Check this out!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3568468.stm
Now, it may be overly paranoid to start worrying about a Big Brother society evolving, based on the proposed introduction of a ID-Card.
Now this is in England, and I presently live in Denmark, but the authorities here are already airing the same idea.
We, like most western countries already have a social security number that is used in all dealing with public and govermental authorities. A social insurance card with a picture would be all right too.
But it's that d*** chip that got me worried!
We are told that it would only contain essential information including biometric info.
Didn't someone once say, that if a tecnology can be abuse it will be abused!
With the advancement in IT and digital tecnology these last decades a chip like that could be an tremendous tool if used as a survellince aid.
But we are told that it would be a great aid in fighting crime and terroism, and we all know that your government officials wouldn't lie to you.
Don't we!
Big Brother sneaking in the back door
Moderators: Tunnelcat, Jeff250
We have ID cards for ages here in Belgium. By law, you are required to have yours on you when you walk out your door. They don't have a chip yet, but some towns are already issueing new cards with a chip.
This hasn't been a big deal here, because the ID card is used for all kinds of purposes. They keep a copy of it at the video rent store, the cops ask for it when they pull you over, and you need to identify yourself with it for anything official, etc..
It also proves your belgian citizenship.
Arol, if a court gives the order to track you, not having a chip on the card won't change anything. They can pull credit card information, transactions, cellphone conversations -- heck, even text messages you send and receive can be put at a court's disposition. Not to mention the geographic location identified by the cell your phone is active in.
Basically, if you don't want to be tracked, don't use phones, bank accounts, credit cards, internet access and things like that.
Personally, I'm in favor of the chip on the ID card because it will make it a lot easier to identify people at the airports, police stations and where-ever else identification is required. Plus, if it's well-designed, it will be harder to falsify (and that last bit is what I'm concerned about... it might not be up to scratch due to government budget limitations).
This hasn't been a big deal here, because the ID card is used for all kinds of purposes. They keep a copy of it at the video rent store, the cops ask for it when they pull you over, and you need to identify yourself with it for anything official, etc..
It also proves your belgian citizenship.
Arol, if a court gives the order to track you, not having a chip on the card won't change anything. They can pull credit card information, transactions, cellphone conversations -- heck, even text messages you send and receive can be put at a court's disposition. Not to mention the geographic location identified by the cell your phone is active in.
Basically, if you don't want to be tracked, don't use phones, bank accounts, credit cards, internet access and things like that.
Personally, I'm in favor of the chip on the ID card because it will make it a lot easier to identify people at the airports, police stations and where-ever else identification is required. Plus, if it's well-designed, it will be harder to falsify (and that last bit is what I'm concerned about... it might not be up to scratch due to government budget limitations).
-
Testiculese
- DBB Material Defender
- Posts: 4688
- Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2001 3:01 am
.I know Tricord, living in Denmark, we have the same system.Tricord wrote:We have ID cards for ages here in Belgium. By law, you are required to have yours on you when you walk out your door.
It's not the card itself thats got me on edge. As a matter of fact it makes it easier when you have to identify your self.
Not to mention that they have a record of who you phoned, where you phoned from and more going back at least 30 days. Yes I know that. But using a cell and the other stuff is optional. Here they will have the tool to pinpoint you at anytime and everywhere you have the card on you.Tricord wrote:They can pull credit card information, transactions, cellphone conversations -- heck, even text messages you send and receive can be put at a court's disposition. Not to mention the geographic location identified by the cell your phone is active in.
Like I said it's that chip that's making me a bit edgy.
Maybe it is me being overly paranoid, and if you stay on the straigth and narrow, what does it matter if the authorities monitor your movements.
Both the potential for misuse now, and even more as tecnology advances. But then again like I pointed out before: - that if a tecnology can be abused, it will be abused!
-
Testiculese
- DBB Material Defender
- Posts: 4688
- Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2001 3:01 am
We already have a national ID system; it's called your social security number. I'd be happy if instead of the paper cards they gave out SmartCards that you could take with you in case you needed them. But under no circumstances would it be acceptable to require you to have it with you.
A Citizenship ID number would definitely streamline the identification process... applying for a passport, for example.
A Citizenship ID number would definitely streamline the identification process... applying for a passport, for example.
Never say never, my friend!Dedman wrote:Yeah, I don't see America going for that.
Look at the limitations you in the US accepted; some openly demanded, being placed on your civil liberties post-9/11.
If the terror continues; and there is no let up on the horizon, might you not accept further erosions.
"Look at the limitations you in the US accepted; some openly demanded, being placed on your civil liberties post-9/11. "
I never accepted them. In fact, I don't know if the American public would have passed the patriot act. I certainly never would have voted for that law. I can't believe our pathetic congress passed that. It's named in classic 1984 doublespeak with severe damage to civil liberties. I can't wait till someone challenges it in the supreme court. It must be struck down!
I never accepted them. In fact, I don't know if the American public would have passed the patriot act. I certainly never would have voted for that law. I can't believe our pathetic congress passed that. It's named in classic 1984 doublespeak with severe damage to civil liberties. I can't wait till someone challenges it in the supreme court. It must be struck down!
Birdseye, I think you're overreacting somewhat. Tell me, have you read the Patriot Act? If so, what specific sections are doing "severe damage" to civil liberties? I have not read it myself, but from what I can understand, the main focus of the Patriot Act is on easing the sharing of intelligence between different government agencies, to help prevent another 9/11. It is true some people have been detained without official cause at Guantanamo Bay, and to be perfectly honest, I think that they should be officially charged. The Supreme Court has said so itself. Do you honestly think that one law is going to change the government into Big Brother? I think you're too paranoid. No matter what you may think, the Bush administration doesn't plan on becoming our supreme overlords.Birdseye wrote:"Look at the limitations you in the US accepted; some openly demanded, being placed on your civil liberties post-9/11. "
I never accepted them. In fact, I don't know if the American public would have passed the patriot act. I certainly never would have voted for that law. I can't believe our pathetic congress passed that. It's named in classic 1984 doublespeak with severe damage to civil liberties. I can't wait till someone challenges it in the supreme court. It must be struck down!
There's something else you're forgetting: laws like this have been passed before. In fact, one of the most repressive was the Alien and Sedition Acts, which prohibited hateful speech about the government and was passed by John Adams. Thomas Jefferson later let the law expire and pardoned those who had been prosecuted under it. Besides that, during both World Wars, Congress passed laws limiting seditious speech against the government. I can't remember the name of the WWI law, but I believe it was later repealed. The Smith Act of WWII, which is still on the books, was later limited to prosecute those with the intent and means of harming the government. As you can see, the Patriot Act is by no means the first of its kind, nor is it the end of the world. We were hurt badly on 9/11, and has happened in the past in such situations, we reacted on the side of security. Might the Patriot Act have overstepped the government's bounds somewhat? Maybe, but it's not the first law to do so. I have no doubt that it will eventually be edited, overturned, or allowed to expire, probably when a Democrat is in office, but maybe before then. You make it sound as though the Patriot Act's provisions are comparable to the interment of Japanese-Americans during WWII; I think you're overreacting.