back to article Cops wanted compulsory DNA cards

Civil servants considered including DNA or iris biometrics as well as digital photographs in the ID card scheme and the police wanted carrying the cards to be compulsory, just released documents reveal. The Office of Government Commerce has finally bowed to legal pressure from trade mag Computer Weekly and released the two …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Memo to Civil Servants.

Please revisit your job title.

YOU are OUR servants,

NOT the other fucking way round.

Please take the time to get that concept firmly embedded into your thick fucking heads.

Thank You for your time.

0
0
Stop

East Germany were just on the phone

They want their Stasi back.

0
0

hate to ruin your headline but

"The Police felt that the absence of any obligation to carry or produce identity cards would substantially remove the administrative savings and some of the other advantages that Identity Cards would offer."

dose not mean they wanted to to be compulsory it just means that if it is not compulsory then you can not clam all those wonderful cost savings

0
0
Flame

Damn.

Where's Guy Fawkes when you need him?

Oh yes, posting on Twitter about how SOMEONE should do something about it while he watches Pop Idol and eats his egg on toast.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

These people are Civil Servants!

They have the same mentality as the clowns from the Treasury & FSA. Our money isn't safe with them so why should we think our ID would fare any better. Including DNA is just another element for them to get wrong and loose.

"Who will save us from these unruly priests"... or something like that.

They are demented. If they were old they may well be in a care home.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Just because its easy doesn't make it right!

Might as well arrest everyone as then you are certain to get the villans..

Cops need to grow up! and get real. start treating people as Innocent until determined by a court that they are guilty. the present attitude of everyones a villian or should be treated as if they are is plain wrong and will lead to a breakdown of respect.

The powers of the Police are already abused..A night in the cells will sort him out.. - what kind of law is that? jail with no trial, no conviction and no proof.. its wrong.

The legal system needs drastic reform and possibly 24 hr judges.

0
0
Flame

jobsworths

The programe is dead - if technical aspects don't kill it, the dumping of NuLab at the next election certainly will.

In the meantime, we're paying for civil servants to continue to work on a scheme that'll not see the light of day, nor will it hold the said civil servants accountable for how they dribbled away taxpayer funds. You can see why they want it kept on life support. Better than working on something where thay may be held to account one day.

0
0

"potential for success is not in doubt. "

"We want it, therefore we're right. Anyone else must be wrong".

0
0
Paris Hilton

What a shocker

I bet the Daily Mail's comment board would be red-hot with this little gem!

Nothing to hide.... blah blah blah

Send 'em back...

zzzz

Paris because she already carries all the DNA she needs

0
0
Silver badge

Of course...

... the Cops wanted these cards to be compulsory, all they want is their jobs made easier and to hell with basic rights like the presumption of innocence.

(There's an expression I'd use here, but I'd probably attract the wrath of the Moderatrix if I used it...)

0
0
Flame

No surprise to see plod's opinion

And they wouldn't want cards to be carried compulsorily if they didn't also want to have the power to see them on demand.

0
0

Hold on...

'the main potential beneficiaries of an Identity Cards scheme, such as police, DVLA, Passport Agency, IND, DWP, Inland Revenue and the financial sector'

New Labour told me that WE were going to be the main potential beneficiaries of an Identity Cards scheme.

Could they have been lying?

Hold on. Lips moving, making a noise - yep they were lying.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

errrr.....

Police support police state? Who would have thought ?

No, I didnt read the rest of the article.

0
0
Bronze badge
Thumb Down

why am i NOT surprised

Team up that requirement to CARRY the ID card with the new crop of taser and rabit gun-wielding coppers and you're on your way to the revolution.

Badges, we don't got to show you no stinkin' badges....

0
0
Stop

No surprises here!

This is no surprise, you only have to know a little about how the police work.

Basically:-

1. Anything that gives them greater power to snoop into your affairs,

2. Anything that makes their life easier for their target driven system.

3. Deny anything associated with points 1 & 2 above, lie if you have to.

The police will lie through their teeth at any opportunity to support their own viewpoint with little regard for the consequences. They've been given too much leeway to abuse people by the current government and as a result have become politicised.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

The police?

This would be the same police who have refused to be put onto the database in the past? Hey if WE have nothing to fear from being on the DNA Database then what's the problem the police have?

0
0
Bronze badge

The default opt-out

The Ministry of Justice guidelines on Freedom of Information are that summaries and conclusions of Gateway Reviews should, as a rule, be withheld.

http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/foi-assumptions-gateway-reviews.htm

"There is a clear public interest in public authorities being robustly audited..."

"There is an overriding public interest in the continued robust assessment of major procurement projects..."

"There is a wider public interest in the transparency of the assessment of major projects, and knowing that this function is robustly performed."

"... significant disclosure of the detail of the processes could work against the strong public interest..."

So, in order that the public can be provided with transparent and thorough reviews they should not, as a rule, have access to the conclusions of these reviews.

As time goes by, this might wear bit thin:

"For information over two years old the public interest in withholding is likely to have changed, meaning that a more careful argument is needed when refusing to release the information. In these circumstances, such cases should be referred."

Presumably that nice Mr Straw or one of his colleagues may be available to help think up another excuse.

0
0
Bronze badge

Am I reading this correctly...?

"The second review again confidently claims: 'The Identity Cards programme’s potential for success is not in doubt. As the SRO and Programme Director recognise, however, >>>there is much work to be done before a robust business case can be established for a solution that meets the business need<<<'."

Translation: "Our ID cards are a solution in search of a problem..."?

...Nice of them to admit it.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Am I reading this correctly...?

That's the way it came across to me, too.

0
0
Gold badge
Flame

1st one RED, 2nd one AMBER.

I'm a bit out of touch with the driving rules.

Don't you only proceed on amber when there are *no* obstructions?

And could someone remind me, when did they start serious funding of this plan

Still they did actually, finally release them.

Thumbs up for release. Legal pressure does work. Flame because their was even less justification than I thought.

0
0

Re: Just because its easy

>> Innocent until determined by a court that they are guilty.

Surely you mean: Innocent *unless* a court determines that they are guilty.

0
0
Unhappy

next, thought control

Erm, wait...too late...never mind.

0
0

Blue Lamp

When I was young you respected the Police, looked upon as guardians of the population,

Now, after political manipulation, many high profile mistakes and a change in attitude towards the Public, the Police find them in a situation where they are despised.

In addition they are finding it more difficult to get assistance from the Public.

They failed to stand up to their political masters in the past, so they should not be surprised to find themselves in the current situation.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Horse before the cart

"however, there is much work to be done before a robust business case can be established for a solution that meets the business need".

So we want to implement the technology and then identify the reasons why we need to do it.

No wonder this country is in a mess if the goverment thinks in that way. It just goes to show how inept and incompetent the civil servants, politicians really are.

0
0
Gold badge
Flame

I have now read these documents

No name of the people interviewed as expected.

No names of the review team either.

No actual *numbers* showing those cost savings this government has bleated on about. Just a note that a better idea of what they would be is needed. One of the major

No, (and I mean NONE) actual proprietary information of any kind from a supplier beyond the fact some were contacted in the first place.

Sure I expected the govt excuses for keeping these secret were just that.

The real *secret*.

If this is not just a sanitised summary or the *real* report (which would be a blatant finger to parliamentary democracy) the real secret is that the 2nd biggest threat to civil liberties (after the G.I.M.P) was started on nothing but the desire of gov. Ministers and senior civil servants with virtually no *actual* financial benefits at all.

An estimated £120 k on lawyers fees.

I wonder how long the identity of the "Review team" will remain secret?

0
0
Coat

Where's V when we need him ?

People should not be afraid of their governments, Governments should be afraid of their people.

Mine's the taser proof coat :)

0
0
Flame

That's not the sound of the Police

Nah, this is not your average plod who wants this - as if the government would ask them (though I guess many of our braincell-deficient donut-munching defenders of truth and justice might see the appeal). It's ACPO - the profit-making private company purporting to be 'the police', directly funded by the Home Office, so basically Jacqui Smith's bitches. The HO says what it wants, ACPO says "oo yes we want that too, boss", then the HO says 'look, the police want this'. I daresay ACPO thought it might make a nice profit out of the ID card munge like it does with CRB checks.

0
0

Heh

It is already compulsory to carry your ID in The Netherlands. Caught without it when stopped by police? you get fined.

Oh, and the card hides a variant of a certain chip, connected to a long copper coil antenna embedded into the card; containing a digital copy of your photo, social security number, address, full name..

0
0
Gold badge
Flame

The real *secret*.

I have now read these documents.

No name of the people interviewed as expected.

No names of the review team either.

No actual *numbers* showing those cost savings this government has bleated on about. Just a note that a better idea of what they would be is needed. A major supplier is named.

No, (and I mean NONE) actual proprietary information of any kind from a supplier beyond the fact some were contacted in the first place.

Sure I expected the govt excuses for keeping these secret were just that.

The real *secret*.

If this is not just a sanitised summary or the *real* report (which would be a blatant finger to parliamentary democracy) the real secret is that the 2nd biggest threat to civil liberties (after the G.I.M.P) was started on nothing but the desire of gov. Ministers and senior civil servants with virtually no *actual* financial benefits at all.

An estimated £120 k on lawyers fees.

I wonder how long the identity of the "Review team" will remain secret?

0
0

Our Government? Cricky!

They really did use the OGC logo.

http://www.ogc.gov.uk/

I am just amazed they did that.

I am not amazed that when they changed the name of Traffic Wardons to Civil Enforcement Officers that this was leading to them getting new roles. They now assist police with fraud cases and can in return expect the police to respond prompty when they call for assistance. It was in this weeks Worthing Herald but missing from the online version.

So not having to carry an ID card does not mean that will be the case in a few years. I expect we all realise it will be manditory in a short while.

0
0
Gold badge

@Wayland Sothcott

"not having to carry an ID card does not mean that will be the case in a few years"

Not making carrying it mandatory was a condition of getting Labour back bench support, who duly voted it in.

Sometime later her Wackiness, in one of her more petulant moments warned that it would only take a 1 clause bill to make carrying an ID card mandatory.

Of course that would require 1) A government putting this out 2) Enough MPs who can be "persuaded" to vote for it. 3) An actual ID card system.

0
0
Flame

Mr. Plod would you..

please phuck off. You have faaaarrrrrr to much power now that you can abuse

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums