The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
But if you purchase stuff using your credit card over the net, surely that doesn't need to be visible then?
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?
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?
Silën† Thundêr wrote:
> Silën† Thundêr wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Edgy wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Edgy wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
>
> They need to be noticed if they are to stand up and scan their
> forehead or simply scan their right hand.
>
> Forest Fan - They would not need to be noticed. If they were
> inserted
> into the hand, then simply moving the hand over the scanner would be
> sufficient.
>
> Or are you thinking that they should all display
> Switch/Visa/Mastercard logos?
>
> They won't be particularly noticable. Just a small dent on your
> right
> hand or forehead - no bigger then a large vein.
>
> No no no! You said:
>
> Forest Fan wrote:
>
> They need to be noticed
>
> So why the sudden change of tune?
>
> What I am trying to say is they will just about be visible - they
> will not be lumps on your head or hand, a minor bump - that will be
> noticable but not freakishly large. Make sense?
> >
> >
> But why say, "They need to be noticed"?
>
> *ahem*
Because just like your credit card needs to actually be visible to the naked eye - so will the chip.
ANSWERED.
> Silën† Thundêr wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Edgy wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Edgy wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
>
> They need to be noticed if they are to stand up and scan their
> forehead or simply scan their right hand.
>
> Forest Fan - They would not need to be noticed. If they were
> inserted
> into the hand, then simply moving the hand over the scanner would be
> sufficient.
>
> Or are you thinking that they should all display
> Switch/Visa/Mastercard logos?
>
> They won't be particularly noticable. Just a small dent on your
> right
> hand or forehead - no bigger then a large vein.
>
> No no no! You said:
>
> Forest Fan wrote:
>
> They need to be noticed
>
> So why the sudden change of tune?
>
> What I am trying to say is they will just about be visible - they
> will not be lumps on your head or hand, a minor bump - that will be
> noticable but not freakishly large. Make sense?
> >
> >
> But why say, "They need to be noticed"?
>
> *ahem*
Because just like your credit card needs to actually be visible to the naked eye - so will the chip.
ANSWERED.
It was worth a try. :-(
Silën† Thundêr wrote:
...
You really think he'll answer that?
He purposely ignores stuff like that to suit him.
...
You really think he'll answer that?
He purposely ignores stuff like that to suit him.
I seriously can't imagine that happening.
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?
I still think you're only mentioning the forehead to try to focus on a Bible prophecy.
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?
I still think you're only mentioning the forehead to try to focus on a Bible prophecy.
Silën† Thundêr wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Edgy wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Edgy wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
>
> They need to be noticed if they are to stand up and scan their
> forehead or simply scan their right hand.
>
> Forest Fan - They would not need to be noticed. If they were
> inserted
> into the hand, then simply moving the hand over the scanner would be
> sufficient.
>
> Or are you thinking that they should all display
> Switch/Visa/Mastercard logos?
>
> They won't be particularly noticable. Just a small dent on your
> right
> hand or forehead - no bigger then a large vein.
>
> No no no! You said:
>
> Forest Fan wrote:
>
> They need to be noticed
>
> So why the sudden change of tune?
>
> What I am trying to say is they will just about be visible - they
> will not be lumps on your head or hand, a minor bump - that will be
> noticable but not freakishly large. Make sense?
>
>
> But why say, "They need to be noticed"?
*ahem*
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Edgy wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Edgy wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
>
> They need to be noticed if they are to stand up and scan their
> forehead or simply scan their right hand.
>
> Forest Fan - They would not need to be noticed. If they were
> inserted
> into the hand, then simply moving the hand over the scanner would be
> sufficient.
>
> Or are you thinking that they should all display
> Switch/Visa/Mastercard logos?
>
> They won't be particularly noticable. Just a small dent on your
> right
> hand or forehead - no bigger then a large vein.
>
> No no no! You said:
>
> Forest Fan wrote:
>
> They need to be noticed
>
> So why the sudden change of tune?
>
> What I am trying to say is they will just about be visible - they
> will not be lumps on your head or hand, a minor bump - that will be
> noticable but not freakishly large. Make sense?
>
>
> But why say, "They need to be noticed"?
*ahem*
Edgy wrote:
> I'm not talking about them getting noticed - I was referring to
> practical uses - or are you trying to twist things to match a certain
> book?
What about practical uses? They'll simply hand you over the scanner and you'll scan your head, just as they hand over a receipt and you sign your receipt.
> I'm not talking about them getting noticed - I was referring to
> practical uses - or are you trying to twist things to match a certain
> book?
What about practical uses? They'll simply hand you over the scanner and you'll scan your head, just as they hand over a receipt and you sign your receipt.
I'm not talking about them getting noticed - I was referring to practical uses - or are you trying to twist things to match a certain book?
Edgy wrote:
> But for practicality reasons, the forehead would be an illogical
> choice.
Not at all. The forehead would actually be LESS noticable than the right hand, because it would be just under the hairline, hence hair could flap over it.
> But for practicality reasons, the forehead would be an illogical
> choice.
Not at all. The forehead would actually be LESS noticable than the right hand, because it would be just under the hairline, hence hair could flap over it.
Forest Fan wrote:
> Edgy wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Edgy wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
>
> They need to be noticed if they are to stand up and scan their
> forehead or simply scan their right hand.
>
> Forest Fan - They would not need to be noticed. If they were
> inserted
> into the hand, then simply moving the hand over the scanner would be
> sufficient.
>
> Or are you thinking that they should all display
> Switch/Visa/Mastercard logos?
>
> They won't be particularly noticable. Just a small dent on your
> right
> hand or forehead - no bigger then a large vein.
>
> No no no! You said:
>
> Forest Fan wrote:
>
> They need to be noticed
>
> So why the sudden change of tune?
>
> What I am trying to say is they will just about be visible - they
> will not be lumps on your head or hand, a minor bump - that will be
> noticable but not freakishly large. Make sense?
But why say, "They need to be noticed"?
> Edgy wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Edgy wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
>
> They need to be noticed if they are to stand up and scan their
> forehead or simply scan their right hand.
>
> Forest Fan - They would not need to be noticed. If they were
> inserted
> into the hand, then simply moving the hand over the scanner would be
> sufficient.
>
> Or are you thinking that they should all display
> Switch/Visa/Mastercard logos?
>
> They won't be particularly noticable. Just a small dent on your
> right
> hand or forehead - no bigger then a large vein.
>
> No no no! You said:
>
> Forest Fan wrote:
>
> They need to be noticed
>
> So why the sudden change of tune?
>
> What I am trying to say is they will just about be visible - they
> will not be lumps on your head or hand, a minor bump - that will be
> noticable but not freakishly large. Make sense?
But why say, "They need to be noticed"?
Page: