Karl Rove calls it like he sees it

[atinymonkey]

Hang on. ID cards in the UK have never been about preventing terrorism. Unless you can convince terrorist groups to adopt them, your not going to have much luck with ID card based anti-terrorism.

[Dak]

Hang on. ID cards in the UK have never been about preventing terrorism.

 

the uk govournment seems to disagree with you:

 

Home Secretary David Blunkett said today that plans to phase in an ID card scheme in the UK will help to tackle issues like illegal working, immigration abuse, fraud, terrorism and organised crime.

source

 

 

“Our identities are incredibly valuable to us and too easily stolen. ID fraud is a growing crime which can ruin lives and underpin illegal activities from people-trafficking to credit card fraud, from abuse of our healthcare and benefits systems to terrorism.

 

“A secure compulsory national identity cards scheme will help tackle illegal immigration, organised crime, ID fraud, terrorism and will benefit all UKcitizens.”

sourse

 

 

A national' date=' compulsory ID card scheme will ensure that the UK can meet the challenges of the twenty-first century. It will:

 

• help protect the UK against terrorism, organised crime, identity theft, illegal immigration and illegal working;

• allow UK citizens to travel and carry out everyday transactions easily and securely;

• and ensure that public services are only used by those entitled to them.[/quote']sourse

 

 

 

more

 

 

I'v also noticed that, whenever the issue comes up in an interview, terrorism is increasingly the most focused-upon justification for the ID cards, But there are other reasons given for the introduction of the ID cards.

[Pangloss]

When this issue comes up in the US, one of the points raised is that the 9/11 hijackers all had plenty of authentic identification papers.

 

I'm actually in favor of increasing security for existing ID systems. Better tamper-resistance, more complex color coding, watermarking, and so forth, to make it harder to fake them. I don't harbor any illusions about its ability to stop terrorism, but I suppose I'm amendable to the idea that it might make it harder.

 

Regarding cameras, I'm a long-time supporter of EFF and freedom of speech organizations, but I have to say that, having read David Brin's "A Transparent Society", I'm starting to come down in favor of the if-you-can't-beat-them approach. We need to get our heads out of the sand and start watching the watchers, because it doesn't seem likely that they're going to stop watching us.

 

On the other hand.... Did you guys catch that bit running around the blogosphere about the girl in Korea whose dog pooped on the subway, and what happened to her when the citizenry decided to do something about it?

[Douglas]

But lets be honest, the terrorists are a lot less of a threat than communism ever was, .

I disagree, communism was a potential threat, terrorists are an existing and present menace. Terrorists have been attacking the U.S. for decades, starting with hijackings, aircraft bombings, embassy bombings, barracks bombings, hostage takings, ship bombings culminating in the downing of the twin towers. These terrorists have to be stopped and all 1st world countries should join the coalition forces in defeating this menace.

[Douglas]

Hang on. ID cards in the UK have never[/i'] been about preventing terrorism. Unless you can convince terrorist groups to adopt them, your not going to have much luck with ID card based anti-terrorism.

Can't speak for the U.K., but the U.S. has 10 million or more illegal aliens in this country, among which, there's probably more than a few terrorists.

We need a "who's who" system, whether it be I.D. cards or a mandatory passport.

[Dak]

We need a "who's who" system, whether it be I.D. cards or a mandatory passport.

 

My main gripe with the ID card system is how well the data will be protected. I dont really want more junk-mail/spam/'targeted' advertising etc.

 

My main gripe within the context of this thread is the sujjestion that it could help combat terrorism, and thus should be done. I dont see how it could combat terrorism, unless theyre sujjesting a turner-diary state of affairs, whereby even the simple purchase of fuel/grocerys etc is inpossible without an ID card, and places like shopping centers/motorways and main roads etc scan people as they pass through to see if theyre carrying their card.

 

tbh, as long as i can be assured that it wont result in more advertising being forsed upon me, i think its probably a good thing, but i dont like the fact that the 'war against terrorism' is being used to try and justify it.

 

On the other hand.... Did you guys catch that bit running around the blogosphere about the girl in Korea whose dog pooped on the subway, and what happened to her when the citizenry decided to do something about it?

 

what happened?

[atinymonkey]

the uk govournment seems to disagree with you:

Er' date=' there is a difference between preventing terrorism and creating measures to help tackle it.

 

Will an identity card help prevent terrorism?

The government appears to have no idea. On July 3rd 2002, in response to a question by Chris Mullin MP, David Blunkett said “I accept that it is important that we do not pretend that an entitlement card would be an overwhelming factor in combating international terrorism”. Six minutes later, in answer to a question from Sir Teddy Taylor MP, he said he would not rule out the possibility of “their substantial contribution to countering terrorism”.

Taken from http://www.no2id.co.uk/IDSchemes/faq.php#9

It's combined all the supporting information, so no trawling google from me

 

What the government is saying is that ID cards 'may' help tackle terrorism, but they don't know how. There is no information on the ID card (aside from biometric data) that the security services don't already have access to.

 

These terrorists have to be stopped and all 1st world countries should join the coalition forces in defeating this menace.

One of the reasons the UK are not vocal supporters (even though we are the physical supporter) of the 'war on terror' is that while hundreds of civilians were being killed by IRA terrorists each year, the Sinn Féin leaders enjoyed an invitation to the White House on St Patrick's day. They were treated like national heros.

 

I agree with Severian assertion, we Europeans are not comfortable with the knee jerk reaction to 9/11 because of the horrific acts we had to live through while the US President bought the perpetrators drinks.

 

We support the US, we just don't like the idea that 9/11 was in someway more important than the foreign attacks because 2/3 of the victims were American. We still don't hear about the 67 British victims of 9/11, the 270 killed in Lockerbie, the Manchester bombing etc. There is a war on terror, but we know the only reason behind it is 9/11, it's totally on US terms.

 

I know it probably doesn't make much sense, I'm not very eloquent on the subject.

Can't speak for the U.K.' date=' but the U.S. has 10 million or more illegal aliens in this country, among which, there's probably more than a few terrorists.

We need a "who's who" system, whether it be I.D. cards or a mandatory passport.[/quote']

Yes, this is the more practical application of the UK scheme as well. Don't know if it'll work

[Dak]

Er, there is a difference between preventing terrorism and creating measures to help tackle it

yeah, i know: but the govournment continually cite it as a justification for the ID cards in a way that gives the impression that the countering of terrorism is a majour reason to accept the introduction of the ID cards.

 

(although, id like to say that i worded my original point badly: i didnt mean to sujjest that the govournment was claiming that it is proposing the ID cards purely to combat terrorism, just that they were lumping terrorism in with the other reasons for introdusing ID cards).

 

What the government is saying is that ID cards 'may' help tackle terrorism, but they don't know how.

youll very rarely find that claim with the 'may' in it. most of the time, the govournment just go "oh yeah, and it will combat terrorism aswell". thats what annoys me about it.

[Douglas]

I'm actually in favor of increasing security for existing ID systems. Better tamper-resistance' date=' more complex color coding, watermarking, and so forth, to make it harder to fake them. I don't harbor any illusions about its ability to stop terrorism, but I suppose I'm amendable to the idea that it might make it harder.[/quote']I'm in favor of increasing ID security also. I'd like to see a near foolproof ID system. It may not stop terrorism, but it could help. It could also put a damper on identity theft, which is increasingly becoming a problem.

[Douglas]

One of the reasons the UK are not vocal supporters (even though we are the physical supporter) of the 'war on terror' is that while hundreds of civilians were being killed by IRA terrorists each year' date=' the Sinn Féin leaders enjoyed an invitation to the White House on St Patrick's day. They were treated like national heros.

 

I agree with Severian assertion, we Europeans are not comfortable with the knee jerk reaction to 9/11 because of the horrific acts we had to live through while the US President bought the perpetrators drinks.

 

We support the US, we just don't like the idea that 9/11 was in someway more important than the foreign attacks because 2/3 of the victims were American. We still don't hear about the 67 British victims of 9/11, the 270 killed in Lockerbie, the Manchester bombing etc. There is a war on terror, but we know the only reason behind it is 9/11, it's totally on US terms.

