mandatory id cards

Lemming

Originally posted by Imposter

As i've mentioned in a thread in humanities I've seen friends of mine refused with Driving Licences and heard of others refused from pubs with passports!

Then why bother bringing in another form of ID that can then be refused? Driving licences and passports are state-issued (and not on a whim either) documents. So what makes you think a third state-issued document/ID is going to be any more accepted?

Introducing mandatory ID's should be compulsory. Not only going ot the pub but walking down the street. If you are alone and something happens to you then people can easily check where you live etc. Also if you are up to no good the guards can ask you for this ID which you SHOULD have. If you don't then get arrested, you won't forget it next time especially if you were in the right. Also in pubs everyone should be made produce it.

Should you have a fake one and a pub is checked, you must produce it and then you are caught and should be jailed or heavily fined. Tourists should be made known about the law and their passports should be valid.

If I recall, in countries where you're required to produce ID upon request by law-enforcement agencies, any ID is sufficient. If it's fake, yer screwed. It's as simple as that.

So again, why need to bring in ANOTHER type of ID?

As for objections from people about losing their privacy, surely it would have the effect of making things better for those that are law abiding out there. Obviously those that break the law will have objections!

ah yes, the old "if you have nothing to hide" routine. How about "I don't want to have every tom, dick, and harry know my business"??

Imposter

Originally posted by Lemming
Then why bother bringing in another form of ID that can then be refused? Driving licences and passports are state-issued (and not on a whim either) documents. So what makes you think a third state-issued document/ID is going to be any more accepted?

Because driving licences are to say you can drive and passports are for travelling. Maybe combine the driving licence and ID but a passport is too valuable (and awkward) to be carrying around.

If I recall, in countries where you're required to produce ID upon request by law-enforcement agencies, any ID is sufficient. If it's fake, yer screwed. It's as simple as that.

True but having just one main ID that is valid would give people who require valid ID for something, less get out clauses (eg publicans claiming they didn't recognise the issuer).

ah yes, the old "if you have nothing to hide" routine. How about "I don't want to have every tom, dick, and harry know my business"?? [/B]

How would every Tom, Dick and Harry know your business, especially if it's only the guards that control the information? Surely your driving licence /passport gives every Tom, Dick and Harry the same oppurtunities to know your business! As well as every other form of ID you may have. Something like this might mean less people know your business, not more!

Lemming

Originally posted by Imposter
Because driving licences are to say you can drive and passports are for travelling. Maybe combine the driving licence and ID but a passport is too valuable (and awkward) to be carrying around.

ABsolutely correct about the Passport. You shouldn't be carrying it on a night out anyway. But my original point still standsm irrespective of what the ID represents. It's ID. it's very much official and extrordinarly difficult to forge with any degree of authenticity to withstand any sort of scrutiny. So why do we need ANOTHER ID? We have several already, and the publicans STILL find excuses. TBH, it's a pile of total w^nk, and it wont solve the colour of sh*te much less anything else.

"YES We've got a social problem. Make people carry mandatory ID.

"YES we've got another social problem. Umm ... ban a certian type of drink but leave other just-as-potent-alternatives available"

"YES we've got another social problem. Bring in a wad of new legislsation that'll never be enforced on motorbike drivers when all we need to do is enforce the existing"

You get the idea?

This is not any sort of effective solution. Christ sake, why don't they just make us all have bar-codes tattooed into our fore-arms? Too uncomfortable a suggestion? Too close to historical events? Gee-whizz, it's effective though isn't it? That way everyone can be ID'd all the time!

True but having just one main ID that is valid would give people who require valid ID for something, less get out clauses (eg publicans claiming they didn't recognise the issuer).

See my above comments about publicans finding excuses as it is already.

Oh, and as an aside - here's a thought for you. If everyone HAS to carry a state-issued ID at all times, anyone who wants to gain possession of an ID knows that they are guaruanteed one on anyone they stop/pick-pocket/mug. Thus enhancing the chances of identity theft. Very difficult to dis-prove if someone uses YOUR ID which is recognised by the state.

Imposter

Originally posted by Lemming
"YES We've got a social problem. Make people carry mandatory ID.

"YES we've got another social problem. Umm ... ban a certian type of drink but leave other just-as-potent-alternatives available"

"YES we've got another social problem. Bring in a wad of new legislsation that'll never be enforced on motorbike drivers when all we need to do is enforce the existing"

You get the idea?

I agree with most of this. IMO this is why such a step is neccesary. Ok all this requires the government and the guards to actually get up and enforce it but if it was enforced these social problems could be reduced. Most people are law-abiding and want a life free from the sh1t that is everywhere at the moment. If such a system was put in place I think it would eventually deter people from criminal actions. Yes, yes if the guards enforce it..
This would make life in general more palatable and a better quality of life for everyone!

Christ sake, why don't they just make us all have bar-codes tattooed into our fore-arms?

Great idea. Do you think it'll work!;)

See my above comments about publicans finding excuses as it is already.

Don't get me started on this one. (HAve a look at the discussion in Humanities). Just to say,
1) Open up the licencing system
2) Compulsary ID (as above) for everyone
3) Make it illegal to serve drunk people
4) Take licences away from publicans who abuse, discriminate and generally take the p1ss out of the public and the laws.

Very difficult to dis-prove if someone uses YOUR ID which is recognised by the state.

This problem exists already! Ok admittedly it would be slightly worse with one overall ID card. But then the card is fake and if checked by a cop it is seen to be so. Or not?

Lemming

Originally posted by Imposter
I agree with most of this. IMO this is why such a step is neccesary.

It's not necessary. It's not going to stop anything at all. It's media fluff to make it look like the vintners are "responsible" people whilst allowing them shirk on actually being responsible for what they do - serve people drink. THey're blaming everyone but themselves.

If they're so keen on this mandatory new uber-ID, then why don't they put up the money for it. Why should I pay for their inability to act responsibily by giving billy-I've-had-too-much-drink another pint since they're getting lots of money off him for it ?

We have a garda ID. We have drivers licences, passports, etc. etc. You're still not seeing my point about all this ID. Irrespective of what it's used for, it's a state-issued-document-proving-you-are-who-you-claim-you-are. You don't just waltz into your nearest government institution and pick one up at the counter for free.

if we actually forced peopel to be responsible for their actions, we'd have a far better society. Instead we get this "blame everyone/thing" else syndrome.

Great idea. Do you think it'll work!;)

heh. Probably. Of course it may not go down too well with the electorate

We'll probably have to address Beeerrrrtie as "mein fuhrer beeerrrrtie" though

This problem exists already! Ok admittedly it would be slightly worse with one overall ID card. But then the card is fake and if checked by a cop it is seen to be so. Or not?

If the card is being checked by a garda, then why the need for a mandatory ID? Any id that looks suspect is going to have you flagged, dragged down the station, etc, etc. The fact that it's a state-issued-document that's been forged will make the situation more serious, but the general result is the same. Deep sh*t.

Trebor

can your genes tell how old your are?

maybe we could get a device that scans your DNA and tells how old you are and then have them on the door's and bar's so that when you enter the building you get scanned and when you buy a drink you get scanned.

then there would be no need for ID as it does not need to say who you are just that you are over 18. problem solved

solice

as much of a good idea that that is, money. even if it was possible i dont think joe soap the man who owns the local could afford one.

Mighty_Mouse

Introducing mandatory ID's should be compulsory. Not only going ot the pub but walking down the street. If you are alone and something happens to you then people can easily check where you live etc. Also if you are up to no good the guards can ask you for this ID which you SHOULD have. If you don't then get arrested, you won't forget it next time especially if you were in the right.

oh my god,!!

I can't believe ppl actually think this. To this is apalling!
I would leave the country if this sort of legislation was introduced and implemented properly.

It comes down to where you start you're argument. I basically think it's a free country unless I break the law.


Again the problem with ppl being refused entry to a pub after showing passport or driving licence - the solution here is not to bring in another ID!!!!

solice

exactly, we have legitimate id as it is, why in gods name do we need one more that is mandatory and will cost the tax payer millions.

its a bad idea that is costly and irresponsible

Imposter

Originally posted by Mighty_Mouse
It comes down to where you start you're argument. I basically think it's a free country unless I break the law.

With what i'm suggesting, law abiding people 'may' be asked for ID in a pub. Other than that dealing with government agencies, maybe universities, and things like that where you need to prove who you say you are, are the only times they'll need them.

Again the problem with ppl being refused entry to a pub after showing passport or driving licence - the solution here is not to bring in another ID!!!!

Correct, but my thinking here is bring in an ID which the publican's cannot query as to its authenticity, it means the public don't have to carry valuable documents, such as passports, out with them and it is implemented for everyone and therefore there are no problems with 'under or over 24' and such issues (as with the current half ärsed solution that is Garda ID's).

But there's no chance of anything ever been seriously done about it anyway!

solice

ok im going to let ye all in on a secret. when you are under 18 you are not stupid.
when they go out they get id off an older friend, brother sister. someone that looks like them. surely if you brought in another form of id they would do the same.
its pointless, its stupid.
the garda age card scheme didnt work, what makes anyone think that this will work.

DeVore

I'd just like to point out that not everyone has a drivers license.

I dont for example

In fact proving that I *am* Tom Murphy can be a bit tricky at times when companies ask for two pieces of ID.

Unless the Garda ID card had a bar-code or a mag-strip on it, I wouldnt object to carrying it. What I *would* object to is another electronic "tag" that can monitor my actions/travels.

DeV.

ps: Ironically I've tried to use my Gold Card credit card as id before.... not acceptible. I've bought nearly 10K's worth of equipment with that card ... but its not acceptible to prove who I am.... weird.

Sparks

How would every Tom, Dick and Harry know your business, especially if it's only the guards that control the information? Surely your driving licence /passport gives every Tom, Dick and Harry the same oppurtunities to know your business! As well as every other form of ID you may have. Something like this might mean less people know your business, not more!

Why is it that even with the Morris tribunal and the incidents around the country of Gardai being prosecuted for criminal acts, that people still have this absolute trust in their honesty?
Fact is, a mandatory ID card will not prevent crime, the security of the information cannot be ensured, and the whole thing is the thin edge of a wedge we DO NOT want.

Maybe if we lived in an honest country we could do this, but somehow I don't think even then it would be a good idea.

Imposter

Originally posted by Sparks
Why is it that even with the Morris tribunal and the incidents around the country of Gardai being prosecuted for criminal acts, that people still have this absolute trust in their honesty?

I'm sorry if what I said gave the impression that I had absolute trust in the Gardai but that is far from the truth. IMO policing is one of the biggest problems with Ireland today. Whether that's the fault of the guards, the courts and/or the way governments seem to half-do everything is another discussion.

Also, before any ID system should be introduced (same should have been the case for penalty points) the Gardai need to be accountable for their actions.

solice

the thin edge of a wedge

so i dont crack up, whats a thin edge of a wedge and why do people keep saying it. sorry for straying from the point

GuanYin

My understanding of this was that the Mandatory ID was not an "anti-underage drinking" campaign, but a general policy to be brought in (ie. anyone under twenty-X years of age must be able to produce their ID if stopped by the garda after a certain time).

This policy would be outragous. It would basically be the government washing its hands of the crime problem and tarring all young people with the same brush. I don't think it would be much of an incoveniece, but the principle of the matter is outragous.

Now, ID for pubs is a different matter. People over here seem to think its a huge offence or problem to be asked for ID in a pub. Its stupid. I'd be happy and open to publicans demanding ID off the majority of people in a pub. The Equality laws are there to prevent discrimination (in theory) so let them ask for ID, if it became thenorm at least you'd have all this stupid embarassment and arguing people have when they are 22 and asked for ID (I mean FFS its not like youre 50).

This is the way it will probably go anyway, because I'm wellllllllll past my 23rd birthday and I still get asked for ID regularly. If they bring in a 23-25 ID system it will mean anyone up to 35 is liable to be asked.

If they bring in mandatory ID in general though, I'll be most unhappy:

Garda: ID please
Me: I'm over 25 I don't need to carry ID.
Garda: But you don't look that old
Me: Well I must be, otherwise I'd have mandatory ID
Garda: Oh, ok then, carry on.

Trebor

this is not a Mandatory ID, it is just making it law that all people who wish to drink and are younger than 2X must produce ID to get said drink.

it would only be mandatory if it was forced upon everyone and people where not given a choice about carrying it.

Lemming

Originally posted by sykeirl
My understanding of this was that the Mandatory ID was not an "anti-underage drinking" campaign, but a general policy to be brought in (ie. anyone under twenty-X years of age must be able to produce their ID if stopped by the garda after a certain time).

This policy would be outragous. It would basically be the government washing its hands of the crime problem and tarring all young people with the same brush. I don't think it would be much of an incoveniece, but the principle of the matter is outragous.

And as with the current government's amazing clarity in other issues, telling people in age bracket 'n' that they must carry mandatory ID is utterly stupid. Do they think that people outside of this bracket DON'T need to carry ID?

But what if you're over the age and don't have the mandatory ID on you since you're not obliged to carry it? Will the gardai arrest you and make you prove you're over the age? Then that means that EVERYONE has to carry the ID in question anyway.

I've said it once, and I'll say it again, all of these calls are from people trying to avoid their own responsibilities.

Now, ID for pubs is a different matter. People over here seem to think its a huge offence or problem to be asked for ID in a pub. Its stupid. I'd be happy and open to publicans demanding ID off the majority of people in a pub. The Equality laws are there to prevent discrimination (in theory) so let them ask for ID, if it became thenorm at least you'd have all this stupid embarassment and arguing people have when they are 22 and asked for ID (I mean FFS its not like youre 50).

I don't have a problem with being asked for ID at a pub, but I have a real problem with publicans demanding that I pay for their desire to act in an irresponsible manner towards alcohol and get away with blaming something/someone else.

(I also have an issue with a bouncer the size of a gorilla - with a brainsize to match - telling me that my state-issued ID which I had to get by producing my f*cking birth-cert is not valid)

We don't need another ID scheme. We have dozens already. Why not actually improve upon those or actually start enforcing some of the legislation already passed before throwing more money down the toilet on an ill-thought-out and hair-brained scheme that is nothing mor ethan media fluff. The way it's being bandied about you'd swear it was the solution to all of our social ills.

Sparks

so i dont crack up, whats a thin edge of a wedge and why do people keep saying it.

It's how they bring in bad laws in this country. It refers to how you split a log with a wedge - it's not so easy to get the first millimetre or so of the wedge in, and then the rest follows more easily because of the tip being in.
It works similarly in this country. For example, handguns. In 1972, a temporary order was issued for all legally held handguns to be handed in for a period of one month for "security reasons".
They've still not been handed back and the owners have still not been compensated.
For another example, the reduction of power in local government. First small changes were made, making them more "accountable" to central government and over the years, more and more changes have been made, essentially castrating local authorities.

And now, mandatory IDs are being introduced, one bit at a time. First mandatory for the under-24s for buying alcohol. Well, that seems okay, so noone really has a valid complaint. Then let's make it for all ages - after all it worked so well with the under-24's and we can't really be agist, can we? And then, well, it would be so useful to have a permanent ID, and you're carrying one for the pub anyway, right? So let's make it mandatory to always carry it. And if you're allways carrying it, wouldn't it be handy to have more information on it? So lets carry all your medical and judicial files on the card...
And before you know it, you're in a totalitarian state.

DeVore

Originally posted by Sparks
And if you're allways carrying it, wouldn't it be handy to have more information on it? So lets carry all your medical and judicial files on the card...
And before you know it, you're in a totalitarian state.

Ok you were going great guns until you made this rather illogical and somewhat hysterical jump...

Can you please explain to me how carrying a card that contains medical and judicial information (along with allowing me into a pub) leads in exorably to a "totalitarian state"?

(I'm not agreeing nor disagreeing, I'm pointing out a leap to conclusion hidden amongst a precusor of "reasonably logical" statements. Sets my radar off like a christmas tree... )

DeV.

Sparks

Dev,
There are several more steps, I just summarised them.
But, here's a possible progression:

Mandatory ID cards with judicial and medical information have been brought in.
Now, why not get rid of all those annoying cards in your wallet and just have one card for everything? And you have to have that ID card, so let's use it.
Now you have mandatory ID cards with medical, judicial, financial and licencing information.
But what if it get's stolen? Identity theft is a serious problem now, remember, so let's add a tracking chip.
Now we have a mandatory ID card with medical, judicial, financial and licencing information and a tracking chip.
But what if a criminal attacks someone else? Well, we should have a database that tracks movements of people with criminal records (lets start with sex offenders and progress through murderers, burgulars, and then just all criminals). Well, this worked, but first-time offenders are now a serious problem, so let's track everyone. Of course only the cops can see the database (at least at first), but look at the benefits - if you get attacked, you can find your attacker easily!
Now we have a mandatory ID card, with medical, judicial, financial and licenceing information, a tracking chip which is constantly monitored.
Speeding is a problem - but hey, if you're speeding, we can see it on your tracking chip. So let's allow using tracking info in court as evidence. And of course, if you cross-check with the licencing info on the card, we could catch joyriders! But that uses a lot of radio bandwidth, and there were half-baked studies that showed that non-ionising radiation affected humans baly, so tell you what, we'll change the system. We won't add more data, you understand, we'll just keep the database centrally.
Now we have a mandatory ID card, with nothing more than a tracking chip, an ID code, and maybe some basic biometric data; and a central database containing judicial, medical, financial, licencing and tracking information.
But now criminals are throwing away their cards while committing crimes and picking them up later - a neat form of alibi - so let's just implant the chips so they can't be easily dumped.

And now everyone's got an implant, a tracking chip and a central database containing all the information about them that you can stuff into a computer.

And this is all being administered and monitored by the same people now starring in the Morris and Flood tribunals...

DeV - any better?

*goes away to soak sore fingers in cold water*

GuanYin

Emmm besides the fact your worries are bordering on "crackpot" paranoia.....I think you are making a few basic assumptions here which are false.

First off, most people can't even tell you their blood type, let alone recount any important medical information, so I'd be very skeptical on any ID card ever having medical records on it.
Secondly the cost of having DNA fingerprinting done on everyone in the country would be huge and I doubt the state could afford it (or would be indeed capable of it) so I'd forget that notion.

Finally, have you seen the state of the irish health service? I can only imagine what would happen in the hospitals if they were told every citizen had to have a chip inserted....

I almost hope it happens just so I can see the look on surgical consultants faces.

DeVore

Well thats more coherent then most of the arguments I've read here so far but I'm curious why you think we'll just sheep-like accept this progression when there are a number of those steps which we could object to.

I'm all for the use of technology in certain circumstances... and not in others. I'm also in favour of anything that allows our police force to more efficently enforce the laws our society lives under.

Read that again before you read it as "I want to trade my freedom for safety". Thats not what I'm saying.

I think a single smart card with medical, judicial and licensing information might be no harm. Anything that tracks is bad imho... However centralisation of that data UNDER CERTAIN RULES seems smart to me.

Access and the manner in which data can be retrieved is the question here.

Interesting topic though...

DeV.

Victor

Originally posted by Sparks
And this is all being administered and monitored by the same people now starring in the Morris and Flood tribunals...

Garda: "Eh Paddy, how do you use this compute thing?"

Sparks

Devore,

Well thats more coherent then most of the arguments I've read here so far but I'm curious why you think we'll just sheep-like accept this progression when there are a number of those steps which we could object to.

Precedence. Right now we have a government made up of a virtual majority by FF, despite their poor track record - and we're accepting things like the amendment to the FOI act and the staging of multiple referenda on single topics, and the simple lying that the government has engaged in over the past few years.
And people accept it. So of course they'll accept more things like that. And when they do protest? Well, we've seen Bertie try to tell us that the largest protests in the state's history were in fact not a consideration in decision making. And we've seen the constitution rendered nearly irrelevant in the High Court with the Horgan case. So how can it be protested?

I'm also in favour of anything that allows our police force to more efficently enforce the laws our society lives under.

I would be - if it wasn't for police and governmental corruption and the lack of any desire to eliminate same. In the face of this corruption however, I'm incredibly reluctant to give them any increase in powers, and I think that that's a rational choice.

I think a single smart card with medical, judicial and licensing information might be no harm.

Oh, agreed, it might be no harm. Thing is, with our systems' corruption, you can't ensure that, and so it's better to not introduce another potential tool for corrupt officals to use in unethical ways.
For example, what if your insurance was tied to your judical record? Do you want to give access to your judical information to some random clerk? Or going for jobs - and if you think that the information won't show up in background checks, you have an overly optimistic view of our government! Do you want to get turned down for a job when you're 45 and have led a law-abiding life with the exception of some infraction committed when you were a rather daft teenager?

sykeirl,

Emmm besides the fact your worries are bordering on "crackpot" paranoia.

"crackpot" ???
I wish it was - but the Flood and Morris tribunals, for a start, are proving that I am not going off the deep end here. (And whispering "conspiracy theorist" is an ad hominem argument, btw).

First off, most people can't even tell you their blood type, let alone recount any important medical information, so I'd be very skeptical on any ID card ever having medical records on it.

I already carry an ID card that tells you that. Issued by the BTSB, true, but it's an ID card all the same and it's standard issue for those that donate blood. Now I don't mind this card - but it's not mandatory. It's for a specific function and the information it carries is strictly limited and covered by privilege. Even so, I sure as hell don't want it made available to the Gardai without my consent. And if it were mandatory, I'd seriously consider stopping giving blood.

Secondly the cost of having DNA fingerprinting done on everyone in the country would be huge and I doubt the state could afford it (or would be indeed capable of it) so I'd forget that notion.

Well, it was a serious proposal in the UK recently, so it's not something that can be quickly dismissed out of hand.

Finally, have you seen the state of the irish health service? I can only imagine what would happen in the hospitals if they were told every citizen had to have a chip inserted.

It might be worth video taping the doctor's reactions though - you could make enough off selling the tapes to whoever's doing "Beedle's about" to cover an operation or two
Seriously though, have you seen the microchip tagging they use on pets? It's not a big operation.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks
But what if it get's stolen? Identity theft is a serious problem now, remember, so let's add a tracking chip.

OK - how stealing a card is identity theft is beyond me. Not only would the data be unusable by anyone who didnt match the biometrics and other identity information which would be necessary to unlock it, but you would easily be able to get it replaced, seeing as this data would also be centrally stored, and it is trivial for you to prove who you are with a system storing as much personal data as you describe.

Leaving that aside, though, lets look at the "tracking chip". Once we move outside the world of Kevin Mitnick and his overhyped pathetic little experiments, we can say that this is possible, just as soon as we figure out how to build credit-cards with a non-tamperable battery which doesnt need recharging ever, and which has enough strength to send positional data regardless of where you are. So....think mobile phone on standby, ad infinitum, never needing recharging, stuffed into a credit card, and you're most of the way there....except for inventing the damned thing.

Of course, your average Joe will quickly discover that some hacker says that wrapping his card in <materialX> will block the signals, and so the tracking chip will not only be a miracle of science, but a complete waste of time as well as every T, D and H will decide that he doesnt want Big Bruvver looking at him, and it would be much better to keep his card in a little shielded container, except when he needs it. And lets not even mention jamming capabilities which would be a thief's dream.

What is far more practical is to adopt a system like they use when, say, your credit card is stolen. They add the unique card info to a "hot list" of stolen cards, which is checked against anytime the card is used in an electronic reader, or any form of connected system.

Not only is this technology cheaper, simpler, more reliable, and doesn't require miracles of science like infinite power supplies....but it is not open to much abuse....especially given that any data actually stored on such a card would have to be biometrically encrypted or at least locked in a similar manner.

I'm all in favour of the sensible use of technology. When the government want to do something beneficial, they should be supported. Even if you think it might lead to something bad further down the line, isnt it better to take the benefits and then shaft their plans when they want to introduce the bad??

jc

Victor

Originally posted by bonkey
Leaving that aside, though, lets look at the "tracking chip". Once we move outside the world of Kevin Mitnick and his overhyped pathetic little experiments, we can say that this is possible, just as soon as we figure out how to build credit-cards with a non-tamperable battery which doesnt need recharging ever, and which has enough strength to send positional data regardless of where you are. So....think mobile phone on standby, ad infinitum, never needing recharging, stuffed into a credit card, and you're most of the way there....except for inventing the damned thing.

I thought that short range versions of these existed which use the received energy to transmit back?

ferdi

i dont see the problem with id cards, it'll give people a good chance to rebel against a police state, then maybe people will unite behind something and we'll kick berties ass, he will quit and we'll all have had fun and then they will remove the id cards:D

Sparks

OK - how stealing a card is identity theft is beyond me. Not only would the data be unusable by anyone who didnt match the biometrics and other identity information which would be necessary to unlock it, but you would easily be able to get it replaced, seeing as this data would also be centrally stored, and it is trivial for you to prove who you are with a system storing as much personal data as you describe.

Care to give me your credit card to prove to everyone how hard it is to commit identity theft by stealing a simple card? And "simple biometric information" means a name and photo...

And bonkey, RFID tags don't have batteries.

Even if you think it might lead to something bad further down the line, isnt it better to take the benefits and then shaft their plans when they want to introduce the bad?

Shaft their plans? Like we did with the amendment to the FOI act?

Captain Trips

Originally posted by bonkey
When the government want to do something beneficial, they should be supported.

Beneficial to who? Laws are already in place to detain and punish people who break those laws. ID cards and birth registration are in place and are the *only* authority to identify yourself.

Yes, what we need are more laws that remove that sense of freedom that we have - and that's all it really is - a sense.

To paraphrase - make ID cards mandatory and only the criminals will not have ID cards. A pub? I say card everybody at the door like the US. But as for a "Papers and ID, citizen" state. WTF do you honestly think you will gain?

So I ask again - who does this benefit? Will it mean zero crime rates? Will it stop the pisshead?

We should expect that the teen attackers/drunks should be given the proper treatment from the courts. They let so ****ing many off. We should *expect* that our government will do this - because they seem to think that *more* laws will work, yet adequate ones exist.