The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Very interesting story I saw on BBC last night, I'll post their story from the website here.
Compulsory ID card scheme on course for Parliament
The controversial plan is set for the next session of Parliament, introducing the possibility of mandatory identity cards containing biometric information and tied to a central database
Compulsory biometric ID cards and a central database of all UK citizens could be created by 2010 under controversial legislation unveiled by the government in the Queen's speech on Wednesday.
As predicted, Home Secretary David Blunkett fought off opposition from some cabinet ministers opposed to the ID card scheme to get the draft "Identity Cards Bill" tabled for the next session of Parliament.
Underpinning the ID cards will be a central database storing information on all UK citizens, which can be used by public agencies including the police and NHS to check someone's identity.
The ID card will contain a piece of biometric information, most likely an iris or fingerprint scan, and will be combined with passports and driving licences, which will have a biometric element by 2008, according to the draft Bill.
The compulsory nature of the card, which will cost £35, will be decided in two phases. The government will have the power to mandate that an ID card is produced to use certain public services -- an element retained from Blunkett's original "entitlement" card plans.
More worrying for privacy campaigners is that the government will have the power after five years to make the carrying or production of ID cards compulsory.
As outlined previously by the Home Office it is estimated the basic system will cost £180m to set-up, finally rising to some £3bn.
David Blunkett said in a statement that ID cards will help "tackle the challenges of the 21st century" including terrorism, organised crime and illegal immigration.
"The draft Identity Cards Bill is about taking the difficult decisions now needed to prepare Britain for the future. It will set out our plans for an incremental approach to the introduction of a compulsory national identity cards scheme," he said.
Security company Ubizen, which worked on Belgium's electronic ID card scheme, said a biometric card will not tackle terrorism and crime. Bart Vansevenant, director of security strategy at Ubizen, argued the card could not stop international terrorists, who would probably enter the UK on a foreign passport anyway.
"You will not solve terrorism or immigration by introducing biometrics to a card. Why put biometrics on an ID card? It costs you a hell of a lot of money and there are equipment, support and administration problems," he said.
Vansevenant also questioned the need for a central database, as police and border control officers would be able to verify the biometric on the card to the person carrying it using an eye or fingerprint scanner. He said a central database will be a tempting target for hackers and that there should at best only be the need for a "blacklist" database of criminals and suspects to check biometric scans against.
Source: [URL]http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/legal/0,39020651,39118140,00.htm[/URL]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Opinions? Mine is, that this is paving the way for the Mark of the Beast, the fact that the Goverment want to make it compulsory by the end of the decade, is just the same logic as everyone being forced to take the Mark.
This ISN'T the Mark of the Beast, but this is tagging people, which will be similar to the Mark of the Beast.
Your thoughts?
Compulsory ID card scheme on course for Parliament
The controversial plan is set for the next session of Parliament, introducing the possibility of mandatory identity cards containing biometric information and tied to a central database
Compulsory biometric ID cards and a central database of all UK citizens could be created by 2010 under controversial legislation unveiled by the government in the Queen's speech on Wednesday.
As predicted, Home Secretary David Blunkett fought off opposition from some cabinet ministers opposed to the ID card scheme to get the draft "Identity Cards Bill" tabled for the next session of Parliament.
Underpinning the ID cards will be a central database storing information on all UK citizens, which can be used by public agencies including the police and NHS to check someone's identity.
The ID card will contain a piece of biometric information, most likely an iris or fingerprint scan, and will be combined with passports and driving licences, which will have a biometric element by 2008, according to the draft Bill.
The compulsory nature of the card, which will cost £35, will be decided in two phases. The government will have the power to mandate that an ID card is produced to use certain public services -- an element retained from Blunkett's original "entitlement" card plans.
More worrying for privacy campaigners is that the government will have the power after five years to make the carrying or production of ID cards compulsory.
As outlined previously by the Home Office it is estimated the basic system will cost £180m to set-up, finally rising to some £3bn.
David Blunkett said in a statement that ID cards will help "tackle the challenges of the 21st century" including terrorism, organised crime and illegal immigration.
"The draft Identity Cards Bill is about taking the difficult decisions now needed to prepare Britain for the future. It will set out our plans for an incremental approach to the introduction of a compulsory national identity cards scheme," he said.
Security company Ubizen, which worked on Belgium's electronic ID card scheme, said a biometric card will not tackle terrorism and crime. Bart Vansevenant, director of security strategy at Ubizen, argued the card could not stop international terrorists, who would probably enter the UK on a foreign passport anyway.
"You will not solve terrorism or immigration by introducing biometrics to a card. Why put biometrics on an ID card? It costs you a hell of a lot of money and there are equipment, support and administration problems," he said.
Vansevenant also questioned the need for a central database, as police and border control officers would be able to verify the biometric on the card to the person carrying it using an eye or fingerprint scanner. He said a central database will be a tempting target for hackers and that there should at best only be the need for a "blacklist" database of criminals and suspects to check biometric scans against.
Source: [URL]http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/legal/0,39020651,39118140,00.htm[/URL]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Opinions? Mine is, that this is paving the way for the Mark of the Beast, the fact that the Goverment want to make it compulsory by the end of the decade, is just the same logic as everyone being forced to take the Mark.
This ISN'T the Mark of the Beast, but this is tagging people, which will be similar to the Mark of the Beast.
Your thoughts?
Page:
Forest Fan wrote:
> In this issue?
See below.
> In this issue?
See below.
Edgy wrote:
> It is quite interesting Forest Fan that you wish to drop a subject by
> having the last word.
Not really - I just thought seeing as we had both expressed equal opinions.
>
> Maybe you've realised what I have just picked up upon and want me to
> discontinue.
Not really - just thought this conversation has been discussed long enough.
>
> Tough luck because I am going to go along with it anyway.
OK - fine by me, we'll stick with the issue.
>
> "Common Sense" - A sense that is common between the
> majority.
>
> Considering you are the minority Forest Fan, over many issues in this
> forum, Forest Fan, I believe it is you who is lacking the common
> sense.
In this issue?
> It is quite interesting Forest Fan that you wish to drop a subject by
> having the last word.
Not really - I just thought seeing as we had both expressed equal opinions.
>
> Maybe you've realised what I have just picked up upon and want me to
> discontinue.
Not really - just thought this conversation has been discussed long enough.
>
> Tough luck because I am going to go along with it anyway.
OK - fine by me, we'll stick with the issue.
>
> "Common Sense" - A sense that is common between the
> majority.
>
> Considering you are the minority Forest Fan, over many issues in this
> forum, Forest Fan, I believe it is you who is lacking the common
> sense.
In this issue?
I thought you were getting at the fact Forest Fan smells like wee.
Old wee.
Old tramp's wee.
Old wee.
Old tramp's wee.
But the word 'common' indicates that it is basic to the majority. That's what I was getting at.
Ashman wrote:
> Forest Fan: [URL]http://www.ryano.net/iraq/?228662[/URL]
Edgy wrote:
> "Common Sense" - A sense that is common between the majority.
Because the latter is incorrect, the former statement cannot be made.
It's the basic level of practical knowledge and judgment.
Tada.
> Forest Fan: [URL]http://www.ryano.net/iraq/?228662[/URL]
Edgy wrote:
> "Common Sense" - A sense that is common between the majority.
Because the latter is incorrect, the former statement cannot be made.
It's the basic level of practical knowledge and judgment.
Tada.
Forest Fan: [URL]http://www.ryano.net/iraq/?228662[/URL]
It is quite interesting Forest Fan that you wish to drop a subject by having the last word.
Maybe you've realised what I have just picked up upon and want me to discontinue.
Tough luck because I am going to go along with it anyway.
"Common Sense" - A sense that is common between the majority.
Considering you are the minority Forest Fan, over many issues in this forum, Forest Fan, I believe it is you who is lacking the common sense.
Maybe you've realised what I have just picked up upon and want me to discontinue.
Tough luck because I am going to go along with it anyway.
"Common Sense" - A sense that is common between the majority.
Considering you are the minority Forest Fan, over many issues in this forum, Forest Fan, I believe it is you who is lacking the common sense.
Edgy wrote:
> "Common" sense.
>
> Interesting...
Do you want to let this conversation ramble on or shall we drop the subject?
> "Common" sense.
>
> Interesting...
Do you want to let this conversation ramble on or shall we drop the subject?
"Common" sense.
Interesting...
Interesting...
Edgy wrote:
> Oh no - you can't turn this one around - you said, "No one person
> can determine"
>
> Suggesting that no one person can determine whatever the variables
> are.
>
> So don't think you've made a point against me - you're just trying to
> sound clever to cover your tracks.
>
> It doesn't fool me, and I doubt it fools the other members here too.
Not really - there is no defined solution is all I am saying - but common sense can help when trying to determine whether it is fact or speculation.
> Oh no - you can't turn this one around - you said, "No one person
> can determine"
>
> Suggesting that no one person can determine whatever the variables
> are.
>
> So don't think you've made a point against me - you're just trying to
> sound clever to cover your tracks.
>
> It doesn't fool me, and I doubt it fools the other members here too.
Not really - there is no defined solution is all I am saying - but common sense can help when trying to determine whether it is fact or speculation.
Page: