ID Cards Compulsory in UK by 2010 - Official

- The 'biometric' element will be very difficult for all but the most sophisticated of fraudisters to get around.

That goes far beyond the security of any previous system.
(none of which are perfect, nor will they ever be......that hardly renders them all useless and not worth bothering with - almost all locks can be broken into and gotten around but I'm willing to bet you still make full use of all of yours, hmmmm?).

I will answer more later but please view this link to see how very easy it is to fake biometrics.

news.bbc.co.uk...

That is just fingerprints, but other systems will be developed to fake everything. It will become mainstream as credit card cloning did and there you go.

[edit on 7-4-2006 by ImaginaryReality1984]

[edit on 7-4-2006 by ImaginaryReality1984]

Source
In fact, his organization won't be recommending a biometric, even though a handful of states already use them. After conducting a study of the latest technologies through the International Biometric Group, Mr. King says AAMVA wants to see the technology become more foolproof first.

Mate, I can go on and on about the studies showing they can be faked already. IDs that can be faked, won't stop fraud. So what crimes will they stop?

Sorry, I can't mug you not got my I.D.
Sir, before you rape me can I see your I.D?

Sorry, but why are wasting money on something that is unproven and many groups are saying can be faked?

Those RFID chips are actualy vulnerable to virus', if they want to put these chips in credit cards, and then instead of swipping your card you merely wave it near something and it picks it up. If that information can be picked up by the shopping till reader, then someone could easily create something similar, and steal your card details.

A misconception of technology is that it cannot be exploited. Well as technology gets more advanced, so do the exploits, they're just harder to find. These ID cards will not stop fraud. If anything, it will increase it, as if you find a way around these cards, to steal someone's identity, you don't just have their identity, you have absolutly everything about them... right down to what time they get up in the morning and so.

A very large problem is the fact that if you can fake those id's or duplicate the information on them so you can act as that person, then you have absolute proof you are them.

So say someone steals your money using a biometric id to access your bank account. You will not be able to prove it wasn't you, they took your fingerprint and iris scan, it's infallable it must have been you no question.

Also the database that will be created is going to be linked to varies private systems and will be privately run and owned. It opens a massive hole in the security of such a thing, you only need one employer who is corrupt to compromise the whole operation. Since even our security services aren't free from spys and corruption do you think this system will be? What if one of the linked networks is connected to the internet via an office network, say hello to hackers. They may stumble upon the unprotected system and get in.

If anyone thinks that is far fetched then remembeer that the pentagon, nasa and vast military networks have been infiltrated before. Many of the computers concerned were not directly connected to the internet but they were linked to computers that were. If one computer is link to the internet and 60 other computers are linked to the same router then they are all accessable.

So many holes in so many areas, i simply don't like it.

This is still just a criticism that the system may (note the 'may') not be 'secure' to the nth degree, no matter how sophisticated the 'attack' on it and therefore you consider it worthless at every level.

That does not strike me as a particularly serious, or good, arguement.

But be that as it may, we're probably at the point of going round in circles so I'll leave it at that.

You say it is for us to prove they won't be effective but maybe you should prove the opposite. No one is saying every system is water tight, no one is saying there is no merit, well ok some are but i am not. I have recognized your points and tried to offer opposite opinions that i hold and you seem to think that is wrong.

The fact is that any problem with this system that could allow someone to take my identity, land me in serious debt and then give the banks apparently infallible proof it must be me, is a real concern. Yes there are holes in every system but the holes in this one could cause far larger problems for people than our current ones. I have read how horrible id theft is, well imagine that times ten because you won't prove it wasn't you if they can and let's face it will clone your biometrics. I already gave an article to fingerprint fakes which are very easy to make.

Let's take into account other concerns, the iris recognition and fingerprint scanners get it wrong 10% of the time on the real individual, this can cause major hold ups even with a rescan they can get it wrong.

Fingerprints are now considered bad evidence anyway. If 60 million people in this country are scanned then my prints will match a decent amount. We are not talking perfectly here, we are talking close enough that machines don't recognize the difference often enough. Yes after maybe 5 scans they will see it's me, but imagine doing that every day and having multiple people doing it!

Iris scans are more accurate as are retina scans. But this raises other problems, as we age the structure of the eye changes. The iris is said to be different enough in some people after only 2 years that they would need to be rescanned. Now imagine that causing hold ups and in the mean time you can't get into anything you own, like a bank account? So let's say you take retinal scans, oh dear another problem. The retina also changes, then there are things like glaucoma which can impede a scan as they effect the light that gets through, then there are 'floaters', these are small pieces of the eye that die and float around in the vitreous liquid of the eyeball. Many people have these, and i mean a vast amount. They are rarely removed as they don't cause huge problems in vision but they will mess these machines up.

Now let's consider the cards for security, as stated they will have little if any effect on security. You would achieve far more with a more aggressive stance on immigration, border controls and other measures including throwing out anyone who is found to be an illegal immigrant even if they claim asylum. If they come in legally then fine, vet them for potential to help the system, if they have little then sorry goodbye.

Now let's look at crime. The limited reduction in crime they may bring would not cover the cost of the cards. If you take into account the systems needed and the already mentioned delays because of bad equipment and difficulty with the changing human body then it gets even more expensive and the crime cost is vastly overshadowed. Then what about new crimes involving the cards? These alone will overshadow the cost of the original crime as it becomes more high tech.

Finally as already stated the eye changes and actually so do fingerprints over time if you have abrasions to them or do a lot of manual labor. So that means many people would have to pay for new cards often, every couple of year’s maybe. Passports are ten years for a good reason; it will cost many people a small fortune to keep getting it done. So you give them away free after the first one, but wait that would cost the tax payer even more, and there is still the massive problem of the inconvenience for people.

Now please tell me where i didn't acknowledge that the cards won't do some good? I did and then provided counter arguments which are perfectly sound and logical.

I wouldn't mind but you keep saying we aren't acknowledging the fact that the cards will do some good. I have done and also have shown the other problems which mean the minimal gains do not outweigh the problems with it.

I keep having to edit my posts sorry, so much to say.

You say that the cards will help track people after the attacks, well they may do yes but let's look at that.

Someone commits a suicide attack, they are dead and gone so the cards won't do any good against them, but hey we find there family. There house is searched and nothing is found, what now? Where are the cards going to help from there? Let's face it, that information could have been found with a little police work like on the London bombings.

Would cards have helped stop the London bombings? Not according to the governments own people, they say probably not. Probably not isn't a point here as they always say probably so they can cover there arses.

I do not see this as black and white i am just disagreeing with you, i see the grey i have mentioned the cards may help, but it is certain that they will cause disruption, problems and financial instability for the very reasons i have mentioned above.


[edit on 7-4-2006 by ImaginaryReality1984]

and actually what if your finger prints look like they are left at the scene of a murder, and you go down for life, right. well, maybe they mistook those finger prints for koala bear's finger prints, as apparently they can be mistook for human finger prints. there's another floor right there in finger printing. you may go down for a murder that a koala bear commited. and the koala bear has the last laugh.

Bleh, I just hope that folk can sort out the fingerprint stuff first. Shirley McKie got screwed over by her own collegues in the police, after they mistakingly thought she left a fingerprint at the crime scene.


www.shirleymckie.com...

I just wonder if they can screw up fingerprints, would they be even competant to do other forensic work?

Actually the ID scheme is meant to protect us.

With biometrics and implants the canning and shipping off world of humans and their children as will be traceable.

Of course I was not here and I did not say this. Its a joke, capish?

I've red the first few pages of this thread but not all of them, so forgive me in this has come up.
I don't know how you brit's legal system works but in the states we could try to do a class action law suit against this(that is, we coud claim that requiring our DNA is a violation of our "manufactured" right to privacy).

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
A very large problem is the fact that if you can fake those id's or duplicate the information on them so you can act as that person, then you have absolute proof you are them.

So say someone steals your money using a biometric id to access your bank account. You will not be able to prove it wasn't you, they took your fingerprint and iris scan, it's infallable it must have been you no question.

Also the database that will be created is going to be linked to varies private systems and will be privately run and owned. It opens a massive hole in the security of such a thing, you only need one employer who is corrupt to compromise the whole operation. Since even our security services aren't free from spys and corruption do you think this system will be? What if one of the linked networks is connected to the internet via an office network, say hello to hackers. They may stumble upon the unprotected system and get in.

If anyone thinks that is far fetched then remembeer that the pentagon, nasa and vast military networks have been infiltrated before. Many of the computers concerned were not directly connected to the internet but they were linked to computers that were. If one computer is link to the internet and 60 other computers are linked to the same router then they are all accessable.

So many holes in so many areas, i simply don't like it.

its not far fetched at all, it is spot on mate, totally spot on.
Governments dont guarantee securtiry, especially with managing huge databases of information. They havent even tried to pretend it will be secure though by offering to sell it to anyone interested.
I have to ask myself why they want all this data.

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey


- The 'biometric' element will be very difficult for all but the most sophisticated of fraudisters to get around.

Not true, they are lying to you again.
Technology is far from perfected yet, not good enough for any kind of serious security useage.

I'm sure I've read somewhere that ID card validation will be between your biometrics and those stored on the card, not between your biometrics and the database.

If that's the case then the entire system is completely worthless. It'll be trivial for someone else to steal your name and then stick their own biometrics on the card. Once that's happened they have the "gold standard" ID card which will allow them to do *everything* in your name including voting, NHS, opening bank accounts, driving, travelling in the EU. It's simply ridiculous.

What a lot of people miss is that having 3 or 4 different forms of ID actually makes us *more* secure not less. What the government should concentrate on is fixing things like the NI database so that illegal working can't go on at the present time. There are very very few cases where the ID card will actually add additional security. It'll just replace existing forms of ID, which should already be working efficiently IMO. If the existing systems don't work, then fix them! Don't fundamentally change the entire system. It's a guaranteed path to disaster.

And that's without getting into the civil liberties aspects, which I think are another extremely valid reason for stopping the ID card scheme right now...

Well, like I said, we could go around in circles about this endlessly.

Just a couple of final points in response to some comments.

First the claim that anything more than an ID card is compulsory when a passport is applied for (or renewed) after 2010 is false.
That was all the HOL agreed to and that is the limit of the legislation as it now stands.

Secondly on cost, my understanding is that it will be capable of acting like a passport and driving licence and that the cost will be around the level of those 2 items as they now are.

Lastly, I am aware that no system is 100% secure (and have said so repeatedly) but to condemn the entire thing because at the marginal extreme 100% security cannot be totally guaranteed seems to me to be crazy and a 'standard' no 'system' could ever live up to ......especially when the actual 'system' the UK is to adopt have not themselves been completely finalised.

As has been said neither fingerprints nor DNA are 100% guaranteed to the absolute nth degree, but that doesn't mean we have discarded them as completely worthless either now does it?

........and in the end the criticism does not just amount to a disagreement about their possible/probable effectiveness it still, IMO, basically amounts to finding some flaw and subsequently condemning everything as worthless.
There is still no appreciation of all the other countries that use these and their reasoning, it appears some posters just thing they're either stupid or insane to use them.



[edit on 10-4-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

.. you get a new one... simple, right?

Question: if you're using biometrics and they get stolen what will you do? aren't your facial charakteristics open to everyone to see? aren't fingerprints extremely easy to obtain (unless you wear gloves all the time and ONLY use naked fingers for ID) along with DNA ?

Once your features are burned you will never live in peace again. Is that worth the convenience / alledged gain in security (during the cold war, the west boasted about NOT using the most extreme security procedures and equipment available...).

Speak only for yourselves, mandatory biometric ID reeks of 1984

WHAT!!!!

Sminkey i said in my post i didn't think any system could be 100% secure but i went through everything systematically. I showed how crime, terrorism and varies other things will hardly be effected. I showed that if someone steals your details then you will have even more problems proving that it was not you which actually makes the crime of id theft worse!

I gave good reasons as requested by you, i acknowledged that they would help some thing's all be it marginally.

It seems to me that you are the same as the people you are having a go at who think the cards are stupid or insane. You will support them no matter what, i have provided a sound argument as to why i think they are a useless waste of money. How am i stupid and/or insane?

If someone brings up some really good facts as to why these systems are so great then i may just change my mind, but i have yet to see anything that would sway me. This isn't because i had a knee jerk reaction to them, it is because i looked through everything i could find on them.

You have mentioned that they say the cards will not be compulsory and will only be issued with a new passport after 2010. I fully agree that is how it is now, but you are not looking ahead as it were. I already provided an article from the bbc news website that contained a quote from Charles Clarke that said "If labour wins the next election the cards will be compulsory". That is the way this is going and that is why it worries me.

Furthermore you said it will be about the same price as a passport and driving license combined. Well first off that is the governments own figures, independent bodies just don't agree. Let's say they government is right on that, you forget the costs of putting the systems in place to use the things, these systems have to be revamped and upgraded regularly as well, the tax payer will suffer that.

My passport serves me fine, why change it? If ID cards can (and will) be faked and passports are also faked then where is the difference?

You seem to have missed the points i was making on them slowing down life. The systems we have, even the advanced ones get it wrong often enough that it will cause delays. If we be generous and say the machines only get it wrong 5% of the time in which case rescans are needed and we assume a number of maybe 60 million people in this country, then we come up with 3 million people who will be inconvenienced on a daily basis. Imagine the effect on cues everywhere, imagine the police scanning you and the machine keeps getting it wrong because of other points i made about fingerprints, iris' and retinas changing and other causes of false scans.

I provided all these arguments and you swept them away by saying no system is 100% perfect. Well as stated i know that, but this system is not only not perfect it will be a massive hindrance. It will slow down daily life and cause massive problems for individuals who have the cards but keep getting false scans through no fault of their own.

False scans bring up another point, what if you have a fake card? You are scanned but oh no it doesn’t work, the nice assistant behind the bank till has seen this a hundred times today so she simply serves you anyway. Another assistant may not serve you at all so you can’t pay your bills without accessing your account, oh no more trouble. I am not simply finding a small fault and complaining here, I have found numerous faults with this system which add up to a big problem in daily life.

I believe I have left out the privacy aspect here as it isn’t even needed to condemn these things! Well ok I mentioned it here but only to mention that I hadn’t mentioned it, if you get me lol.

Finally once again i will state this important point. After WWII the people decided to get rid of these cards because they got sick of showing them to police officers. More importantly the police officers realized that it slowed everything down! This was in the days when they simply looked at them and then let you go, what will it be like if the officer has to look at it and then scan it? Taking into account the false scans as well it will be far worse.

More people, more cards, less police per person and a more complex system = Massive delays in everyday life.

Edited by me due to major spelling mistakes, sorry.

[edit on 10-4-2006 by ImaginaryReality1984]

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
Sminkey i said in my post i didn't think any system could be 100% secure but i went through everything systematically.
I showed how crime, terrorism and varies other things will hardly be effected.

- No you didn't.
You gave an opinion about what you thought would be the likely effect (or lack of).

That hardly amounts to the whole story and empirical evidence.

(.....and recognising that is the case is hardly 'support' for anything)

I showed that if someone steals your details then you will have even more problems proving that it was not you which actually makes the crime of id theft worse!

- Again, provided the reality happened to fit the example you gave you might have a point but it is still just your view based on your 'take' of the situation and not necessarily the entire story (and again recognising that as so 'supports' nothing) .

It seems to me that you are the same as the people you are having a go at who think the cards are stupid or insane. You will support them no matter what

- Not so, I am merely saying there is another side to this 'debate' that has had precious little airing........and as I said the 'standards' some are using to write the whole idea off as worthless would condemn almost any 'system' in anything we use today.

i have provided a sound argument as to why i think they are a useless waste of money.

- No.
Once again you have given your opinion about the value of these things, but that is not 'the' absolute answer on the matter.

How am i stupid and/or insane?

- If I said you were feel free to point out where.

I was talking about how no fair consideration whatsoever is being given to those countries that already use these cards and why they use these cards.

Rightly or wrongly my own conclusion as to why that is is that when it comes down to it some people must think they are either stupid or insane to use them (or latent fascist countries, on the verge of 'enslaving' their people any moment now).
Crazy......and referring to that silly closed attitude as such is not IMO 'blind support' for anything.

If someone brings up some really good facts as to why these systems are so great then i may just change my mind, but i have yet to see anything that would sway me. This isn't because i had a knee jerk reaction to them, it is because i looked through everything i could find on them.

- ........and yet even though the British 'system' is far from 'finalised' you are prepared to write the whole endeavour off as ineffective, expensive and so fatally flawed as to be worthless.
That hardly seems reasonable to me (and you'll note that that, once again, that isn't actually 'slavish' support no matter what either, I hope).

You have mentioned that they say the cards will not be compulsory and will only be issued with a new passport after 2010. I fully agree that is how it is now

- Well that is progress I suppose because when I entered this debate that certainly wasn't the actual situation that was being acknowledged.

I already provided an article from the bbc news website that contained a quote from Charles Clarke that said "If labour wins the next election the cards will be compulsory". That is the way this is going and that is why it worries me.

- What manifesto Labour goes to the country with in 2009/10 is far from fixed or in any way certain.
In any event it will be a major part of the program and well known by the electorate, again.

Furthermore you said it will be about the same price as a passport and driving license combined. Well first off that is the governments own figures, independent bodies just don't agree.

- Maybe you should be regularly asking yourself exactly just how 'independent' the raft of so-called 'independent bodies' always offering us comment and advice actually are.

I can't help thinking many aren't that free from promoting an agenda.

My passport serves me fine, why change it? If ID cards can (and will) be faked and passports are also faked then where is the difference?

- The difference is surely that there will be a lot less forgery because the level of sophistication required to fake and forge put that kind of behaviour out of reach of all but the most well funded and capable.

Same idea as happens with our banknotes now.
They aren't 100% secure but the sophistication required to fake them rule out huge swathes of the criminal 'world' from doing it.

If we be generous and say the machines only get it wrong 5% of the time in which case rescans are needed and we assume a number of maybe 60 million people in this country, then we come up with 3 million people who will be inconvenienced on a daily basis.

- I appreciate your point but anyone can play a guessing game all they like, that doesn't mean it is any more than a guessing game.
(......and again you'll note that isn't 'support' for anything, just a fair comment).

I provided all these arguments and you swept them away by saying no system is 100% perfect. Well as stated i know that, but this system is not only not perfect it will be a massive hindrance. It will slow down daily life and cause massive problems for individuals who have the cards but keep getting false scans through no fault of their own.

- In your opinion.

I see no good reason why it will not be like any administrative system we have to work now, some people will experience a delay once in a while but the vast majority will not even notice - in the rare moments they do come into contact with the 'system'.

......and the experience in other countries does not support your view either.
Germany, France, Spain, Italy etc etc are hardly renowned as places of vast delay and inefficiency caused by their ID card system.

False scans bring up another point, what if you have a fake card? You are scanned but oh no it doesn’t work, the nice assistant behind the bank till has seen this a hundred times today so she simply serves you anyway. Another assistant may not serve you at all so you can’t pay your bills without accessing your account, oh no more trouble. I am not simply finding a small fault and complaining here, I have found numerous faults with this system which add up to a big problem in daily life.

- What does anyone do with any 'system' fault?

.....and anyway who said absolutely everything in our day to day lives would become part of this 'system'?

Whilst I can well imagine (but remember that so far it is only a case of forecasting) commerce wanting to see ID cards when one is setting up a mortgage or loan possibly I doubt very much the Home Office would take too kindly to the banks co-opting ID cards for things as petty as a cash withdrawal on your account.

Finally once again i will state this important point. After WWII the people decided to get rid of these cards because they got sick of showing them to police officers. More importantly the police officers realized that it slowed everything down!

- Well OK, that was a part of why they went, but it is not the whole story. Far from it.

Much more than that was that they were seen as a hangover of a terrible, protracted and very bitter war, long over.
Like rationing the ID cards hung around long after WW2 and were not gotten rid of until 1952.

......and like rationing people were glad to see the back of all 'privations' and various hardships connected to that awful time.

what will it be like if the officer has to look at it and then scan it? Taking into account the false scans as well it will be far worse.

- Or conversely taking into account simple and reliable systems, it might be the opposite, quick and efficient.

More people, more cards, less police per person and a more complex system = Massive delays in everyday life.

- Well as I said, you can insist that that is how you think it will be but that doesn't make it so.

The countries with ID cards already are not renowned as places of enormous delays etc etc.

I suppose it is also worth pointing out that there are conflicting rights at work here. Privacy verses security.
If ID cards help stop crime and terrorist attacks (an unfortunate reality we all face, that cannot simply be ignored or wished away) then that is a consideration people must take into account.
But to claim that because they would not be of use in all criminal or terrorist situations and that they would therefore be worthless in all criminal or terrorist situation is, illogic of the highest order.

(and, one last time, I'd simply say that allowing a little balance into the perspective hardly 'supports ID cards no matter what')


[edit on 10-4-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

Ok i am going to have to write an essay on ths later. It might take me a few days as i have to find old articles i have stored somewhere.#

When i said 5% of the scans going wrong that was a generous estimate, it's actually over that for the simple reason that the machines get it wrong. I think it's around 10% but as i said i will find some articles out in the next couple of days and prove that fact isn't opinion.

Bear with me.

i wrote up some of the information on my blog (link in sig). you might find some of the links usefull.

I think it will fail becasue the technology is not ready yet and there are flaws in the system.
I havent even looked at how the government databases will be protected. i doubt they will, and they want to intergrate everything together. Really its a sign of too much power, control, information in one place. They should sat separate.

[edit on 10-4-2006 by AdamJ]

Originally posted by dom
I'm sure I've read somewhere that ID card validation will be between your biometrics and those stored on the card, not between your biometrics and the database.

If that's the case then the entire system is completely worthless. It'll be trivial for someone else to steal your name and then stick their own biometrics on the card. Once that's happened they have the "gold standard" ID card which will allow them to do *everything* in your name including voting, NHS, opening bank accounts, driving, travelling in the EU. It's simply ridiculous.

That is probably correct because the technology is still flawed. It has trouble just confirming the card user with the electronic data, never mind searching a database.
They have announced face scanning as the international standard yet in the offical trials the best performers only had a 50% accuracy with a database of 30,000 people. They dare not think about 100,000.

Eye scanning is better, but a DOD study still found 5% error rates.

In Canada they have supposedly secure watchlists already.
However a report by the Auditor General of Canada on National Security, described them as "in disarray" and rife with errors, missing crucial data.

Government IT projects can get messy, security is usualy non-existant.
They have already demonstarted this is really about centralisation of power so there is no fooling anyone with a braincell, it has nothing to do with security of any kind. Unfortunately.