The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Oh no - you can't turn this one around - you said, "No one person can determine"
Suggesting that no one person can determine whatever the variables are.
So don't think you've made a point against me - you're just trying to sound clever to cover your tracks.
It doesn't fool me, and I doubt it fools the other members here too.
Suggesting that no one person can determine whatever the variables are.
So don't think you've made a point against me - you're just trying to sound clever to cover your tracks.
It doesn't fool me, and I doubt it fools the other members here too.
Edgy wrote:
> So if I pointed to the sky and said to you, "The blue sky is
> orange", you wouldn't be able to determine whether that is fact
> or not?
>
> I feel my point has been made...again.
Of course - this demonstrates my point that you can determine fact from opinion. Thankyou.
> So if I pointed to the sky and said to you, "The blue sky is
> orange", you wouldn't be able to determine whether that is fact
> or not?
>
> I feel my point has been made...again.
Of course - this demonstrates my point that you can determine fact from opinion. Thankyou.
So if I pointed to the sky and said to you, "The blue sky is orange", you wouldn't be able to determine whether that is fact or not?
I feel my point has been made...again.
I feel my point has been made...again.
Oh dear.
Edgy wrote:
> When are you going to answer the question?
>
> This isn't politics you know. A straight answer would be appreciated.
No-one person can determine it.
> When are you going to answer the question?
>
> This isn't politics you know. A straight answer would be appreciated.
No-one person can determine it.
When are you going to answer the question?
This isn't politics you know. A straight answer would be appreciated.
This isn't politics you know. A straight answer would be appreciated.
Edgy wrote:
> Heh - complete ignoring of my question (note: I know he's been online
> since I asked the question)
>
> He'll no doubt answer with some crap now, but for now I shall add:
>
> BOOSH!CHECKMATE!™
Yeh - well, I'm back now. Time to see what you have posted for me. :D
Edgy wrote:
> Forest Fan - I didn't ask "What determines whether messages are
> fact or viewpoints" I asked, "who"
>
> Seeing as you're incapable of answering, I am going to continue to
> not take you seriously.
>
> If you don't understand the question, there is no shame in asking.
Do as you wish - is my comment in this situation. I believe that if the point can be proven beyond all reasonable doubt it classifies as proof. But that is just my opinion.
> Heh - complete ignoring of my question (note: I know he's been online
> since I asked the question)
>
> He'll no doubt answer with some crap now, but for now I shall add:
>
> BOOSH!CHECKMATE!™
Yeh - well, I'm back now. Time to see what you have posted for me. :D
Edgy wrote:
> Forest Fan - I didn't ask "What determines whether messages are
> fact or viewpoints" I asked, "who"
>
> Seeing as you're incapable of answering, I am going to continue to
> not take you seriously.
>
> If you don't understand the question, there is no shame in asking.
Do as you wish - is my comment in this situation. I believe that if the point can be proven beyond all reasonable doubt it classifies as proof. But that is just my opinion.
Heh - complete ignoring of my question (note: I know he's been online since I asked the question)
He'll no doubt answer with some crap now, but for now I shall add:
BOOSH!CHECKMATE!™
He'll no doubt answer with some crap now, but for now I shall add:
BOOSH!CHECKMATE!™
Forest Fan - I didn't ask "What determines whether messages are fact or viewpoints" I asked, "who"
Seeing as you're incapable of answering, I am going to continue to not take you seriously.
If you don't understand the question, there is no shame in asking.
Seeing as you're incapable of answering, I am going to continue to not take you seriously.
If you don't understand the question, there is no shame in asking.
Edgy wrote:
> That wasn't an answer though.
>
> Who decides?
'Twas - if the statement is a factual, 100% prooveable point - then it is fact.
>
> And seeing as I only asked a small question, was it really necessary
> to quote it?
Yes - these threads move so fast - I prefer to quote messages.
> That wasn't an answer though.
>
> Who decides?
'Twas - if the statement is a factual, 100% prooveable point - then it is fact.
>
> And seeing as I only asked a small question, was it really necessary
> to quote it?
Yes - these threads move so fast - I prefer to quote messages.
Page: