Topic awaiting preservation: Papers please... achtung!

In a first, Britons may have to carry IDs

This sounds like a pretty big move. Does this have our Brit inmates concerned? This is going to make it much easier for the government to invade the privacy of its citizens. I mean having a national database even if its limited in the early stages will most certainly be expanded later as people get more and more used to it.

I'm not saying it's not necessary but it is definitely worrying.


. . : DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

It has me concerned for a whole raft of reasons:

1. They are trying to use the trumped up issues of asylum seekers and The War Agianst Terror to make people think this is a good idea.

2. It has been so thoroughly down played by David Blunkett - who says it won't be widespread for 10 years and will probably hold less information than a supermarket loyalty card.

That said they are pretty common on the continent so why not?

Some reactions:

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,11026,1203810,00.html

and this is what causes me concern:

quote:

---

Privacy International, civil liberties watchdog
Director Simon Davies described the draft legislation as "draconian and dangerous and a disgrace to democracy."

"Of particular concern is the fact that the secretary of state has the power to make orders to change almost every element of the proposed system. This includes the minimum age of a cardholder (currently 16), the information on the card, the uses for the card and the organisations empowered to use it."

---

If he hadn't been making it out to be nothing I wouldn't be so suspicious but it could clearyl start out as a fairly minor deal but be ramped up rapidly to being quite a serious issue - the ramping up will also more than likely take place during some kind of manufactured period of raised concern.

Other news:

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,11026,1203746,00.html

http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,9830,1203688,00.html

I suppose my concerns are that it would inolve massive costs (both financially and for our freedoms - not that techncially we have many as we are subjects and not citizens) with no obvious benefits and the possibility that it could go very wrong in the future (a national DNA database has greater benefits but also causes me sleepless nights).

[edit: I am also amused by David Blunkett's migration form the far left to what some kind of right of centre position - how times change - if the Tories had tried this there would have been riots!!]

---------------------------
And I thought this was going to be about Richard Desomond's outrageous outburst the other day

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org | Justice for Pat Richard | FAQs: Emperor | Site Reviews | Reception Room

(Edited by Emperor on 04-26-2004 17:53)

Well I certainly hope if they do this they use an XML database like Tamino for a backend, just so it is easier to share everyone's private information with other systems and applications.

Interoperability and platform independence is just as important in an abusive and oppressive application deployment as in any other program.

After all, just because something is moraly repugnant that shouldn't be a built in excuse for shoddy coding.....

I think we have to get used to this sort of technology keeping track of all of us. We then have to find new ways of ensuring rights recognizing the days of complete anonymity have gone the way of the dodo. Our technology is racing by the law's ability to keep up. But this certainly has every mark of the laying of the police state's foundation. I'm sure many of you feel the same way about the Patriot Act over here in the States.


And I just looked up Richard Desmond and found this:

quote:

---

Richard Desmond, however, has become the latest member of the Class of the classless. Indeed, his 'classmates' may well elect him their leader after a board meeting Thursday, when the 'King of Porn' launched into a 4-minute racist outburst in front of Telegraph Newspaper executives, which included:

• beginning the meeting by greeting Jeremy Deedes, the Telegraph chief executive, with "Guten morgen", (German for good morning);
• asking the Telegraph Group directors about being "owned by Nazis"
• calling Telegraph directors "fucking cunts" and "fucking wankers"
• strutting up and down the board room, holding two fingers to his lips, impersonating Basil Fawlty's now famous goose-stepping scene in TV comedy 'Fawlty Towers';
• asking Telegraph chief executive, Jeremy Deedes to "come outside and sort it out", when he was asked to calm down;
• calling the Hollinger executives "crooks" and branded Deedes a "miserable little piece of shit"; and if that wasn't enough...
• saying Germans were "all Nazis"

According to reports, after his 4-minute rant?as the Telegraph executives left the meeting in disgust?Desmond commanded his senior 'Express executives', including managing director Martin Ellice, finance director Rob Sanderson and publishing director Chris Haslum, to sing the German national anthem Deutschland uber Alles. Witnesses said they made Nazi-style "sieg heil" salutes as the shocked Telegraph executives left the meeting.

With politicians, advertisers and readers rapidly distancing themselves from the man and his newspaper, it shouldn't be too long before Desmond, a wannbe media mogul, can swap his Porn King title for a more appropriate moniker: Desmond, 'King of Krass.

---

I particularly like the Basil Fawlty bit


. . : DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

To me it would be just another thing to carry around. As far as I'm concerned, the United States government is already able to obtain medical, financial, criminal, or any other records of importance. Who knows, if it were implimented here in the states it might speed the justice system up a tad.

Bandwagon American Since 9/11/01

Hmm... biometric ID card... interesting...

Probably a bit odd if you're not used to carrying ID, but in the US, we've had to do so for years. Currently, the NC state driver's license has a barcode on the back of it that allows an officer to swipe it into their onboard pc and instantly bring up your driving records, and probably any criminal or arrest records you might have.

I don't think I'd get really excited about a new form of ID, unless it replaced all current forms of ID (driver's license, social security card, passport, etc) and rolled them up into one thing to carry around! (I'm with Jestah on that one!) Who knows, with all this talk of rampant identity theft in the US right now, something with retinal scans, digital fingerprints and whatnot might be next on the government's list of "Things To Do". I wouldn't be surprised in the least.

And Jestah's right, the US government can pretty much get their hands on any records they want on a person these days... even with the new HIPA laws, I don't think even personal medical records are entirely private.

On a related note, there's currently a U.S. Supreme Court case that was just argued (judgement pending) on the necessity of showing I.D. to a police officer and whether refusal to show ID is probable cause for arrest.


Read all about it here

Interesting stuff.



.:[ Never resist a perfect moment ]:.

(Edited by bitdamaged on 04-27-2004 09:38)

Ok - that's just f***ed up.

I guess they're going on the assumption that if you're unwilling to show who you are, you must have something to hide.

I'm pretty sure that the rule "innocent until proven guilty", not "guilty until proven innocent"... Some people should not have power...

That's what checks and balances are supposed to remedy, bodhi23. We have to be very careful to maintain a healthy system of them if we plan on retaining any shred of freedom in the coming generations.


. . : DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

I watched the video and read the transcript but I don't see any problems. The officer was extremely accommodating to both father and daughter.

I think the officers handled the daughter properly. I don't know if charges should have been brought against her, as we don't have the entire video, but she should have been restrained the way she was. I'm aware its a tense situation but you can't charge an officer while he's arresting someone, even if that person is your father. What would have happened if she had a gun?

I also don't know what the fathers complaint is. He must have yelled to the officer a dozen times to cuff him and take him to jail. So the police officer did just that. As far as I'm concerned if you want to mouth off to a police officer you deserve what you get.

Bandwagon American Since 9/11/01

Just read the transcript, the facts, the case and watched the video ... all I have to say is that Deputy Lee Dove and his 2 colleagues are some real assholes. Why the hell didn't he exposed the reasons leading him to 'investigate' specifically on Dudley Hiibel, and why didn't he took care of the girl supposed to be victim of violence ( from 'a man with a black cowboy hat' ) in the car. On the other hand, Deputy Lee Dove must be extremely stupid to ask repeatedly Dudley Hiibel to show his ID since he answered 'No' when asked if he had an ID on him. Not to mention the 2 state troopers who prefered to use the violence on the 17yo girl instead of explaining her what was going on and why it was going on that way.

Its funny how different people see different things.

Through reading the background information given by the website and the reactions from other inmates, I fully expected to see out of control cops, a calm and cool suspect, and a girl being beaten. Instead I saw a group of calm, understanding state troopers, an uncooperative suspect mouthing off at the officer on the scene, and a girl going bonkers.

Personally, I think suspects should have to show ID when asked by an officer. Take the scenario bit linked to. It wasn't as though this gentleman was walking down the street minding his own business and a squad car pulled over and threw him to the ground. The police were called in to investigate a domestic dispute. I would imagine an officer arriving at a crime would act very differently depending on who was involved. For example, if Mr. Hiibel allowed the officer to see his ID so he could run it and it came up with no real blemishes on his record, I'd bet he would have spoken to his daughter, realized it wasn't anything serious, and sent the two of them on their way. On the other hand, if Mr. Hiibel gave the officer his ID to run and it came back that he's been in and out of jail since childhood and he's been a suspect in several kidnappings in New Jersey, things probably would have been handled very differently.

Of course, Mr. Hiibel didn't show his ID and was arrested. He probably spent a night in jail and as well as paying his $250 fine, he's had to spend a lot of time and money on a lawyer to appeal his case. What could he have done to avoid all of this? Swallowed his pride, forked over his ID to the officer, and explained the situation.

Bandwagon American Since 9/11/01

I bothered to post my thoughts since I have a different opinion than you. It's more interresting than a one way discussion.

Of course the situation went out of proportions but both Dudley Hiibel and Deputy Lee Dove are to blame here. The deputy constantly asked for an ID while Mr. Hiibel had answered him he didn't have one on him. On the other hand I agree that Mr. Hiibel should have been a bit more respectful of the police officer. But I can't help thinking that it is the role of the police officer to act with diplomacy, respect and firmness ( when necessary ) toward the citizens to avoid such usual situation to go crazy. He could have explained exactly ( and not by some 'I'm investigating an investigation' crap ) why he wanted to check the ID, explained why he wanted Mr Hiibel to stay 'over here' before grabbing his arm ( he could have argued it was for Mr Hiibel's safety because of the cars passing on the road nearby ), checked the number of the car, asked the girl her name, if she was ok, what was going on ...

Now, on the topic of having an ID, in France we are used to have one. And if you don't, you generally have a driver's licence or a passport to officially identify yourself. Thus I see no problem with having one, and since the technology allow some solid ways to avoid counterfeit of IDs, why not using them. In 26 years I've been asked my ID only once by a policeman, and ~5 times by some agents in the trains to check if I really had the age for a discount on the ticket.