The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
> But please, share the joke.
That you're a snake? Er.. ok.
> But please, share the joke.
That you're a snake? Er.. ok.
Forest Fan wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> 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.
"Could" yes, "Will" no.
We could have a terrorist attack a week next tuesday, but it may not (and hopefully wont) happen.
The governement even stated we would have a referendum on joining the Euro back in 1997 if they got voted into power.
Has that happened?
It's all politics Forest Fan - don't get involved unless you can even grasp the basics.
Forest Fan wrote:
>
> And your squirming to deny Biblical truths is hilarious too!
squirm ( P ) Pronunciation Key (skwûrm)
intr.v. squirmed, squirm·ing, squirms
To twist about in a wriggling, snakelike motion; writhe.
To feel or exhibit signs of humiliation or embarrassment
I believe you're the one in a state of humiliation, or possibly embarrassment that you're becoming the victim of your own attempts to match a vague possibility with a prophecy.
As for the wriggling in a snakelike motion...well that's for me to know and you never to find out...
But please, share the joke.
> Forest Fan wrote:
> 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.
"Could" yes, "Will" no.
We could have a terrorist attack a week next tuesday, but it may not (and hopefully wont) happen.
The governement even stated we would have a referendum on joining the Euro back in 1997 if they got voted into power.
Has that happened?
It's all politics Forest Fan - don't get involved unless you can even grasp the basics.
Forest Fan wrote:
>
> And your squirming to deny Biblical truths is hilarious too!
squirm ( P ) Pronunciation Key (skwûrm)
intr.v. squirmed, squirm·ing, squirms
To twist about in a wriggling, snakelike motion; writhe.
To feel or exhibit signs of humiliation or embarrassment
I believe you're the one in a state of humiliation, or possibly embarrassment that you're becoming the victim of your own attempts to match a vague possibility with a prophecy.
As for the wriggling in a snakelike motion...well that's for me to know and you never to find out...
But please, share the joke.
Edgy wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> In a shop, if it was via the hand they would scan it for you, but if
> it was via the head you would scan it. Essentially the cashiers need
> to know whether to hand you the scanner or not, it's not a big issue
> though.
>
> Where do you base this idea from?
>
> This kind of speculation without anything to back it up at all is
> hilarious!
And your squirming to deny Biblical truths is hilarious too!
> Forest Fan wrote:
> In a shop, if it was via the hand they would scan it for you, but if
> it was via the head you would scan it. Essentially the cashiers need
> to know whether to hand you the scanner or not, it's not a big issue
> though.
>
> Where do you base this idea from?
>
> This kind of speculation without anything to back it up at all is
> hilarious!
And your squirming to deny Biblical truths is hilarious too!
Forest Fan wrote:
> 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.
> 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.
Forest Fan wrote:
> In a shop, if it was via the hand they would scan it for you, but if
> it was via the head you would scan it. Essentially the cashiers need
> to know whether to hand you the scanner or not, it's not a big issue
> though.
Where do you base this idea from?
This kind of speculation without anything to back it up at all is hilarious!
> In a shop, if it was via the hand they would scan it for you, but if
> it was via the head you would scan it. Essentially the cashiers need
> to know whether to hand you the scanner or not, it's not a big issue
> though.
Where do you base this idea from?
This kind of speculation without anything to back it up at all is hilarious!
Silent Thunder: Forest Fan is trying to get this all to fit in with the "Mark of the Beast" prophecy.
In doing so he has already contradicted himself by saying "It needs to be noticed, but it wont be noticable."
He has also tried to convince himself that the forehead would be a logical place, when, for practicality reasons, it would not.
If you get infection from the implantation in your hand, it can easily be sorted, but in the forehead you are close to the brain, the eyes and the danger becomes more substancial.
He is now getting himself worked up (which is more than amusing) and is making that ever so much more evident with the "Well it is, so there!" comments (or as he put it, "Well it is, so get over it"). He knows he's wrong and he can't get around it without resorting to behaviour of a little child.
According to BBC news, Blunkett has suggested these cards will be voluntary and tested over three years before the government put it to a vote. So it may never become compulsary.
And do you honestly believe that the government would be quick enough to introduce the chipping of humans? They would have to time it right in their political careers as that is an even more controversial step which is likely to kick them out of power.
Think about it logically Forest Fan, don't try to rush in Bible prophecies until they've happened.
In doing so he has already contradicted himself by saying "It needs to be noticed, but it wont be noticable."
He has also tried to convince himself that the forehead would be a logical place, when, for practicality reasons, it would not.
If you get infection from the implantation in your hand, it can easily be sorted, but in the forehead you are close to the brain, the eyes and the danger becomes more substancial.
He is now getting himself worked up (which is more than amusing) and is making that ever so much more evident with the "Well it is, so there!" comments (or as he put it, "Well it is, so get over it"). He knows he's wrong and he can't get around it without resorting to behaviour of a little child.
According to BBC news, Blunkett has suggested these cards will be voluntary and tested over three years before the government put it to a vote. So it may never become compulsary.
And do you honestly believe that the government would be quick enough to introduce the chipping of humans? They would have to time it right in their political careers as that is an even more controversial step which is likely to kick them out of power.
Think about it logically Forest Fan, don't try to rush in Bible prophecies until they've happened.
In a shop, if it was via the hand they would scan it for you, but if it was via the head you would scan it. Essentially the cashiers need to know whether to hand you the scanner or not, it's not a big issue though.
Forest Fan wrote:
> Edgy wrote:
> But if you purchase stuff using your credit card over the net,
> surely
> that doesn't need to be visible then?
>
> Doesn't.
>
> Forest Fan, I have worked in various retail stores before and can
> tell you now, you do not need to see the card to accept a
> transaction
> on it.
>
> When I worked for a finance company, all we needed was the card no.
> end date and in some cases the issue no. or the start date.
>
> Most retailers accept transactions over the phone too.
>
> The only reason retailers like to see the cards is to check the
> security features upon them - such as the hologram, the raised
> lettering (such as V for Visa), the signature, the signature digits,
> etc.
>
> If it was done via a single chip, then why would it need to be
> visible?
>
> As I have already explained it won't even be very noticable. Just
> accept it!
WHAT?! You said it Needs to be visible, so answer the question; Why does it need to be Visible?
> Edgy wrote:
> But if you purchase stuff using your credit card over the net,
> surely
> that doesn't need to be visible then?
>
> Doesn't.
>
> Forest Fan, I have worked in various retail stores before and can
> tell you now, you do not need to see the card to accept a
> transaction
> on it.
>
> When I worked for a finance company, all we needed was the card no.
> end date and in some cases the issue no. or the start date.
>
> Most retailers accept transactions over the phone too.
>
> The only reason retailers like to see the cards is to check the
> security features upon them - such as the hologram, the raised
> lettering (such as V for Visa), the signature, the signature digits,
> etc.
>
> If it was done via a single chip, then why would it need to be
> visible?
>
> As I have already explained it won't even be very noticable. Just
> accept it!
WHAT?! You said it Needs to be visible, so answer the question; Why does it need to be Visible?
Edgy wrote:
> But if you purchase stuff using your credit card over the net, surely
> that doesn't need to be visible then?
Doesn't.
>
> Forest Fan, I have worked in various retail stores before and can
> tell you now, you do not need to see the card to accept a transaction
> on it.
>
> When I worked for a finance company, all we needed was the card no.
> end date and in some cases the issue no. or the start date.
>
> Most retailers accept transactions over the phone too.
>
> The only reason retailers like to see the cards is to check the
> security features upon them - such as the hologram, the raised
> lettering (such as V for Visa), the signature, the signature digits,
> etc.
>
> If it was done via a single chip, then why would it need to be
> visible?
As I have already explained it won't even be very noticable. Just accept it!
> But if you purchase stuff using your credit card over the net, surely
> that doesn't need to be visible then?
Doesn't.
>
> Forest Fan, I have worked in various retail stores before and can
> tell you now, you do not need to see the card to accept a transaction
> on it.
>
> When I worked for a finance company, all we needed was the card no.
> end date and in some cases the issue no. or the start date.
>
> Most retailers accept transactions over the phone too.
>
> The only reason retailers like to see the cards is to check the
> security features upon them - such as the hologram, the raised
> lettering (such as V for Visa), the signature, the signature digits,
> etc.
>
> If it was done via a single chip, then why would it need to be
> visible?
As I have already explained it won't even be very noticable. Just accept it!
Edgy wrote:
> I seriously can't imagine that happening.
People in the early 1940's could never of dreamed about Israel becoming a state again, but it was prophesised in the Bible. Many believed all the Jews in the world would eventually be wiped out, let alone them having their own independent state.
>
> What is likely to happen is that a scanner will be as part of the
> counter you pay for your goods at - it would then be a case of moving
> your hand over it.
>
> Can you honestly imagine scanning your head?
Yep.
>
> I still think you're only mentioning the forehead to try to focus on
> a Bible prophecy.
Nope, the upper forehead and hand are both feasible places.
> I seriously can't imagine that happening.
People in the early 1940's could never of dreamed about Israel becoming a state again, but it was prophesised in the Bible. Many believed all the Jews in the world would eventually be wiped out, let alone them having their own independent state.
>
> What is likely to happen is that a scanner will be as part of the
> counter you pay for your goods at - it would then be a case of moving
> your hand over it.
>
> Can you honestly imagine scanning your head?
Yep.
>
> I still think you're only mentioning the forehead to try to focus on
> a Bible prophecy.
Nope, the upper forehead and hand are both feasible places.
Page: