The bill abolishing the National Identity Scheme is expected to gain royal assent later today. The Home Office said that it expected the identity documents bill would be passed into law on 21 December. As a result, existing ID cards will be invalid for use in a month's time. Home office minister Damian Green said the bill's …
They need to get rid of all the fingerprint, pics and DNA they take of people that they arrest and release without charge and those found innocent straight away, not 6 months, 2 years or whatever random number they've picked for it today.
is finally rolling back the big brother state.
Destroy them with fire.
I love optimists.
Hot Home/Office action
Fire does a slow drip drip?
Don't believe it.
This is only a small setback in the ever present battle for the powers that be to know the inside leg measurement of everyone in the country. There will be an atrocity or crisis and the government will demand access to Facebook/Google/Private/ other databases to help resolve the criminal act. Presto, they have the data they need/want and more.
"Why do they need it" is the question to be continually asked? And who will make money out of it?
Don't get me wrong, it is a great step forward and I applaud it but do not run away with any idea that the powers that be have been beaten and will retire defeated. They haven't.
I wish that was true.....
....but sadly based on recent nannying governMENTAL behaviour, i.e. "nudging" etc - meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Well aren't you as blind as a mole?
If you really believe the government will ever give up on monitoring its citizens you're sadly mistaken. They'll just think of other more devious ways of doing the same thing.
They've probably already passed the legislation as an addition to some other - unrelated - legislation when no-one was looking because that's how these things are actually achieved.
Such as, for example, the requirement to have an Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs.
Building trade ID cards
In the building trade I believe that you have to have some sort of government certificate/id card to work on big sites. Working on big computer projects would most probably benefit from some government certification.
Not having a standard ID card will be seen as an inconvenience. How long until people are demanding some sort of standardization for ID? In the computer industry we have seen many attempts at single signon. Instead of logging into each of your companies servers with a separate user name and password, these are all handled by the domain controller.
Google is creating a single signon system for Google and Youtube and more. Instead of there being one ID system, expect a raft of currencies that are accepted. When I say accepted, I mean demanded. "I am sorry sir, company policy" becomes more strongly enforced.
Sounds like a step in the right direction,
Except you will have to register on a national database to see more flesh than a fashion catalogue.
Is this the start of sane government? Well, only until the next scare hits the headlines then it will be back to cries of "Protect us!!!"
Oo- a new Oximoron!
"Protect us!!!" ?
Have you been yelling for protection? I haven't.
In fact, I don't know anyone who ever did, apart, of course, from those who stand to make a career out of the protection racket.
Bonfire of the identities...
the vanity projects.
Cards for sorrow, cards for joy...
I wish I'd got an ID card now, it would have been a valuable collectable in the future.
title - what title?
"Photographs, fingerprints and personal information that were submitted as part of the application process for an ID card will be destroyed within two months
"Photographs, fingerprints and personal information that were submitted as part of the application process for an ID card will be copied to cd and lost within two months
They can't just put the db on a laptop and leave it at the mall?
One step forwards, one step back
"I hope we have put the era of ever-increasing state intervention in our private lives behind us forever," says the nice government while planning to firewall the UK internet.
Go the government!
So, if I'm reading everything correctly, I have the right to decide whether my children should have their fingerprints recorded, regardless of what they might have done. Whereas I have no right to know if they have an abortion. At last, UK law is starting to make sense to me. In the sense that none of it applies to children. I wouldn't for the life of me wish to suggest that this simply encourages criminals to employ children to do their bidding.
The kids fingerprints bit is to do with things like the school libraries and things like that I believe. I used to work for a company that used biometrics to identify kids in school libraries and when the parents found out that their kids fingerprints had been taken, they went ballistic and demanded the biometric details be removed.
The company had never thought of this and the only way to do this was by overwriting it with someone elses fingerprint :-)
You don't own them. You're (supposed to be) looking out for them.
You're responsible for your children, to the rest of the state (i.e. everyone else); you don't own them. If they reach the point of needing an abortion, you've quite clearly not met your responsibilities and I see no reason why personal medical information that, if it belongs to anyone belongs to them, should automatically be something you know.
"I wouldn't for the life of me wish to suggest that this simply encourages criminals to employ children to do their bidding."
Yeah because if that happened it would so be HMGs fault and no blame whatever would lie with the criminals doing the employing or with the parent/guardian that had failed to adequately supervise and protect.
Small step on a long journey
The long journey may be about to begin, I'm not overly hopeful.
A lot of the data the government collects is not required except by the overly complex and stupid morass of taxes, fees and other charges invented over the years. Simplify this down to a single tax and you will be getting somewhere. Perhaps a single tax on all business transactions (from buying a shirt in a shop, buying something online or importing something - new or second hand). If we got rid of the BBC licence fee we wouldn't need to know what households have a TV or who bought a TV in a shop (as they do now), if we dropped the 'road fund licence' we wouldn't need to know about your car, if we got rid of council tax no need to know the size of your house, get shot of income tax and you don't need to know how much I earn or from whom (tax the spending of the money - whether in the shops or online and strangely you will encourage saving for old age as well).
The government is unlikely to ever really get to as slim as it should be... perhaps now though it might just start to head in the right direction.
To stop terrorism try bringing back police stations in towns and villages, the local bobby who knows people and what they are doing... To stop child molestation try prosecuting and locking up the offenders for a proper length of time... But please stop treating us all as a criminal who is waiting to be caught.
Without TV license there would only be privately owned news interests. Insert obligatory Murdock reference here. Without recording car details how do you know who to charge for road tax? Should pedestrians pay for the roads car owns use? Without income tax there would be even less fairness in taxation of rich and poor.
Better use of resources and data (acquisition, usage and retention) are superior solutions. Less wastage, better value.
If only it was that simple
"tax the spending of the money - whether in the shops or online and strangely you will encourage saving for old age as well"
Even more strangely, you will find out you have encouraged all your economy to switch to cash and move to the black market.
Of course, this can be avoided by forcing everyone to pay electronically... only that would need identity checks, so you will have to register your house address... which will encourage the Government to come and look at it to see if the size of the house is commensurate with your taxable spendings... which will encourage you to keep track of your earnings so that you could defend against Government's claim that you spend less than you earn (hence evade tax)... until some bright head suggests that, maybe, it would be a good idea to tax people's earnings instead of what they spend...
Which is worse, really?
Actually, that is not quite correct. The government has become the surrogate action agency for those who are up in arms about $_thing but lack the wherewithal to take action of their own accord. In a seeming paradox, these people in turn demand laws which take action on the behalf of everyone, not just themselves, at the cost of everyone.
If these people really want to be impressive, "make a difference," and leave a legacy, they should all put their money were their mouths are, and stop taking money away from others.
To tie in to your media outlet statement, anyone who wants to counter the Big Bad Corporate News Outlet(tm) has the ability to do so. If one does not have the resources alone, then numerous can band together. Strength in numbers, David vs. Goliath, and all that.
And what if pedestrians pay for the roads used by cars? Is that not the same as making everyone pay for services which others use but they themselves do not partake? This so-called "fairness" in the taxation of "rich" and "poor" is little more than the arbitrary progressive punishment of one arbitrary category for the expected benefit of another arbitrary category. I grow weary of hearing these arguments with vague place-holders used instead of real definitions and specifications: what exactly IS "rich," I ask, and please define it from top to bottom, in the minutest details so that I might better understand where the problem truly exists.
It may be that to satisfy the craving for "fairness" might entail the use of a non-progressive national sales tax in the place of income tax. That tax is based upon consumption, of which the "rich" would do more and the "poor" less.
Paris, please to define from top to bottom.
Maybe he is naive, but their argument is to drop the road tax and charge a general consumption tax to replace it so recording car details wouldn't be needed for that. (Car details would probably need to be recorded for prosecution but thats a different argument).
Why would their be only privately owned news interests if the tv licence was abolished and the bbc took it's money from the general consumption tax?
Also depending on how it's done it could possibly rebalance things fairly. But the problem with using 'fairness' as an argument everybody has a differing viewpoint on whats fair.
Can't see it ever happening though, but probably could do with some consideration without the typical dailymail knee jerk reaction to change.
It also reminds me of a report from 1996 ish where they looked at removing all taxes except a flat income tax (above a higher zero rate band) and a consumption tax. Whether it would have worked without all the nice things politicians like to meddle with to alter behaviour is another thing entirely....
Worse than that
Actually, that is not quite correct either, if your opening para is read as "those who are up in arms... but lack the wherewithal" being a reference to ordinary people. There are plenty of things people would like laws against, such as gorm-free public servants or over-compensated banksters or air-head talking heads, that will not happen. However, it is correct if the reference is taken to such unelected rent-seeking busy-bodies such as the United Nations Organization, which with its Agenda 21 and its Citizen 2000 and its Milennium Development Goals not to mention Catastrophic Anthropogenic Glib Warning, is the source of faux socialistic carousel propaganda, much of which has already been implemented at cost to us, with more to come. The UNO - and as an aside, why is it always UN and not UNO? - would be better called the United Depredations Organization.
"who to charge for road tax"
Don't have road tax. Raise the equivalent ( and only the equivalent) by raising fuel duty. Those whose cars use the most -actually rather than theoretically - and those who drive the most will pay more.
Its been a long time since the road fund licence existed - Its Vehicle Excise duty now and motorists pay way more for the roads by way of the various taxations (and tax on that tax) than are actually spent on them, on the basis of your reasoning - maybe all those smug pedestrians should be paying more tax to cover the cost of the pavements they use.
Ah, a good socialist. Bless, how quaint.
Let me counter some of your points - With TV license, you fund a badly run (as is common across anything managed by state bureaucrats - they're only good at spending your money, badly), state sponsored media outlet that pretends to be impartial, but is driven by it's own agenda (or that of the political clique in favour, usually the Labour left).
Road tax is an inefficient way of shafting road users that is often (and easily) avoided. If you must screw road users to fund the collapsing benefit system etc, or on some misguided eco crusade, surely simply increasing the fuel levy is harder to dodge while also eliminating a sizable portion of the DVLA and it's costs.
The last points I agree with. Income tax is a necessary evil, though only insofar as money has to come from somewhere, unless you want VAT to go to say silly levels.
The better use of data is a double edged sword. The most efficient would be a single pool that all departments would use - cheap to run, common platform, less operational overheads etc etc. Downside - open to corruption and misuse, either privately or by the state. Give someone the wrong access and you could have an issue that makes wikileaks look amateur.
Tax on goods only? Nice idea, but flawed...
So the price of goods goes up by 40% to cover the required taxes. The less well-off can't afford to eat or clothe themselves, they become destitute and throw themselves on the mercy of the state who has to pay to support them OR you get a nasty black-market economy developing with no safety nets, no security and no support when deals turn bad and people get ripped off.
Nice idea, but flawed. By speading the taxation in different areas you have a "choice" how to pay taxes. Don't drive? No need to pay road tax. Don't earn much? Pay a little less in taxes on earnings. Don't need a TV? Another bit saved. The current system at least gives some limited "choices" on where you pay tax into the system, it's not great but better than simply doubling or trippling the cost of a "the Friday big-shop".
Last point I do 100% agree with, we need more local and understanding support from the Met, not policed by some station 10 miles away who only send a "jam-sandwich" round when some local busy-body calls to report 3 kids hanging around on a street corner!
If real thieves cost you less then the government,
then the government are the true thieves and need to be put behind bars.
But who will pay the fuel duty when we are all driving those
new fangled electric cars?
The price of goods, especially food, won't go up 40%
Data show that sales taxes can't realistically increase beyond 13%. Up to that point while black markets are a nuisance they aren't a major problem. Beyond 13% sales tax black markets an other non-taxed trading do overwhelm the system. Net income tax revenues rarely exceed 23% regardless of how high any marginal rate of income tax is. In fact, the only way found so far to support the 40%+ tax rates of most European countries is the VAT.
This question is much debated in the US, and I am firmly of the belief that the best way to protect everyone's interests is a flat income tax. I'd make an exclusion at the level below which it would cost the government more to process the tax claim than they receive in taxes. I understand the economic engine aspects of the fair or highish flat sales tax. But I believe there is a more important moral question that can only be addressed by the income tax. Right now there is too much greed and ency in the system masquerading as "fairness." These evils will only fade when the poor man's money is as much at risk as the rich man's money.
The problem with taxing fuel is that fuel can't tell you where the person has been or where they are going. If at a future date they turn out to be a pedophile of terrorist then obviously we should have been tracking them. It's not fair to only select some people for tracking, we should all be prepared to be tracked in this day and age. I know that I could be a terrorist, so I am prepared to hand myself in just in case I am tempted to blow something up.
"ever-increasing state intervention"
So an adult content filter on the Internet isn't "ever-increasing state intervention"?
The best argument I've seen against Internet filters.
"...As a result, existing ID cards will be invalid for use in a month's time."
Oh no! Does this mean I'll stop being me?!?
Who will I become?
You, Sarah Palin, moved to the UK?!
HE might be real after all!!!!
Who will I become?
Wheres the punch-line?
This has got to be a joke right?
Its not the 1st of April is it, I've not slept the last 4 months away?
My Name isnt Alice... well I'm pretty sure it isnt!
This has to be some sort of government mind f@#K!
Here's the catch
You are still going to need to show your id card before you can vote.
Any chance of rational thinking coming across the pond to The States?
(yawn) "Ahhhkaay, I'll wait."
Repel the tide
I think we need to repel the tide of chod flooding Europe-wards from the US before that can happen.
Too much like swimming upstream for anything sane to ever get there.
Maybe when the UK becomes the gateway to Europe from the USA instead of the gateway to the USA from Europe...
because kids are innocent
"outlaw the fingerprinting of children without parental consent"
Unfortunately, there are a number of kids who cause trouble all the time and some of the time they are from parents who might also cause trouble so they aint going to give permission here. In fact most parents probably wouldn't give permission for this as they love their kids.
So the trouble making kids are likely to just get away with their crimes more as a result. At the end of the day, if you've done nothing wrong, there's nothing to be afraid of.
That would be for circumstances not related to crime
eg as another poster noted School libraries and registers.
it will not change the current procedures which tell the plod what they can and can't do when they have the local scallywag/urchin/ruffian/yob down the station.
"So the trouble making kids are likely to just get away with their crimes more as a result. At the end of the day, if you've done nothing wrong, there's nothing to be afraid of."
Ah, thanks for that. Very insightful. Obviously nothing could go wrong with the goverment fingerprinting every child in the country for 'library access'. The goverment can be trusted after all right? They wouldn't do anything bad with the data, like burn it on an un-encrypted CD, post it via royal mail, lose it and then say nothing.
But hey, the kids didn't do anything wrong so that's ok. Who cares if every goverment employee has access to every citizen's fingerprints (kids grow up you know..). No bad goverment employes after all right? Wouldn't do anything bad with that kind of data. No sir.
Nor would it escalate to 'we already have this fingerprint data so why not require it for mass transport/everything else'. No chance.
'ey up it's the Daily Mail!
Shouldn't you be warning people about the Cancer risk posed by Christmas trees or something?
I have a right to my privacy regardless of my actions or intents.
In this solemn moment what can one say....
YEE HAW, JESTER'S DEAD
CRACK OUT THE BUBBLY
SANITY HAS ARRIVED
IT'S JUST LIKE CHRISTMASS HAS ARRIVED