The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Edgy wrote:
> geffdof - if you fully read this thread you will have noticed I stated
> that it may never happen (thus admitting that I don't know
> everything).
>
> Forest Fan, however, seems to believe that it is directly related to
> the bible and that chips will happen.
>
I supose im on your side with this then. I think is all pretty insignificant compared to whats in the bible anyway.
> geffdof - if you fully read this thread you will have noticed I stated
> that it may never happen (thus admitting that I don't know
> everything).
>
> Forest Fan, however, seems to believe that it is directly related to
> the bible and that chips will happen.
>
I supose im on your side with this then. I think is all pretty insignificant compared to whats in the bible anyway.
No.
FinalFantasyFanatic wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> And your squirming to deny Biblical truths is hilarious too!
>
> Forest Fan wrote:
> It wasn't 'spose to be funny.
>
> Er ...
> The word 'hilarious' kind of hints that it was.
Figuritively...
> Forest Fan wrote:
> And your squirming to deny Biblical truths is hilarious too!
>
> Forest Fan wrote:
> It wasn't 'spose to be funny.
>
> Er ...
> The word 'hilarious' kind of hints that it was.
Figuritively...
Edgy wrote:
(despite everyone who reads this clealy
> seeing it is yourself trying to get out of the position you've dug
> yourself into).
Yep, chystal clear.
It's embarrassing really Forest Fan (the denial), As Edgy said you are presenting yourself as a child.
No-one really cares to be honest, its only a forum, so how about doing the adultly thing?
Pffftt fat chance of that.
(despite everyone who reads this clealy
> seeing it is yourself trying to get out of the position you've dug
> yourself into).
Yep, chystal clear.
It's embarrassing really Forest Fan (the denial), As Edgy said you are presenting yourself as a child.
No-one really cares to be honest, its only a forum, so how about doing the adultly thing?
Pffftt fat chance of that.
geffdof - if you fully read this thread you will have noticed I stated that it may never happen (thus admitting that I don't know everything).
Forest Fan, however, seems to believe that it is directly related to the bible and that chips will happen.
Forest Fan - what do you think the word 'hilarious' means?
Forest Fan, however, seems to believe that it is directly related to the bible and that chips will happen.
Forest Fan - what do you think the word 'hilarious' means?
Forest Fan wrote:
> And your squirming to deny Biblical truths is hilarious too!
Forest Fan wrote:
> It wasn't 'spose to be funny.
Er ...
The word 'hilarious' kind of hints that it was.
> And your squirming to deny Biblical truths is hilarious too!
Forest Fan wrote:
> It wasn't 'spose to be funny.
Er ...
The word 'hilarious' kind of hints that it was.
Cant you just both admit that neither of you know what is going to happen.
The bible quote does have similarities to the whole microchip idea but it isnt completely the same. You both have valid points and are both too stubborn to see that.
The bible quote does have similarities to the whole microchip idea but it isnt completely the same. You both have valid points and are both too stubborn to see that.
It wasn't 'spose to be funny.
You can't even grasp simple text, let alone the more complex stuff. When you read, do you read like children do as they're learning to read? As that's the way you seem to present yourself.
I'll spell it out for you:
You claimed I was 'squirming' (despite everyone who reads this clealy seeing it is yourself trying to get out of the position you've dug yourself into). You thought it was funny.
I'd like you to share the joke.
I'll spell it out for you:
You claimed I was 'squirming' (despite everyone who reads this clealy seeing it is yourself trying to get out of the position you've dug yourself into). You thought it was funny.
I'd like you to share the joke.
Edgy wrote:
>
> As for the wriggling in a snakelike motion...well that's for me to
> know and you never to find out...
:D
>
> As for the wriggling in a snakelike motion...well that's for me to
> know and you never to find out...
:D
Page: