UK ID Cards

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by Radovan, Mar 6, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Just watched this video (English Civil War) that was posted in the Naafi bar. WARNING it's quite gory in places.

    A little after 2mins 40secs, it shows an ID card from New Jersey that is for a muslim woman with a fully covered face. The video claims that Muslims, or at least those who choose to fully cover their face, will be exempt from carrying ID cards when they are introduced in the UK!

    Is this true?

    Feel free to shoot me down if I've misinterpreted the video. I also appreciate that it is very likely to be biased.
  2. There was an arguement that Muslim women should have their photo taken with covered faces but the government said no they would have to take the photos without the face vail and there are no exceptions. Unless of course Blair has decided to change it.
  3. Disgusting
  4. A vicar made that? Bloody hell.........
  5. or wifey has a go :roll: But you're quite right as they can be given special dispensation for the taking of the photgraph or when having to show that they match the ID:
    Edited to add link: Ministerial Question
  6. I saw the video - excellent sentiments...what if I were to stand in the middle of town with a large sign saying "behead those who slander Christianity?"
  7. I'm sure they will just go wth the passport photo requirements that say you must have your face clearly visible.
  8. Just done a Google on it and I can't find anything anywhere that says that they will be forced to show their faces. 20 plus pages saying that they are exempt and will only have to give fingerprint or Iris data.

    So, is plod going to start carrying around mobile fingerprint or retina scanners in order to treat us all equally?
  9. Matters not to me, I will not be having an ID Card of that nature. Ever
    I have a Passport ans a photocard driving licence, dont think anything else is necessary thankyou
  10. Might be a bit of a bugger when they start requiring it for NHS treatment etc then.
  11. That video has summed up my reasons for not liking or trusting Muslims.

  12. don't care. i'm with BUPA :D
  13. You are most probably right, but I'm still not having one :lol:
  14. I'm sure its been argued on another threat,

    but having lived in places that require ID cards, I really don't see the issue at all. Ok so they are expensive but other than that??
    Pretty much all european nations have them without ill effect or some massive lost of privacy. The advantages are clear over the current mess of NI, Drivers License, NHS etc.. etc...

    You may say a Drivers License is fine for you, well not everyone has one, especially in large cities and a good chuck on the population are too young/old to qualify for them.
  15. I know it runs contrary to my argument but its still food for though...

    Identity cards
    Dangerous data

    Apr 29th 2004
    From The Economist print edition
    Databases are more worrying than ID cards

    THE notion of the British bulldog nipping at the ankles of the encroaching state is an appealing one, but it does not bear much examination. Britons seem untroubled by a variety of threats to their privacy. They are watched by more CCTV cameras than anywhere else, their genetic material is captured in the world's biggest DNA database and now they are dead keen for the government to introduce identity cards (see article). No wonder David Blunkett, the home secretary and a long-standing advocate of ID cards, sounded confident when he announced on April 26th draft legislation for setting up a national identity register and made it clear that he wants to make cards compulsory for everybody over the age of 16.

    ID cards were used in and after the second world war, until, in 1951, Harold Muckle, a police constable, demanded that Clarence Willcock, a north London dry cleaner and a Briton in the bulldog mould, show him his papers. Mr Willcock refused. The case went to the Court of Appeal, and, although Mr Willcock lost, the government was embarrassed enough to abolish ID cards the following year.

    Since then, successive governments have looked at reintroducing them, have produced plans to do so, have been attacked by civil libertarians and have given up the idea as not worth the bother. But the world has changed, and this government thinks that the cards' potential usefulness in combating terrorism, illegal immigration and benefit fraud outweighs the costs of introducing them.

    A few people—including some cabinet ministers—remain hostile. Patricia Hewitt, trade and industry secretary and former head of the National Council for Civil Liberties, and Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, are said to dislike them. Gordon Brown, the chancellor, has yet to commit himself either way, and is believed to be worried about the cost. Civil liberties groups and newspapers have also been voicing concerns.

    But ID cards are the wrong focus for worries about threats to privacy. They have been in use for years in most European countries without leading to any notable abuses. What's more, ID cards are just a small but visible manifestation of a wider and more troubling trend.

    The wider trend that needs watching is the computerisation of the state. The government is building huge electronic databases containing information about people's tax payments, employment status, educational record, benefit claims, health, criminal activities and family relationships, not to mention the suspicions that intelligence agencies may have about them. It has access to CCTV film of them. If road-pricing comes in, it will track their movements in cars.

    All this is happening not because government cannot resist encroaching on people's privacy, but because it is undergoing an IT revolution which is moving information from cardboard files to computers. This process should make government more efficient, because information can be stored, accessed and manipulated more easily, and databases can be linked.

    That's the problem. People want efficient government, but they don't want lots of civil servants nosing around in the intimate details of their lives; nor do they necessarily want the taxman to know about their health. What's more, databases are only as good as the information in them. Last year, the Criminal Records Bureau wrongly identified at least 193 job applicants as having criminal records. If databases talk to each other, such errors will be replicated through the system.
    Tell me what you know

    The best way to deal with the increasing power that databases give the government is to balance it with commensurate power for citizens. The Data Protection Act goes some way towards doing that, but not far enough: the government still has too much power to withhold information, and there is no clear regime for determining which bits of government have access to information held by other ministries and agencies.

    Those who attack the ID plan do so for the right reasons, but they have chosen the wrong target. The real danger lies not in small plastic cards but in huge databases.

    EDIT: Formatting