The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
That wasn't an answer though.
Who decides?
And seeing as I only asked a small question, was it really necessary to quote it?
Who decides?
And seeing as I only asked a small question, was it really necessary to quote it?
Edgy wrote:
> So who decides what is fact and what is merely a viewpoint?
Whether the point is definite or not.
> So who decides what is fact and what is merely a viewpoint?
Whether the point is definite or not.
So who decides what is fact and what is merely a viewpoint?
Edgy wrote:
> So are you stating that all messages on these forums are purely each
> individuals viewpoints?
Some are - some aren't.
> So are you stating that all messages on these forums are purely each
> individuals viewpoints?
Some are - some aren't.
So are you stating that all messages on these forums are purely each individuals viewpoints?
Edgy wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> !
>
>
> Just don't particularly fancy going back to Cardiff - haven't got
> great memories of there.
>
> In other words, you don't want me to prove my point. Therefore I
> declare myself the victor and case closed.
I'm just not going to Cardiff - I live in London.
>
>
>
> Unless that chip takes over brain and nervous functions, I know it
> wont.
>
> It will be connected to some sort of the body's nervous functions, I
> think.
>
> Oh! Hang on a second! I bet you wouldn't have said that if I hadn't
> put that idea into your head.
>
> Therefore I declare myself the victor and case closed.
How did the case close? ~ You simply stated your viewpoint.
> Forest Fan wrote:
> !
>
>
> Just don't particularly fancy going back to Cardiff - haven't got
> great memories of there.
>
> In other words, you don't want me to prove my point. Therefore I
> declare myself the victor and case closed.
I'm just not going to Cardiff - I live in London.
>
>
>
> Unless that chip takes over brain and nervous functions, I know it
> wont.
>
> It will be connected to some sort of the body's nervous functions, I
> think.
>
> Oh! Hang on a second! I bet you wouldn't have said that if I hadn't
> put that idea into your head.
>
> Therefore I declare myself the victor and case closed.
How did the case close? ~ You simply stated your viewpoint.
Isn't it amazing how I can quote the same stuff as you but take less space...
Forest Fan wrote:
!
>
>
> Just don't particularly fancy going back to Cardiff - haven't got
> great memories of there.
In other words, you don't want me to prove my point. Therefore I declare myself the victor and case closed.
> Unless that chip takes over brain and nervous functions, I know it
> wont.
>
> It will be connected to some sort of the body's nervous functions, I
> think.
Oh! Hang on a second! I bet you wouldn't have said that if I hadn't put that idea into your head.
Therefore I declare myself the victor and case closed.
!
>
>
> Just don't particularly fancy going back to Cardiff - haven't got
> great memories of there.
In other words, you don't want me to prove my point. Therefore I declare myself the victor and case closed.
> Unless that chip takes over brain and nervous functions, I know it
> wont.
>
> It will be connected to some sort of the body's nervous functions, I
> think.
Oh! Hang on a second! I bet you wouldn't have said that if I hadn't put that idea into your head.
Therefore I declare myself the victor and case closed.
Edgy wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
>
>
> No thanks - last time I went to Cardiff - I nearly got killed by
> about three and a half thousand Millwall townies.
>
>
> You retard! You think because you've visited a place once, you know
> how everyone will act towards you! Ha! You're even more stupid than I
> thought!
Just don't particularly fancy going back to Cardiff - haven't got great memories of there.
>
>
>
> Why not a GP? Because implanting chips into humans isn't done yet.
>
> On a more serious note - the medical world often implants items into
> humans which can never be removed - this chip is no different.
>
>
> You think I wasn't being serious? Again, you're proving yourself to
> be even more stupid. Name one thing that gets implanted into healthy
> humans that can't be removed without the consequence of death.
[URL]http://www.kcc.tju.edu/RadOnc/brachy/fre3.htm[/URL] for a procedure for prostate cancer - that is permanent.
>
>
> The human body will not be dependant on a single chip.
>
> We'll see.
>
> Unless that chip takes over brain and nervous functions, I know it
> wont.
It will be connected to some sort of the body's nervous functions, I think.
> Forest Fan wrote:
>
>
> No thanks - last time I went to Cardiff - I nearly got killed by
> about three and a half thousand Millwall townies.
>
>
> You retard! You think because you've visited a place once, you know
> how everyone will act towards you! Ha! You're even more stupid than I
> thought!
Just don't particularly fancy going back to Cardiff - haven't got great memories of there.
>
>
>
> Why not a GP? Because implanting chips into humans isn't done yet.
>
> On a more serious note - the medical world often implants items into
> humans which can never be removed - this chip is no different.
>
>
> You think I wasn't being serious? Again, you're proving yourself to
> be even more stupid. Name one thing that gets implanted into healthy
> humans that can't be removed without the consequence of death.
[URL]http://www.kcc.tju.edu/RadOnc/brachy/fre3.htm[/URL] for a procedure for prostate cancer - that is permanent.
>
>
> The human body will not be dependant on a single chip.
>
> We'll see.
>
> Unless that chip takes over brain and nervous functions, I know it
> wont.
It will be connected to some sort of the body's nervous functions, I think.
Forest Fan wrote:
>
> No thanks - last time I went to Cardiff - I nearly got killed by
> about three and a half thousand Millwall townies.
>
You retard! You think because you've visited a place once, you know how everyone will act towards you! Ha! You're even more stupid than I thought!
>
> Why not a GP? Because implanting chips into humans isn't done yet.
>
> On a more serious note - the medical world often implants items into
> humans which can never be removed - this chip is no different.
>
You think I wasn't being serious? Again, you're proving yourself to be even more stupid. Name one thing that gets implanted into healthy humans that can't be removed without the consequence of death.
> The human body will not be dependant on a single chip.
>
> We'll see.
Unless that chip takes over brain and nervous functions, I know it wont.
>
> No thanks - last time I went to Cardiff - I nearly got killed by
> about three and a half thousand Millwall townies.
>
You retard! You think because you've visited a place once, you know how everyone will act towards you! Ha! You're even more stupid than I thought!
>
> Why not a GP? Because implanting chips into humans isn't done yet.
>
> On a more serious note - the medical world often implants items into
> humans which can never be removed - this chip is no different.
>
You think I wasn't being serious? Again, you're proving yourself to be even more stupid. Name one thing that gets implanted into healthy humans that can't be removed without the consequence of death.
> The human body will not be dependant on a single chip.
>
> We'll see.
Unless that chip takes over brain and nervous functions, I know it wont.
Page: