The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Edgy wrote:
> Forest Fan - I accept your challenge.
>
> Come to Cardiff and I shall book an appointment with a vetinary
> surgeon.
No thanks - last time I went to Cardiff - I nearly got killed by about three and a half thousand Millwall townies.
>
> 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.
>
> I will ask the vet if these chips that are currently available for
> dogs and cats would cause the animal to die if removed, and I reckon
> the vet will just laugh.
>
> The human body will not be dependant on a single chip.
We'll see.
> Forest Fan - I accept your challenge.
>
> Come to Cardiff and I shall book an appointment with a vetinary
> surgeon.
No thanks - last time I went to Cardiff - I nearly got killed by about three and a half thousand Millwall townies.
>
> 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.
>
> I will ask the vet if these chips that are currently available for
> dogs and cats would cause the animal to die if removed, and I reckon
> the vet will just laugh.
>
> The human body will not be dependant on a single chip.
We'll see.
Forest Fan - I accept your challenge.
Come to Cardiff and I shall book an appointment with a vetinary surgeon.
Why not a GP? Because implanting chips into humans isn't done yet.
I will ask the vet if these chips that are currently available for dogs and cats would cause the animal to die if removed, and I reckon the vet will just laugh.
The human body will not be dependant on a single chip.
Come to Cardiff and I shall book an appointment with a vetinary surgeon.
Why not a GP? Because implanting chips into humans isn't done yet.
I will ask the vet if these chips that are currently available for dogs and cats would cause the animal to die if removed, and I reckon the vet will just laugh.
The human body will not be dependant on a single chip.
Pandaemonium wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> The microchip will be bigger than a piece of dirt or grit.
>
> And so easier to remove.
>
> The body will become dependant upon these chips.
>
> Now you are making stuff up. Remember? Opinions and fact? Remember?
Like a great multitude of procedures in the medical world - ask any doctors this - the procedure will be irreversible.
>
>
> Secondly: How can I disprove speculation? Only a fool would try to
> make out his own theory, based on very little fact, to be foolproof.
>
> I know - which is why I am suprised by how much people here seem to
> deny the Mark of the Beast - when there are scientists and
> goverments
> working on enforcing them!
>
> Again, now you are making stuff up. Remember? Opinions and PROOF?
> Remember?
[URL]http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38262[/URL]
The Mark of the Beast is real and is coming.
> Forest Fan wrote:
> The microchip will be bigger than a piece of dirt or grit.
>
> And so easier to remove.
>
> The body will become dependant upon these chips.
>
> Now you are making stuff up. Remember? Opinions and fact? Remember?
Like a great multitude of procedures in the medical world - ask any doctors this - the procedure will be irreversible.
>
>
> Secondly: How can I disprove speculation? Only a fool would try to
> make out his own theory, based on very little fact, to be foolproof.
>
> I know - which is why I am suprised by how much people here seem to
> deny the Mark of the Beast - when there are scientists and
> goverments
> working on enforcing them!
>
> Again, now you are making stuff up. Remember? Opinions and PROOF?
> Remember?
[URL]http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38262[/URL]
The Mark of the Beast is real and is coming.
Forest Fan wrote:
> The microchip will be bigger than a piece of dirt or grit.
And so easier to remove.
> The body will become dependant upon these chips.
Now you are making stuff up. Remember? Opinions and fact? Remember?
>
> Secondly: How can I disprove speculation? Only a fool would try to
> make out his own theory, based on very little fact, to be foolproof.
>
> I know - which is why I am suprised by how much people here seem to
> deny the Mark of the Beast - when there are scientists and goverments
> working on enforcing them!
Again, now you are making stuff up. Remember? Opinions and PROOF? Remember?
> The microchip will be bigger than a piece of dirt or grit.
And so easier to remove.
> The body will become dependant upon these chips.
Now you are making stuff up. Remember? Opinions and fact? Remember?
>
> Secondly: How can I disprove speculation? Only a fool would try to
> make out his own theory, based on very little fact, to be foolproof.
>
> I know - which is why I am suprised by how much people here seem to
> deny the Mark of the Beast - when there are scientists and goverments
> working on enforcing them!
Again, now you are making stuff up. Remember? Opinions and PROOF? Remember?
Edgy wrote:
> Forest Fan - It is possible to remove things that get stuck under the
> skin - such as grit and dirt from a cut.
The microchip will be bigger than a piece of dirt or grit.
>
> I had two extra teeth above my two front teeth that needed to be
> removed - they were under my gums! They were removed.
>
> Therefore: Under skin = possible removal.
The body will become dependant upon these chips.
>
>
> Secondly: How can I disprove speculation? Only a fool would try to
> make out his own theory, based on very little fact, to be foolproof.
I know - which is why I am suprised by how much people here seem to deny the Mark of the Beast - when there are scientists and goverments working on enforcing them!
>
>
> Thirdly, continue to quote entire messages like that and I hope you
> do get banned. It is a form of spam. Just quote what you need to and
> leave it at that.
Hm? Ok.
> Forest Fan - It is possible to remove things that get stuck under the
> skin - such as grit and dirt from a cut.
The microchip will be bigger than a piece of dirt or grit.
>
> I had two extra teeth above my two front teeth that needed to be
> removed - they were under my gums! They were removed.
>
> Therefore: Under skin = possible removal.
The body will become dependant upon these chips.
>
>
> Secondly: How can I disprove speculation? Only a fool would try to
> make out his own theory, based on very little fact, to be foolproof.
I know - which is why I am suprised by how much people here seem to deny the Mark of the Beast - when there are scientists and goverments working on enforcing them!
>
>
> Thirdly, continue to quote entire messages like that and I hope you
> do get banned. It is a form of spam. Just quote what you need to and
> leave it at that.
Hm? Ok.
I haven't had chips for quite a few days now - Something's wrong with me. Apples...no chips....Oh! I had a burger today - phew, I thought I was turning healthy then!
Mmmmm ... chips.
Good point!
But without the quoting would there even be a Forest Fan..?
Forest Fan - It is possible to remove things that get stuck under the skin - such as grit and dirt from a cut.
I had two extra teeth above my two front teeth that needed to be removed - they were under my gums! They were removed.
Therefore: Under skin = possible removal.
Secondly: How can I disprove speculation? Only a fool would try to make out his own theory, based on very little fact, to be foolproof.
Thirdly, continue to quote entire messages like that and I hope you do get banned. It is a form of spam. Just quote what you need to and leave it at that.
I had two extra teeth above my two front teeth that needed to be removed - they were under my gums! They were removed.
Therefore: Under skin = possible removal.
Secondly: How can I disprove speculation? Only a fool would try to make out his own theory, based on very little fact, to be foolproof.
Thirdly, continue to quote entire messages like that and I hope you do get banned. It is a form of spam. Just quote what you need to and leave it at that.
Page: