Big Brother Closing In Further - UK Watch

reply to post by Fazza!
Hi

Not here to give you grief but just reading another post and thought I could show you an example of what I have been trying to explain to you

120,000 troubled families

Iain Duncan Smith has asked his officials to see if so-called ‘problem’ families should receive their welfare payments on smart cards, rather than in cash.

The cards would only be able to pay for “priority” items such as food, housing, clothing, education and health care.

I don’t care about views on drink and cigs what I want to know is who is going to decide what families are problems and what families are OK. What shops would be able to accept these smart cards, not the local corner shop I bet so you will be told where you can shop. Does that sound familiar?

So this tory scum bag says it is because these so called problem families spend their money on booze and fags and let their kids go without but later in the article it says.

One idea is for the 120,000 problem families who were identified in the Government’s riots review to be given the Oyster-style cards.

The riots if I remember was mainly by young people not heads of family so it seems if you are identified as a rioter, that is the problem not how you provide for your kids.

Who decides when a demonstration becomes a riot? So will I be identified as a problem family when I march on the 20thOctober? I am already most likely on a blacklist by all accounts due to my union activities, a blacklist compiled by the police using information I am not allowed to see yet I have never broken a law in my life, not even a speeding ticket unlike many MP's and Bankers.

If they get this passed do you think it will stop there? Why an oyster card type system, is it because it can be tracked or remotely turned off?

BTW notice smith says

items such as food, housing, clothing, education and health care.

Bit of a giveaway for their plans for the NHS. Paying for health care with dole money

You trust these people?

Originally posted by Fazza!
reply to post by colin42

 

I agree that privacy has a certain value, however I don't believe anyone is trying to 'own' it. People have a choice of whether to sign up for Facebook and social networking sites. They are there to aid communication and social interaction. The ID card that is being proposed could reduce the amount of benefit fraud and number of people claiming while doing nothing to find work and, as far as I tell, would be no different to a passport (as long as the person doesn't use or link it to Facebook).

I think you sortve missed something here, the whole point I see is that you will use those exact same social media sites as official ID. So to prove who you are, you will be asked to log in to facebook, a third party registers that you have done so, and informs whoever requires the proof of ID that you are who you say you are.

Now lets say that you want credit to buy a car and your local car dealer uses this scheme...do you still have a choice not to participate in this type of scheme.

Lets take it a little further, maybe credit company (a) and social networking site (b) decide to do a bit of mutualy beneficial business. Now all of a sudden company (a) ONLY accepts ID in a certain manner, perhaps by logging on to social network site (b).......just sayin!

Oh, and before you say "its far fetched", due to the nature of my work, I regularly have to prove my ID to a variety of people. More and more it appears that ONLY photo ID is acceptable, fortunately I do have a passport and a license but niether of these are a legal document requirement for a UK citzen.

I'll repeat that in case it got lost in translation. You, at the moment are not legally required to posses any proof of ID, you are not legally required to own a drivers license unless you want to drive, or a passport unless you want to leave the country...and, despite any other proof of ID that could provide, various companies will refuse to do business with you unless you posses proof of ID that includes a picture.

reply to post by idmonster

the whole point I see is that you will use those exact same social media sites as official ID.

This is where the idea falls short. Signing up for these sites ONLY requires a name, date of birth and gender. That's it. What's to stop someone of age 17 signing up with a false date of birth so that they could, for example, get into clubs or buy alcohol and tobacco underage? A profile picture is not required to use the site and many people use random images instead of a photograph.

There is no way they could accept a current Facebook profile as a valid form of ID without radical changes to the website and every existing account. I can't see this happening.

You, at the moment are not legally required to posses any proof of ID, you are not legally required to own a drivers license unless you want to drive, or a passport unless you want to leave the country...and, despite any other proof of ID that could provide, various companies will refuse to do business with you unless you posses proof of ID that includes a picture.

I don't see how that's such a bad thing. People are required to have ID to buy alcohol and tobacco so why does it become an issue when they require ID for other transactions (other than perhaps wasting a bit of time)?


reply to post by colin42


Hey dude, thanks for sharing that Once again I'm not trying to be deliberately difficult here but I would like to express my outlook on that issue.

what I want to know is who is going to decide what families are problems and what families are OK.

This is the toughest part. The key word for me there is 'family' which implies children, as does the article quote “there are people who are using benefits to fund a habit and children are going hungry". My mum is a KS1 teaching assistant and makes home visits at the beginning of each school year to get introduced to the kids before they start. She knows straight away which are the potential problem families and is usually proved right. When certain kids cause trouble at school in these early years, it's almost always related to problems at home.

One possible way to decide would be to send specially trained employees within the Department for Work and Pensions to the welfaire claimants' houses as a form of regular home visits (perhaps once every 2 weeks) to monitor the living conditions, behaviour of the children and overall attitude of the parents. If satisfied that the families are not 'problem families', not more home visits will be required. Any red flags such as beer cans lying around, lots of luxuries like widescreen TVs and games consoles but very little food in the cupboards would require investigation. I appreciate this idea is far from flawless.

What shops would be able to accept these smart cards, not the local corner shop I bet so you will be told where you can shop.

I would imagine all supermarkets and corporate corner shops like One Stop (owned by Tesco), Spar etc. In most cities I imagine there would be one of these within a half mile radius from each person's house.

The riots if I remember was mainly by young people not heads of family so it seems if you are identified as a rioter, that is the problem not how you provide for your kids.

I presume the peope they identified were actually caught [on video or otherwise] causing the violence or stealing. In troubled areas a lot of these young people are the head of a family. If they have engaged in criminal activity they should be held accountable, regardless of their ability to provide for their children. By the sounds of it these people are getting off pretty lightly with an Oyster-style card.

Who decides when a demonstration becomes a riot?

When it becomes violent. CCTV footage; YoutTube uploads from people involved.

So will I be identified as a problem family when I march on the 20thOctober?

Not unless you engage in criminal activity.

items such as food, housing, clothing, education and health care.

I took that to mean prescription medications and books, pencils etc for learning.

reply to post by Fazza!

would imagine all supermarkets and corporate corner shops like One Stop (owned by Tesco), Spar etc. In most cities I imagine there would be one of these within a half mile radius from each person's house.

So you prove my point from a previous email that you will be told where you can and cannot shop.

Look these people do not look you in the eye and tell you what they are going to deny you. They do things just at the edge of your vision. They employ tactics to make you believe it is for your own good and all the while they are adding more links to the chains that bind you.

I presume the people they identified were actually caught [on video or otherwise] causing the violence or stealing.

You presume, you don’t know. What if they just decided to make up a reason?

In troubled areas a lot of these young people are the head of a family. If they have engaged in criminal activity they should be held accountable, regardless of their ability to provide for their children.

And you can bet that those identified taking part in criminal activities were and are punished but the article starts with spending money on booze and fags and then says take part in riots. Which one is it? do only smokers and drinkers riot?

By the sounds of it these people are getting off pretty lightly with an Oyster-style card.

Nope. By the looks of it these people are having controls put on them that could not be installed/accepted any other way than by demonising a group that cannot fight back.

When it becomes violent. CCTV footage; YouTube uploads from people involved.

Sorry but that is naive to the nth degree. A friend was put on a blacklist for complaining that a scaffold was dangerous on a site he was safety Rep on. Those filming the marches are not just from the BBC there are many gathering information on those legally and peacefully exercising their right to protest.

So will I be identified as a problem family when I march on the 20thOctober?

Not unless you engage in criminal activity.

I am beginning to feel that you really do not want to see the world you live in

I took that to mean prescription medications and books, pencils etc for learning.

My understanding is that the unemployed do not pay for prescriptions I may be wrong. Our health care is free at the point of use. smiths little slip tells you it is not the tory intention for it to be so in the future but do you honestly think you will hear them say anything other than 'The NHS is safe in our hands'?

reply to post by colin42

you will be told where you can and cannot shop.

That's not quite true. We're referring specifically to a minority of people claiming welfare here and they will have the freedom to shop wherever they want with money they have saved away or any cash they possess (eg. a gift from a friend for a birthday). We are referring specifically to the welfare income that will not be valid at some shops.

I presume the people they identified were actually caught [on video or otherwise] causing the violence or stealing.

You presume, you don’t know. What if they just decided to make up a reason?

That is correct. I'm posting my opinions, not facts. I would (again) presume that 'they' (I'm assuming the Departmen of Work and Pensions) wouldn't make up a reason without adequate proof.

Which one is it? do only smokers and drinkers riot?

That's the problem with the media - facts get twisted and [often slanderous] generalisations are made. I think the 'Oyster-style cards being given to rioters' was used as an example of a trial that's being proposed but I agree that it almost generalises the rioters as the smokers and drinkers cited by the title.

Those filming the marches are not just from the BBC there are many gathering information on those legally and peacefully exercising their right to protest.

The peaceful protestors would have no problems. I was referring to the people identified engaging in violence within the YouTube videos. I was not referring to the people who film and upload them.

Sorry to hear about your friend. I'm assuming he was notified by letter or email and I'm wondering on what grounds did they claim to have done that?

A quick search found this:

Trade union members in the United Kingdom have been blacklisted by employers using the services of the Economic League (UK)[citation needed] which operated between 1918 and 1993, and The Consulting Association which took over this role until it was closed down in February 2009.

Sourced on Wiki, it cites an Information Commissioner's Office press release but I can't seem to open it to get more info. Perhaps this is relevant? Although you mentioned he was a safety rep so it might be different.

I am beginning to feel that you really do not want to see the world you live in

Without solid evidence what choice do I have? Where's the proof that you could be identified as a problem family for peacefully partaking in a protest?

My understanding is that the unemployed do not pay for prescriptions I may be wrong.

I think you're right that Jobseekers get free prescriptions. That definitely makes Christopher Hope's claim within the article questionable. However, it is important to note that it is not a direct quote from Ian Duncan Smith. It could be misinformed.

reply to post by Fazza!

you will be told where you can and cannot shop

That's not quite true.

No matter how you slice it that is the truth. If you are given a card and where you can use it is limited you are being told where you can shop.

That is correct. I'm posting my opinions, not facts. I would (again) presume that 'they' (I'm assuming the Department of Work and Pensions) wouldn't make up a reason without adequate proof.

Yep big assumptions again. You have google stop assuming, stop eating the crap the press feed you and start looking yourself.

That's the problem with the media - facts get twisted and [often slanderous] generalisations are made.

Nope. The media want to make money and they do this with advertising and they will tell you anything that they think will keep that revenue coming in.

Sorry to hear about your friend. I'm assuming he was notified by letter or email and I'm wondering on what grounds did they claim to have done that?

Jeeze man, blacklisting is illegal. It denies the fundamental right to work. They don’t notify you all you know is that you are not getting jobs you are qualified to do even when there are no other candidates. Electricians against blacklisting

The link you gave and quote from is just one of many examples. Here is one of those blacklisting bosses who has just been appointed to the board of the Health and Safety Executive. Don’t you find this strange? I think it is outrageous.

Mr. Shiplee a blacklister

Without solid evidence what choice do I have? Where's the proof that you could be identified as a problem family for peacefully partaking in a protest?

Oh come on. A quick search for peaceful protesters victimised will give you all the evidence you need.

I think you're right that Jobseekers get free prescriptions. That definitely makes Christopher Hope's claim within the article questionable. However, it is important to note that it is not a direct quote from Ian Duncan Smith. It could be misinformed.

So now look at what the government is doing to the NHS, not what they are saying, what they are doing. Actions speak louder than words or direct quotes.

reply to post by Fazza!


Hmm you truly are as naive as I suspected you were.

Personally I think that was a stupid move posting a link to your Facebook page like that....Andy Farrow of Exmouth, Devon. The drummer who studied at the University of Leeds and gained a degree in meteorology. Your childhood dream was to be a storm chaser? Plus you like skateboarding...well each to their own.

You like Harry Potter? Lame...plus I never liked the Da Vinci Code myself. I thought it was ridiculous.

Also....get your haircut you hippy.

Just kidding!

Originally posted by Fazza!
I'm going to go against the grain here and ask "would a virtual ID system really be that bad? Would it actually affect how we go about our day-to-day lives?"

Q. Will the Government be able to use it to follow our movements online?
A. Authentication is done by trusted third parties and data will not be held centrally by the Government.

Even if they were, surely people who aren't doing anything wrong won't have anything to worry about?

On the other hand, I would have thought that one of the biggest benefits to having online ID would be to get into clubs or go abroad just using your phone (essentially an online passport or driving license) but I couldn't find anything to suggest that this would be possible with the new scheme...

edit on 13/10/2012 by Fazza! because: (no reason given)

Let's pretend Big Brother is friendly, just, and only has your best interests at heart. Here is the number one reason for this not to happen. It is a BIG FAT FAIL:

miami.cbslocal.com...

200K Students’ Information Stolen In Massive Computer Hacking At FL College
October 10, 2012 7:36 PM

***


redmondmag.com...


Microsoft's Online India Store Hacked, Personal Info Stolen
• 02/13/2012
Hackers attacked Microsoft's store in India Sunday night, making off with usernames and passwords of customers who have previously placed orders on the site.
***

www.forbes.com...
FBI Agent's Laptop 'Hacked' To Grab 12 Million Apple IDs - UPDATED DATE Sept. 11, 12:20
***
heraldnews.suntimes.com...
Zappos: Hacker stole personal information of 24 million customers
ASSOCIATED PRESS January 16, 2012 10:46AM
***

www.zdnet.com...

Medicaid hack update: 500,000 records and 280,000 SSNs stolen

Summary: The Utah Department of Health hack has grown once again, and the FBI is now involved. The latest total is 780,000 victims: 500,000 records and 280,000 Social Security numbers (SSNs) stolen.

There are THOUSANDS of examples where HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS or even MILLIONS of people's identity has been stolen. There is not enough room on this comment section to list the THOUSANDS of examples of personal information stolen, when and from who. The internet has opened up a whole new window of opportunity for hackers to get you and your family's information. You can see by my examples, FBI, Medicaid, schools, consumers......NO ONE IS SAFE!!!!!!! Go ahead and trust Big Brother (I don't), but don't trust the hackers!

reply to post by colin42

A quick search for peaceful protesters victimised will give you all the evidence you need.

After searching Google with those three and a variety of related keywords including (but not limited to) uk, riot*, problem*, arrest* in different combinations, I came across a single article from the Telegraph last year: Cuts protesters claim police tricked them into mass arrest (with video).

Perhaps such incidences are not well documented. If you know of any others I'd be interested to read about them.

So now look at what the government is doing to the NHS, not what they are saying, what they are doing.

Would this be what you are referring to? RIP NHS, 1948-2012: Cameron gloats as hated Health Bill passed to allow private firms to cash in on care


reply to post by Kram09

Hmm you truly are as naive as I suspected you were.

Could you please elaborate on why you think that? Which detail on my profile do you think 'they' could use against me?

(Other than the Harry Potter part... )

reply to post by Fazza!

Could you please elaborate on why you think that? Which detail on my profile do you think 'they' could use against me?

Personally I'm not talking about "Big Brother" or whoever....I'm just talking about general internet common sense (that might be an oxymoron) but we seem to have different views about such things.

Each to their own.

Originally posted by Fazza!
I'm going to go against the grain here and ask "would a virtual ID system really be that bad? Would it actually affect how we go about our day-to-day lives?"

It would affect how much of our lives we have to spend under the watchful gaze of a dangerous and utterly unrepentantly evil machine. Not only that, but my grandfathers didnt kill and fight and loose thier mates in the second world war, just so thier own homeland could become a bloody parody of the third reich, which is EXACTLY what this crap is.

Q. Will the Government be able to use it to follow our movements online?
A. Authentication is done by trusted third parties and data will not be held centrally by the Government.

What utter rot. The government, and private companies, will all be able to follow you around the internet, and anywhere the hell else you go, when carrying your wireless internet devices, your tablets, mobiles, laptops, and in car systems even.

Even if they were, surely people who aren't doing anything wrong won't have anything to worry about?

This above statement... This is precisely the problem with the British public these days. Why do you not have a problem with being watched? Do you have no dignity? No pride? Why do you not demand your RIGHT to privacy from observation? Do you walk around in front of your family with your junk hanging out? Do you walk the streets showing off your naked arse?

We, the people, have the right to move about un molested and un observed, UNLESS we have committed an offense, or have been accused of such. Unless there is probable cause for an individual to be under the gaze of the government, there can be no legitimate reason for the government to want to watch a person. There is CERTAINLY no reason why the entire public should be so closely monitored.

Unless a person is a serious offender, or is suspected of serious offence, this sort of monitoring is an invasion of privacy, and the innocent must NEVER accept in apathy , such a total destruction of our basic rights. There can be only one end to allowing such a thing, and that is the entire British public being two steps away from a pair of shackles and a labour camp. I will not have it. I will kill and die before I let that which my forefathers fought for be turned into such a place.

reply to post by TrueBrit

Why do you not have a problem with being watched? Do you have no dignity? No pride? Why do you not demand your RIGHT to privacy from observation? Do you walk around in front of your family with your junk hanging out? Do you walk the streets showing off your naked arse?

There are ~63 million people living in the UK. Who is it that you think is watching all of these people and for what purpose? What resources does the government have to achieve this? Please give me some real evidence and then we can discuss it further. At the moment this is nothing more than a conspiracy theory.

And for the record I have no problem being 'watched'. I'm not doing anything wrong so why should I have a problem? There is a huge difference between walking around naked in the streets and having someone in government look at a Facebook profile, the main one being consideration for others.

We all have our own opinions and mine is no more right or wrong than yours. If you want to keep your privacy that's fine, no one is trying to take it from you.

reply to post by Fazza!


Well thats just it, my privacy IS being erroded, and taken away from me, as is the privacy of every person in the nation, so I am absolutely justified in being utterly appalled and incandescant with outrage about it as it happens.

Maybe by using this 'virtual ID card' scheme it would allow Government to implement David Milibands 'Carbon-credit-card' idea (from 2006) too? And much, much more later on!

The Guardian

Miliband plans carbon trading 'credit cards' for everyone

Under the scheme, everybody would be given an annual allowance of the carbon they could expend on a range of products, probably food, energy and travel. If they wanted to use more carbon, they would be able to buy it from somebody else. And they could sell any surplus.