medical problems before they happen would be a good thing.

Face it, a soldier with Ataxia or Cystic Fybrosis is not a good thing.

Manip wrote:

And what happens if tomorrow they find a common gene in murderers are they going to start putting tags on all people with this gene? You see where I’m going with this?

It's biologically impossible for such a gene to exist, but something to what you're describing does exist, such as a genome that makes oneself more aggressive, but that's practically 10% of the population or so.

This "agression" genome would be for spur-of-the-moment attacks, most murders thesedays are premediated.

But yeah, I see where you're getting at, but even if it was like that, I doubt that even if David Blunkett was Prime Minister we'd have anything as draconian as this.
 

Manip wrote:

It is the ultimate discrimination. It makes racism seem light because this isn’t *just* skin colour, this is personality, hair colour, brain chemistry, everything...

Discrimination based on ability is a good thing, DNA and genes show abilities. Skin-colour isn't an ability.

Prejudice.. however, I won't stand for.

Manip wrote:

Lets say that 60% of what a person is personality wise is DNS based …

I wonder if my personality is also integrated into LDAP

Manip wrote:

That means one day in the near future the government will have 60% of what you are stored, cross referenced and before you know it you are banned from driving because of your pre-requisite for speeding.

Your genes make up a very small percentile of "what you are" as a person, like 97% of it I'd say is based on environment and nurture.

Manip wrote:

If it was *just finger prints, irus scan and other public information (e.g. hair colour, skin colour, eye colour, gender etc) then my only issue would be that it is a waste of public money. Not any privacy concerns.  

How about just taking the DNA of already convicted criminals?

W3bbo wrote:

How about just taking the DNA of already convicted criminals?

In the US, we take dna from convicted felons.