The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
>
What simple fact?
People pay for things through credit cards why in the name of lord (Ahar) would you have to get you're forehead scanned?
No wonder you have no social life - you're a rik.
>
What simple fact?
People pay for things through credit cards why in the name of lord (Ahar) would you have to get you're forehead scanned?
No wonder you have no social life - you're a rik.
Quinty 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.
>
> Does it really hurt you that much to admit you're wrong, that you
> have post a retarded comment after completley ignoring his well
> constructed point?
Your inability to accept simple fact is amazing.
> Forest Fan wrote:
>
> They need to be noticed if they are to stand up and scan their
> forehead or simply scan their right hand.
>
> Does it really hurt you that much to admit you're wrong, that you
> have post a retarded comment after completley ignoring his well
> constructed point?
Forest Fan wrote:
> They need to be noticed if they are to stand up and scan their
> forehead or simply scan their right hand.
Does it really hurt you that much to admit you're wrong, that you have post a retarded comment after completley ignoring his well constructed point?
> They need to be noticed if they are to stand up and scan their
> forehead or simply scan their right hand.
Does it really hurt you that much to admit you're wrong, that you have post a retarded comment after completley ignoring his well constructed point?
omg! 666 lol!!11
Forest Fan wrote:
> 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
The ID scheme isnt going through for sure and suddenly you're assuming we're all going to be chipped?
Good one.
> 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
The ID scheme isnt going through for sure and suddenly you're assuming we're all going to be chipped?
Good one.
Azul wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Edgy wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Edgy wrote:
> The hindu spot is meant to be noticed - again, not a valid
> comparison.
>
> When you walk into a shop and they scan over the chip - they are
> going to want to notice the chip.
>
> Why?
>
> Why would they need to notice it?
>
> Because when they charge you for what you bought - you need to pay
> for it and as such they need to scan the chip to process the order
> information into your account.
>
> But people use credit cards to pay for stuff. And they get scanned.
> They don't need to be noticed, do they?
>
> Checkmate, spastic mongtroll spastroll trollcunt.
> Tada.
They need to be noticed if they are to stand up and scan their forehead or simply scan their right hand.
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Edgy wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Edgy wrote:
> The hindu spot is meant to be noticed - again, not a valid
> comparison.
>
> When you walk into a shop and they scan over the chip - they are
> going to want to notice the chip.
>
> Why?
>
> Why would they need to notice it?
>
> Because when they charge you for what you bought - you need to pay
> for it and as such they need to scan the chip to process the order
> information into your account.
>
> But people use credit cards to pay for stuff. And they get scanned.
> They don't need to be noticed, do they?
>
> Checkmate, spastic mongtroll spastroll trollcunt.
> Tada.
They need to be noticed if they are to stand up and scan their forehead or simply scan their right hand.
Forest Fan wrote:
> Edgy wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Edgy wrote:
> The hindu spot is meant to be noticed - again, not a valid
> comparison.
>
> When you walk into a shop and they scan over the chip - they are
> going to want to notice the chip.
>
> Why?
>
> Why would they need to notice it?
>
> Because when they charge you for what you bought - you need to pay
> for it and as such they need to scan the chip to process the order
> information into your account.
But people use credit cards to pay for stuff. And they get scanned.
They don't need to be noticed, do they?
Checkmate, spastic mongtroll spastroll trollcunt.
Tada.
> Edgy wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Edgy wrote:
> The hindu spot is meant to be noticed - again, not a valid
> comparison.
>
> When you walk into a shop and they scan over the chip - they are
> going to want to notice the chip.
>
> Why?
>
> Why would they need to notice it?
>
> Because when they charge you for what you bought - you need to pay
> for it and as such they need to scan the chip to process the order
> information into your account.
But people use credit cards to pay for stuff. And they get scanned.
They don't need to be noticed, do they?
Checkmate, spastic mongtroll spastroll trollcunt.
Tada.
Edgy wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Edgy wrote:
> The hindu spot is meant to be noticed - again, not a valid
> comparison.
>
> When you walk into a shop and they scan over the chip - they are
> going to want to notice the chip.
>
> Why?
>
> Why would they need to notice it?
Because when they charge you for what you bought - you need to pay for it and as such they need to scan the chip to process the order information into your account.
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Edgy wrote:
> The hindu spot is meant to be noticed - again, not a valid
> comparison.
>
> When you walk into a shop and they scan over the chip - they are
> going to want to notice the chip.
>
> Why?
>
> Why would they need to notice it?
Because when they charge you for what you bought - you need to pay for it and as such they need to scan the chip to process the order information into your account.
Spastroll.
That one sort of t-rolls of the tongue, don't you think?
Oh dear.
That one sort of t-rolls of the tongue, don't you think?
Oh dear.
Forest Fan wrote:
> Edgy wrote:
> The hindu spot is meant to be noticed - again, not a valid
> comparison.
>
> When you walk into a shop and they scan over the chip - they are
> going to want to notice the chip.
Why?
Why would they need to notice it?
> Edgy wrote:
> The hindu spot is meant to be noticed - again, not a valid
> comparison.
>
> When you walk into a shop and they scan over the chip - they are
> going to want to notice the chip.
Why?
Why would they need to notice it?
Page: