The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
monkey_man wrote:
> I wondered where I heard the word "Mondex" before...that's
> right, we debunked it for you before, you moronic little cretin
> troll.
>
> [URL]http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_mondex_biochip.htm[/URL]
>
> Pfft, what a baby. Right, it's Saturday night and I've got better
> things to do than argue with a troll over the Internet. So long,
> heathens!
Thanks for that website! Last time I read that, it provided more evidence for the Mark of the Beast!
> I wondered where I heard the word "Mondex" before...that's
> right, we debunked it for you before, you moronic little cretin
> troll.
>
> [URL]http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_mondex_biochip.htm[/URL]
>
> Pfft, what a baby. Right, it's Saturday night and I've got better
> things to do than argue with a troll over the Internet. So long,
> heathens!
Thanks for that website! Last time I read that, it provided more evidence for the Mark of the Beast!
Edgy wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Edgy wrote:
> I can't imagine people having big lumps on their heads for a chip -
> after all, it would be very noticable there as there is only a very
> thin layer of flesh between it and your skull.
>
> So Forest Fan, I'd think again with that.
>
> Or are you trying to twist things again?
>
> Edgy, you probably haven't thought about this, but the chip will be
> about a mm big and will sit just under the skin.
>
> Well the ones they currently use in animals are about the size of a
> grain of rice - still enough to cause a lump on the head.
Not at all, if you pull the skin back on your right hand or forehead, you can see how one m.m. is a minute bump. It would be less noticable then the Hindu spot in the forehead.
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Edgy wrote:
> I can't imagine people having big lumps on their heads for a chip -
> after all, it would be very noticable there as there is only a very
> thin layer of flesh between it and your skull.
>
> So Forest Fan, I'd think again with that.
>
> Or are you trying to twist things again?
>
> Edgy, you probably haven't thought about this, but the chip will be
> about a mm big and will sit just under the skin.
>
> Well the ones they currently use in animals are about the size of a
> grain of rice - still enough to cause a lump on the head.
Not at all, if you pull the skin back on your right hand or forehead, you can see how one m.m. is a minute bump. It would be less noticable then the Hindu spot in the forehead.
I wondered where I heard the word "Mondex" before...that's right, we debunked it for you before, you moronic little cretin troll.
[URL]http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_mondex_biochip.htm[/URL]
Pfft, what a baby. Right, it's Saturday night and I've got better things to do than argue with a troll over the Internet. So long, heathens!
[URL]http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_mondex_biochip.htm[/URL]
Pfft, what a baby. Right, it's Saturday night and I've got better things to do than argue with a troll over the Internet. So long, heathens!
Forest Fan wrote:
> Edgy wrote:
> I can't imagine people having big lumps on their heads for a chip -
> after all, it would be very noticable there as there is only a very
> thin layer of flesh between it and your skull.
>
> So Forest Fan, I'd think again with that.
>
> Or are you trying to twist things again?
>
> Edgy, you probably haven't thought about this, but the chip will be
> about a mm big and will sit just under the skin.
Well the ones they currently use in animals are about the size of a grain of rice - still enough to cause a lump on the head.
> Edgy wrote:
> I can't imagine people having big lumps on their heads for a chip -
> after all, it would be very noticable there as there is only a very
> thin layer of flesh between it and your skull.
>
> So Forest Fan, I'd think again with that.
>
> Or are you trying to twist things again?
>
> Edgy, you probably haven't thought about this, but the chip will be
> about a mm big and will sit just under the skin.
Well the ones they currently use in animals are about the size of a grain of rice - still enough to cause a lump on the head.
Forest Fan wrote:
> FinalFantasyFanatic wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> The chip idea in itself isn't evil, but the fact that it will have
> either 666 or the name of the Anti-Christ is.
>
> HAhahaa.
> Surely the anti-Christ isn't so stupid to announce his arrival by
> sticking "omg! 666 lol!!1!1' eveywhere.
>
> And is government going to put 666 on anything? Er ... no.
*
> There will be a spirit of deception. Right now, you would completely
> deny that you would accept this, but when the Holy Spirit is taken
> from the world, the reason of logic will go too.
What the hell are you on about?
omg! 666 lol!!!!111
When did logic have to do with the holy spirit?
> FinalFantasyFanatic wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> The chip idea in itself isn't evil, but the fact that it will have
> either 666 or the name of the Anti-Christ is.
>
> HAhahaa.
> Surely the anti-Christ isn't so stupid to announce his arrival by
> sticking "omg! 666 lol!!1!1' eveywhere.
>
> And is government going to put 666 on anything? Er ... no.
*
> There will be a spirit of deception. Right now, you would completely
> deny that you would accept this, but when the Holy Spirit is taken
> from the world, the reason of logic will go too.
What the hell are you on about?
omg! 666 lol!!!!111
When did logic have to do with the holy spirit?
Forest Fan wrote:
> Edgy wrote:
> When did 'Money' and 'Right hand' mean 'World'?
>
> Forest Fan wrote:
> I stand corrected, this - even more interesting, is what Mondex
> means.
Indeed, it is a title that represents a company that deals with money.
wow! Coincedence!!! OMG WTF!
> Edgy wrote:
> When did 'Money' and 'Right hand' mean 'World'?
>
> Forest Fan wrote:
> I stand corrected, this - even more interesting, is what Mondex
> means.
Indeed, it is a title that represents a company that deals with money.
wow! Coincedence!!! OMG WTF!
Edgy wrote:
> I can't imagine people having big lumps on their heads for a chip -
> after all, it would be very noticable there as there is only a very
> thin layer of flesh between it and your skull.
>
> So Forest Fan, I'd think again with that.
>
> Or are you trying to twist things again?
Edgy, you probably haven't thought about this, but the chip will be about a mm big and will sit just under the skin.
> I can't imagine people having big lumps on their heads for a chip -
> after all, it would be very noticable there as there is only a very
> thin layer of flesh between it and your skull.
>
> So Forest Fan, I'd think again with that.
>
> Or are you trying to twist things again?
Edgy, you probably haven't thought about this, but the chip will be about a mm big and will sit just under the skin.
Edgy wrote:
> When did 'Money' and 'Right hand' mean 'World'?
Forest Fan wrote:
> I stand corrected, this - even more interesting, is what Mondex
> means.
> When did 'Money' and 'Right hand' mean 'World'?
Forest Fan wrote:
> I stand corrected, this - even more interesting, is what Mondex
> means.
FinalFantasyFanatic wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> The chip idea in itself isn't evil, but the fact that it will have
> either 666 or the name of the Anti-Christ is.
>
> HAhahaa.
> Surely the anti-Christ isn't so stupid to announce his arrival by
> sticking "omg! 666 lol!!1!1' eveywhere.
>
> And is government going to put 666 on anything? Er ... no.
There will be a spirit of deception. Right now, you would completely deny that you would accept this, but when the Holy Spirit is taken from the world, the reason of logic will go too.
> Forest Fan wrote:
> The chip idea in itself isn't evil, but the fact that it will have
> either 666 or the name of the Anti-Christ is.
>
> HAhahaa.
> Surely the anti-Christ isn't so stupid to announce his arrival by
> sticking "omg! 666 lol!!1!1' eveywhere.
>
> And is government going to put 666 on anything? Er ... no.
There will be a spirit of deception. Right now, you would completely deny that you would accept this, but when the Holy Spirit is taken from the world, the reason of logic will go too.
When did 'Money' and 'Right hand' mean 'World'?
Page: