Public Service Card - ID card by stealth?

uck51js9zml2yt

BarryM wrote: »

Following the issue indicates that should read "is NOW being monitored"

AFAIK, the euromillions case resulted in a check by the Dept. It was reported that one of the people identified as having accessed the data, without any justification, was "allowed to retire" and others were disciplined. Nobody, afaik, was fired.

I suppose we can assume that there is a method of watching who uses what, for what, but when was this introduced and is it automatic? Is there any annual report on the results?

There have also been issues with the garda pulse system, journos being "briefed", spying, etc.

As I said, I have no issues in principle, only with the practice, and why not publish the methodologies of supervision/checks in place? Hacking is today's computer sport.

Everyone logging be in has an id. Very easy to run reports!

AndrewJRenko

Sincere Straight Viper wrote: »

How do we know the 60m saving. A lot of people signed off when asked to get one. They didn't have to give a reason so we don't know if they had been fraudulent claims. I assume they were!

The €60m is the spend, not the saving. And somebody from the Dept did the calculation for assumed savings based on those who signed off, and it still came up in low single figures.

elperello

http://www.independent.ie/business/farming/schemes/no-need-for-psc-to-get-farm-payments-creed-36093067.html

"All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others"
George Orwell - Animal Farm

Brendan Bendar

oscarBravo wrote: »

I agree that we should have clear legislation governing such things, but I'll reiterate that we're not good at having grown-up debates about them. As long as we have opposition parties - any opposition parties - who feel it is their job to prevent the government from ever actually doing anything, then we'll have government parties - any government parties - who will try to do things by stealth instead of through open debate.

National ID cards and registration databases can and do work in other countries. That said, in other countries people get water bills. We have a lot of growing up to do.

Good post OB, as I see it is perhaps other countries maybe work more as a team, take the hit for the greater good and the benefit of everyone.

As I see it here in Ireland, people work for themselves, can't see the overall benefit.

Don't pay tax/vat/upskill themselves, expect others to pay for them, expect the 'priveledged' to shoulder the burden whilst they undermine the whole structure.

Time to wake up here.Take responsibility.

antoinolachtnai

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Good post OB, as I see it is perhaps other countries maybe work more as a team, take the hit for the greater good and the benefit of everyone.

As I see it here in Ireland, people work for themselves, can't see the overall benefit.

Don't pay tax/vat/upskill themselves, expect others to pay for them, expect the 'priveledged' to shoulder the burden whilst they undermine the whole structure.

Time to wake up here.Take responsibility.

That may all be true, but what does it have to do with the Public Services Card?

Cookie_Monster

elperello wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/business/farming/schemes/no-need-for-psc-to-get-farm-payments-creed-36093067.html

"All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others"
George Orwell - Animal Farm

what's so special about farmers that they are exempted, or that the organisations would even by angry at such measures. Pandering to groups like these does nothing but undermine the entire purpose of the card.

Brendan Bendar

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

That may all be true, but what does it have to do with the Public Services Card?

Everything, I would suggest.

It's all about working as a team for the country to ensure that those who deserve get, and those who abuse get caught.

There is no use in my opinion doing otherwise.

Most people who are compliant ,it would seem to me, are in favour.

antoinolachtnai

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Everything, I would suggest.

It's all about working as a team for the country to ensure that those who deserve get, and those who abuse get caught.

There is no use in my opinion doing otherwise.

Most people who are compliant ,it would seem to me, are in favour.

So you are talking only about people committing one very specific type of welfare fraud, not people who are on social welfare benefits for a long period of time or people who are claiming benefits they are not entitled to?

PSC only makes a difference for one very specific type of welfare fraud, personation fraud.

It is easy enough to get a PSC. All you need is a utility bill and a lease. It is hardly a cast-iron guarantee against personation fraud.

Brendan Bendar

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

So you are talking only about people committing one very specific type of welfare fraud, not people who are on social welfare benefits for a long period of time or people who are claiming benefits they are not entitled to?

PSC only makes a difference for one very specific type of welfare fraud, personation fraud.

It is easy enough to get a PSC. All you need is a utility bill and a lease. It is hardly a cast-iron guarantee against personation fraud.

No, I'm talking about anything which:

a. Cuts out beaurotic behaviour and smooths the path for genuine claimants.
b. Decreases the ability to defraud the taxpayer
c.Produces a system where ever claimant can be identified and their record investigated.
e. Throws up statistics which can help administrators evaluate 'areas' we'll say,which are prone to well....operators on the edge of the envelope.

Sounds good enough for me.

antoinolachtnai

Practically all social welfare claimants have a card at present, and there has been hardly any reduction of fraud. The DSP figures confirm this.

The card adds an extra level of bureaucracy in practice. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a passport as ID. Unlike a Public Services Card, you need more than a bill and a docket from your landlord to get a passport.

Every claimant could always be identified and their record investigated. If you need a national identity to figure out that some areas of the country have more social welfare claims than others, then there are much bigger problems.

If you do want a national ID card, then surely it makes sense to have proper laws surrounding it for the benefit of all involved?

Brendan Bendar

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Practically all social welfare claimants have a card at present, and there has been hardly any reduction of fraud. The DSP figures confirm this.

The card adds an extra level of bureaucracy in practice. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a passport as ID. Unlike a Public Services Card, you need more than a bill and a docket from your landlord to get a passport.

Every claimant could always be identified and their record investigated. If you need a national identity to figure out that some areas of the country have more social welfare claims than others, then there are much bigger problems.

If you do want a national ID card, then surely it makes sense to have proper laws surrounding it for the benefit of all involved?

Ok, so in view of your post, what exactly are YOUR objections?

Seth Brundle

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Ok, so in view of your post, what exactly are YOUR objections?

What benefits (sic) does it actually bring that a passport couldn't?

Sam Russell

kbannon wrote: »

What benefits (sic) does it actually bring that a passport couldn't?

First, it is issued by the DSP rather than the DFA.

Second, it is issued to a high level of security (SAFE 2) that is higher than paports used to be issued. Now, renewals can be got online for those with a PSC.

Third,it is now issued following a personal interview at which a biometric photo is taken.

Fourth, it is issued without charge to the recipient, and is for internal use of the Gov, not as ID but proof of ID. [For example, the bank could ask for my debit card and for me to tap in my PIN to prove it is mine - so identifying me, not to transact anything, just ID].

Current passports are more secure as a document than they were, say, 5 years ago. The PSC is another stepping up of security for ID.

Previously, passports were the gold standard for ID. Now the PSC is that standard.

The question is - What is the level of ID security being used for passports issued in NI and Britain?

Cookie_Monster

Sam Russell wrote: »

First, it is issued by the DSP rather than the DFA.

Second, it is issued to a high level of security (SAFE 2) that is higher than paports used to be issued. Now, renewals can be got online for those with a PSC.

Third,it is now issued following a personal interview at which a biometric photo is taken.

Fourth, it is issued without charge to the recipient, and is for internal use of the Gov, not as ID but proof of ID. [For example, the bank could ask for my debit card and for me to tap in my PIN to prove it is mine - so identifying me, not to transact anything, just ID].

Current passports are more secure as a document than they were, say, 5 years ago. The PSC is another stepping up of security for ID.

Previously, passports were the gold standard for ID. Now the PSC is that standard.

The question is - What is the level of ID security being used for passports issued in NI and Britain?

on top of all that it means you don't have to carry around your passport needlessly for these type of things any more. It's an expensive and highly valuable document to be travelling with unnecessarily.

hatrickpatrick

Literally anything which adds unnecessary bureaucracy to already bureaucracy-ridden life in Ireland is something I will always oppose. The personal interview aspect of the PSC will be my reason for joining the opposition to it - Ireland needs to get with the times, far too many things which could easily be done online now require physical attendance at things which are generally an inconvenience to get to unless you live in the city centre. The process to get a Garda Age card comes to mind, where you have to exchange multiple items of post and go to a Garda station several times as opposed to just filling out a feckin' online form, posting or even scanning your proof of identity directly, and having the damn card posted out to you.

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

...just filling out a feckin' online form, posting or even scanning your proof of identity directly, and having the damn card posted out to you.

That sounds like a flawlessly secure way of issuing an identity card.

antoinolachtnai

Sam Russell wrote: »

kbannon wrote: »

What benefits (sic) does it actually bring that a passport couldn't?

First, it is issued by the DSP rather than the DFA.

Second, it is issued to a high level of security (SAFE 2) that is higher than paports used to be issued.

Can you tell me more about the SAFE2 security? What exactly does that mean? Is it a technology? Where is it documented?

Fourth, it is issued without charge to the recipient, and is for internal use of the Gov, not as ID but proof of ID. [For example, the bank could ask for my debit card and for me to tap in my PIN to prove it is mine - so identifying me, not to transact anything, just ID].

Can you explain this point more?

The question is - What is the level of ID security being used for passports issued in NI and Britain?

How is that a relevant question? Can you explain more?

Sam Russell

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Can you tell me more about the SAFE2 security? What exactly does that mean? Is it a technology? Where is it documented?

If you google Safe 2 you will get this

Standard Authentication Framework Enviroment = SAFE
There are levels of SAFE.

0 = No assurance of identity.
1 = balance of probability - current holder of PPS number.
2 = substantial assurance - photograph, signature - taken at interview.
3 = Beyond reasonable doubt - backed by fingerprint.

Once you have the PSC it is not necessary to to prove your ID to the Gov - it is your ID. Now it is not a National ID Card - because no one will ask you for it, even can ask you for it. You can only have one ID, and your PPS number is the route to it. If you like, it is proof the your PPS number relates to you - (in the photograph).

Google is your friend.

antoinolachtnai

Is SAFE defined in a national or international standard?

Is it underpinned in legislation?

Is it a standard for authentication at point of issue?

Or is it a biometric standard?

Can you tell us more about SAFE3 In particular?

Can you provide actual documentation or is scrapings from the comptroller's website all there is to offer?

blanch152

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Literally anything which adds unnecessary bureaucracy to already bureaucracy-ridden life in Ireland is something I will always oppose. The personal interview aspect of the PSC will be my reason for joining the opposition to it - Ireland needs to get with the times, far too many things which could easily be done online now require physical attendance at things which are generally an inconvenience to get to unless you live in the city centre. The process to get a Garda Age card comes to mind, where you have to exchange multiple items of post and go to a Garda station several times as opposed to just filling out a feckin' online form, posting or even scanning your proof of identity directly, and having the damn card posted out to you.

Except that the PSC reduces unnecessary bureaucracy by giving you a single card to access multiple public services.

Yes, it is unnecessary if you don't access public services, but otherwise it is a good idea.

Sam Russell

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Is SAFE defined in a national or international standard?

Is it underpinned in legislation?

Is it a standard for authentication at point of issue?

Or is it a biometric standard?

Can you tell us more about SAFE3 In particular?

Can you provide actual documentation or is scrapings from the comptroller's website all there is to offer?

I do not work for the Gov in any capacity but have sought to inform myself.

My post above is a good summary of what I found. If you want more, Google is your friend. Alternatively, check with your local DSP office, TD, or other source of information.

The PPS number is your entry to the Gov service, the PSC is issued as a certified identity link between the person in the photo, and the PPS number on the card. That is it.

Given the above, it is legal, afaik, for the DSP to require the PSC as proof of someone's ID. PPS numbers were given out with gay abandon during the boom, and now they are tightening up on them and certifying the holders by interview and photo. Using facial recognition software, they will be able to identify duplicates (and identical twins).

gizmo555

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Is it underpinned in legislation?

No, and this is the problem.

There is no legal basis, for example, for the RSA to insist that one must have a public services card to register for the driver theory test, or for the Dept of Foreign Affairs to require passport applicants to have one.

Even the arguments by the DSP that the PSC is required to get social welfare payments don't stand up to scrutiny.

The government could legislate to fill these gaps, but apparently either can't be bothered or doubts it could get the legislation passed. So, instead, it's relying on bullying people into getting the cards and assumes nobody will be prepared to take the time, effort, and risk to challenge them in the High Court.

AndrewJRenko

blanch152 wrote: »

Except that the PSC reduces unnecessary bureaucracy by giving you a single card to access multiple public services.

There is no legal basis for using the PSC card to access services outside of Dept Social Protection, such as driving test, passport replacement or agriculture grants. This is being driven by officials without any policy decision, discussion or legislation.

blanch152

gizmo555 wrote: »

No, and this is the problem.

There is no legal basis, for example, for the RSA to insist that one must have a public services card to register for the driver theory test, or for the Dept of Foreign Affairs to require passport applicants to have one.

Even the arguments by the DSP that the PSC is required to get social welfare payments don't stand up to scrutiny.

The government could legislate to fill these gaps, but apparently either can't be bothered or doubts it could get the legislation passed. So, instead, it's relying on bullying people into getting the cards and assumes nobody will be prepared to take the time, effort, and risk to challenge them in the High Court.

They wouldn't win a case in the High Court unless they can show some breach of Data Protection Law. Up until now, all the Data Protection Commissioner has said is explain it better, tidy up the law and make sure data can't leak. None of that says that it is illegal.

gizmo555

blanch152 wrote: »

They wouldn't win a case in the High Court unless they can show some breach of Data Protection Law. Up until now, all the Data Protection Commissioner has said is explain it better, tidy up the law and make sure data can't leak. None of that says that it is illegal.

That's not true. If, for example, the RSA is denying people access to the driver theory test unless they have a public services card, they have to be able to demonstrate what the legislative basis for this is.

In that respect, it actually has nothing to do with data protection - it's about state agencies arbitrarily demanding people produce public services cards and denying them their services and entitlements without any legislative basis.

Sam Russell

gizmo555 wrote: »

That's not true. If, for example, the RSA is denying people access to the driver theory test unless they have a public services card, they have to be able to demonstrate what the legislative basis for this is.

In that respect, it actually has nothing to do with data protection - it's about state agencies arbitrarily demanding people produce public services cards and denying them their services and entitlements without any legislative basis.

Is there a legal basis for the RSA to demand a PPS number before a theory test be granted?

Is there a legal basis for the DFA to demand a PPS number before issuing a passport?

If the answer is YES, then that is the legal basis for the PSC. The PSC is just a manifestation of new security methods for issuing or validating a PPS number.

If the answer is NO, then there is no legal basis.

The DSP can decide their own security basis for validating the PPS number, and that is what they are doing.

gizmo555

Sam Russell wrote: »

The DSP can decide their own security basis for validating the PPS number, and that is what they are doing.

No, they can't. At least not on the basis of present legislation. I suggest you read Digital Rights Ireland's blog post "Is the Public Services Card Mandatory to access state services?"

In summary, it argues convincingly that there is no legal basis for the DSP, the RSA, the Passport Office, etc, to insist that a public services card is the only form of identity document which they will accept.

blanch152

gizmo555 wrote: »

That's not true. If, for example, the RSA is denying people access to the driver theory test unless they have a public services card, they have to be able to demonstrate what the legislative basis for this is.

In that respect, it actually has nothing to do with data protection - it's about state agencies arbitrarily demanding people produce public services cards and denying them their services and entitlements without any legislative basis.

Why? It would be an administrative requirement rather than a legislative requirement that the PSC is the acceptable form of ID. Nothing in legislation prevents the RSA from insisting on certain forms of ID.

gizmo555

blanch152 wrote: »

Why? It would be an administrative requirement rather than a legislative requirement that the PSC is the acceptable form of ID. Nothing in legislation prevents the RSA from insisting on certain forms of ID.

You've got it bass ackwards. The RSA can certainly seek reasonable evidence of ID, but it can't insist on a PSC as the only acceptable ID and refuse, for example, a passport, without specific legislative authority. The point is citizens cannot be denied their rights and entitlements merely on the basis of an administrative decision with no legal backing. Here's how the "Irish Times" put it today:

... there is a core principle at stake here. The authority of every state rests ultimately on its position as the sole repository of power, In countries where democracy and the rule of law apply, that power is held in check by courts and parliament. Therefore, when this State wields coercive power – including the denial of services or travel documents – it has a particular obligation to show clearly and conclusively that its actions are legally robust and absolutely necessary. In this instance, that requirement has yet to be met.

blanch152

gizmo555 wrote: »

No, they can't. At least not on the basis of present legislation. I suggest you read Digital Rights Ireland's blog post "Is the Public Services Card Mandatory to access state services?"

In summary, it argues convincingly that there is no legal basis for the DSP, the RSA, the Passport Office, etc, to insist that a public services card is the only form of identity document which they will accept.

Nobody has said it is mandatory.

I have read the blog post, but the corollary is also true - there is no legal basis preventing the DSP, the RSA or any other government body from insisting which form of identity document which they will accept.

If you think about it, that must be the case. If I rock up the RSA and say here is my Tesco loyalty card, you must let me sit the driver theory test, they will tell me where to go. If I insist that there is no legal basis for them refusing to accept a Tesco loyalty card as an identity document, they will quite rightly laugh in my face. All the evidence therefore suggests that it is within the remit of the RSA to determine which if any forms of identity they will accept.

blanch152

gizmo555 wrote: »

You've got it bass ackwards. The RSA can certainly seek reasonable evidence of ID, but it can't insist on a PSC as the only acceptable ID and refuse, for example, a passport, without specific legislative authority. The point is citizens cannot be denied their rights and entitlements merely on the basis of an administrative decision with no legal backing. Here's how the "Irish Times" put it today:

... there is a core principle at stake here. The authority of every state rests ultimately on its position as the sole repository of power, In countries where democracy and the rule of law apply, that power is held in check by courts and parliament. Therefore, when this State wields coercive power – including the denial of services or travel documents – it has a particular obligation to show clearly and conclusively that its actions are legally robust and absolutely necessary. In this instance, that requirement has yet to be met.

If the Irish Times is correct, I could take the RSA to court for refusing to accept my Tesco loyalty card as proof of ID. In fact, I must dig out my old Xtravision card for my next trip to a government office for the laugh.

Edit: Actually, to give a better example, I am going to run down to the local Mercedes dealer and ask for a car loan on the basis of my ancient student card.

gizmo555

blanch152 wrote: »

If the Irish Times is correct, I could take the RSA to court for refusing to accept my Tesco loyalty card as proof of ID. In fact, I must dig out my old Xtravision card for my next trip to a government office for the laugh

Nonsense. The RSA could reasonably argue the Xtravision card is inadequate proof of ID, but there is no way they could say the same of a valid passport. Yet they won't accept passports as proof of ID - it has to be the PSC.

gizmo555

blanch152 wrote: »

Nobody has said it is mandatory.

"Let’s be very clear. Nobody is required by law to have a card. So therefore it isn’t compulsory. But for my department it’s mandatory."

Minister for Social Protection, Regina Doherty TD.

antoinolachtnai

Minister is not entitled to require the card where the card has not been issued and has no legal basis for doing so.

blanch152

gizmo555 wrote: »

Nonsense. The RSA could reasonably argue the Xtravision card is inadequate proof of ID, but there is no way they could say the same of a valid passport. Yet they won't accept passports as proof of ID - it has to be the PSC.

You are confusing me.

Either there is no legislative basis for the RSA to refuse my Tesco loyalty card or your passport or there is.

If you maintain that the RSA could reasonably argue the Tesco loyalty card is inadequate proof of ID, they could reasonably argue that about any ID, without any legislative basis for doing so.

gizmo555

blanch152 wrote: »

You are confusing me.

Either there is no legislative basis for the RSA to refuse my Tesco loyalty card or your passport or there is.

If you maintain that the RSA could reasonably argue the Tesco loyalty card is inadequate proof of ID, they could reasonably argue that about any ID, without any legislative basis for doing so.

Now you're being unreasonable. :pac:

blanch152

gizmo555 wrote: »

Now you're being unreasonable. :pac:

Look I am just pointing out that if the RSA are entitled under existing legislation to refuse my old Xtravision card, my ancient student card and my current Tesco loyalty card as acceptable forms of ID, then it is free to them to decide only to accept the public services card and to refuse all others.

gizmo555

blanch152 wrote: »

Look I am just pointing out that if the RSA are entitled under existing legislation to refuse my old Xtravision card, my ancient student card and my current Tesco loyalty card as acceptable forms of ID, then it is free to them to decide only to accept the public services card and to refuse all others.

No, it can't. Don't take my word for it - here are Dr TJ McIntyre's comments to Sean O'Rourke on RTE radio last week, in the context of the woman denied €13k in pension payments for refusing to register for a PSC. TJ is a solicitor, UCD law lecturer, and expert on data protection & privacy law.

"Well maybe I can go back a bit and talk about that case of the pensioner because it really illustrates a very significant problem. There’s two real concerns here one is that the legislation doesn’t say public service cards are mandatory to get benefits including pensions, the legislation says the Minister may use them to verify identity but it doesn’t say it’s the only way in which you may verify someone’s identity.

So if an elderly woman is being bullied into getting a Public Services card where there are other equally good ways of authenticating identity such as passport that is fundamentally unlawful. The Minister can’t adopt a blanket policy, can’t fetter her discretion in this way by saying I’m only going to take one form of identification.”

blanch152

gizmo555 wrote: »

No, it can't. Don't take my word for it - here are Dr TJ McIntyre's comments to Sean O'Rourke on RTE radio last week, in the context of the woman denied €13k in pension payments for refusing to register for a PSC. TJ is a solicitor, UCD law lecturer, and expert on data protection & privacy law.

"Well maybe I can go back a bit and talk about that case of the pensioner because it really illustrates a very significant problem. There’s two real concerns here one is that the legislation doesn’t say public service cards are mandatory to get benefits including pensions, the legislation says the Minister may use them to verify identity but it doesn’t say it’s the only way in which you may verify someone’s identity.

So if an elderly woman is being bullied into getting a Public Services card where there are other equally good ways of authenticating identity such as passport that is fundamentally unlawful. The Minister can’t adopt a blanket policy, can’t fetter her discretion in this way by saying I’m only going to take one form of identification.”

But that completely contradicts your statement that my Tesco loyalty card isn't good enough and they can refuse that.

The principle that the RSA or whichever government body can refuse a particular piece of ID is established, and is therefore safe in law, so that is a red herring.

The debate is therefore about which particular forms of ID are acceptable to the RSA. Your point rests on there being "equally good ways of authenticating identity", but as has already been pointed out in this thread, the PSC introduces a different level in terms of authenticating identity. Until the other forms catch up, why settle for second-best?

gizmo555

blanch152 wrote: »

But that completely contradicts your statement that my Tesco loyalty card isn't good enough and they can refuse that.

No it doesn't, as I'm sure you're well aware. TJ talked about "good ways of authenticating identity". Your loyalty card is not a good way, as Tesco makes no effort whatsoever to verify card holders identity - you can register as any name you like. On the other hand, stringent measures are in place to ensure the identity of passport applicants, so a passport is a good way of authenticating identity - better, in fact, than a PSC. (You don't have to get sign-off from a guard to get a PSC.)

Actually, what's most ridiculous about the RSA's and other public bodies' refusals to accept passports as evidence of identity, is that the Dept of Social Protection does - when you register for a PSC!

antoinolachtnai

The PSC is a pretty weak proof of identity. You can get a PSC with a utility bill and a letter from your landlord. The ridiculous 'SAFE2' documentation also indicates that the PSC does not provide a high degree of certainty.

blanch152

gizmo555 wrote: »

No it doesn't, as I'm sure you're well aware. TJ talked about "good ways of authenticating identity". Your loyalty card is not a good way, as Tesco makes no effort whatsoever to verify card holders identity - you can register as any name you like. On the other hand, stringent measures are in place to ensure the identity of passport applicants, so a passport is a good way of authenticating identity - better, in fact, than a PSC. (You don't have to get sign-off from a guard to get a PSC.)

Actually, what's most ridiculous about the RSA's and other public bodies' refusals to accept passports as evidence of identity, is that the Dept of Social Protection does - when you register for a PSC!

T.J. can talk all he likes about "good ways of authenticating identity" but if the RSA have the legal power to refuse a Tesco loyalty card, they have the legal power to refuse any form of identity other than the one or ones that they accept.

BorneTobyWilde

In the news and on websites it says that in the future you will need a PSC to obtain a first time passport, yet if you try to get a passport now they insist on you getting a PSC.
What the Fcck is the actual legislation regarding this.
There are 1000s upon 1000's of people who want nothing to do with a PSC and when those people tried to get a passport to go on a well earned holiday found out they could not, they are basically trapped, prisoners in Ireland, as they will NEVER get a PSC willingly.
SO how can that be right, to deny people the right to travel,to have a holiday?

blanch152

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

In the news and on websites it says that in the future you will need a PSC to obtain a first time passport, yet if you try to get a passport now they insist on you getting a PSC.
What the Fcck is the actual legislation regarding this.
There are 1000s upon 1000's of people who want nothing to do with a PSC and when those people tried to get a passport to go on a well earned holiday found out they could not, they are basically trapped, prisoners in Ireland, as they will NEVER get a PSC willingly.
SO how can that be right, to deny people the right to travel,to have a holiday?

They are not being denied the right to travel in the same way that a bank isn't denying you the right to a bank account when you are asked to produce evidence of identity that they accept.

The objections to this card are bizarre, though by far the strangest objections are the Facebook campaigns. Those people have given more information about their identity and their life to Facebook then they will ever have to give to the PSC. It is beyond bizarre that.

BorneTobyWilde

blanch152 wrote: »

They are not being denied the right to travel in the same way that a bank isn't denying you the right to a bank account when you are asked to produce evidence of identity that they accept.

The objections to this card are bizarre, though by far the strangest objections are the Facebook campaigns. Those people have given more information about their identity and their life to Facebook then they will ever have to give to the PSC. It is beyond bizarre that.

Is it actually the law that one needs a PSC to get a passport, or is it just another way to trick people into getting one.

Sam Russell

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Is it actually the law that one needs a PSC to get a passport, or is it just another way to trick people into getting one.

Where is the trick? Many people were delighted to get a PSC card, because it came with Free Travel. I do not think those who get a FTP would give it up because it comes on a PSC.

There is no charge for a PSC, but there is a charge for a passport, and for a driving licence.

So where is the trick?

nuac

I cannot see any valid objection to everybody having an identity card, and having to produce it when and where directed by law

jimmycrackcorm

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

In the news and on websites it says that in the future you will need a PSC to obtain a first time passport, yet if you try to get a passport now they insist on you getting a PSC.
What the Fcck is the actual legislation regarding this.
There are 1000s upon 1000's of people who want nothing to do with a PSC and when those people tried to get a passport to go on a well earned holiday found out they could not, they are basically trapped, prisoners in Ireland, as they will NEVER get a PSC willingly.
SO how can that be right, to deny people the right to travel, to have a holiday?

Is your complaint that you have to go to a S.W. office to provide your details for identification instead of going to a Garda station with your details and photographs?

If you don't want the card after then throw it away and keep your passport card but ultimately it's splitting hairs.

TBH I think there should have been an option to get a combined passport card that could be used for passport, driving licence and PSC.

BarryM

Sam Russell wrote: »

Where is the trick? Many people were delighted to get a PSC card, because it came with Free Travel. I do not think those who get a FTP would give it up because it comes on a PSC.

There is no charge for a PSC, but there is a charge for a passport, and for a driving licence.

So where is the trick?

I pointed out earlier that I got a PSC as a replacement for my existing free travel card. I didn't ask for it. My original free travel card didn't have a photo, the PSC does, the photo is copied from my driving license.

This may not be a trick, but it sure is an indication of a methodology of sharing the data. I was never asked to authorise that, the driving license office took the photo. AFAIK, it is that aspect, amongst others, that the Data Commissioner has asked to be clarified and the Min of Finance has said needs re-examination.

Seems reasonable to me, as DRI says in the blog, if you are going to do it, do it right.

This thread goes to show that the silly season is in full swing. Why are people getting so worked up about getting a plastic card that identifies them to Government departments? Would they rather delays of weeks or months in any claim they may have without one?