 

I know it probably doesn't make much sense, I'm not very eloquent on the subject.

 

Yes, this is the more practical application of the UK scheme as well. Don't know if it'll work [/quote']I don't recall sinn fein leaders drinking booze in the white house, but I certainly remember the IRA wreaking havoc in England.

 

ATM, the British victims of 9/11 and other foreign nationals were well documented in the papers here in the States and sympathy poured out to them. I'm just not sure if the families were recipients of the aid that was given to the families of the U.S. victims.

 

The Lockerbie victims were on a Pan American jet, not including, of course, the unfortunate victims on the ground.

 

Anyway, the Americans know about the IRA atrocities, the various embassy bombings and other acts of terrorism around the world, which is why we should band together together and wipe out these murderers.

[atinymonkey]

yeah' date=' i know: but the govournment continually cite it as a justification for the ID cards in a way that gives the impression that the countering of terrorism is a majour reason to accept the introduction of the ID cards.

[/quote']

Yup, I agree they misrepresent the reasoning behind the cards. They often sacrifice clarity for the sake of a soundbite, it forces us to seek out other sources to decipher the messages. Pah, a pox on the lot of them. Incidentally, my favourite dechiperer at the moment is scaryduck, his post on the recent Bush terrorism speach is fantastic (http://scaryduck.blogspot.com/2005/06/chimp-me-dont.html ).

[Douglas]

My main gripe with the ID card system is how well the data will be protected. I dont really want more junk-mail/spam/'targeted' advertising etc.

It'll probably be protected as well as your Visa/Mastercard, voter registration card, drivers license, library card, SS number card, AARP card, prescription card, medical card, life insurance policy, stocks and bonds, medical records, military records, telephone #, etc.

[Pangloss]

If I remember correctly, a Korean woman was walking her dog along a subway platform and it took a dump on the platform. She was asked to clean it up but she (allegedly) ignored them and left the scene. Passers-by took her picture and posted it on the Internet, and it became kind of a national sensation. She was ostracized and nationally embarassed.

 

There's a bit of info on it here:

http://www.docuverse.com/blog/donpark/EntryViewPage.aspx?guid=e5e366f9-050f-4901-98d2-b4d26bedc3e1

[Severian]

I have to take issue with you on something else' date=' Sev. Europe is *very much* in the throes of "knee-jerk reactions to civil liberties", and they have nothing to do with Americans. ID cards in Britain are a major issue right now, are they not? And where can you go in London without being viewed on a camera? You guys are not immune to that kind of thing, and you clearly cannot blame those examples on Americans.[/quote']

 

Well I don't think ID cards or cameras in the street are an infringement of civil liberties. The UK ID cards won't even be compulsory to have on you - they are just supposed to make it easier to prove who you are (although why we can't use passports for this I don't know). Street cameras have been around for a loooong time in the UK and have nothing to do with terrorism. They are supposed to prevent street crime. I have no problem with them - they are in public places where you shouldn't be doing private things anyway.

 

I am more worried about the restriction of free speach, and the ability to hold people in prison without trial indefinitely....

[Severian]

Anyway, the Americans know about the IRA atrocities, the various embassy bombings and other acts of terrorism around the world, which is why we should band together together and wipe out these murderers.

 

So if Americans knew about IRA atrocities, why did the majority of the IRA funding come from the US? It seems a little bit empty to be fighting a war on terrorism with one hand whilst funding it with the other.

[husmusen]

Originally posted by douglas

It'll probably be protected as well as your Visa/Mastercard, voter registration card, drivers license, library card, SS number card, AARP card, prescription card, medical card, life insurance policy, stocks and bonds, medical records, military records, telephone #, etc.

 

I'm afraid you are probably right.

 

Cheers.

 

P.S. The problem is that these ID systems have to work in the real world.

Any IT helpdesk person can tell you what that means.

 

Most people have no idea how inventive the general public can be when it comes to novel ways of stuffing up IT systems(Including ID cards).

The more secure you make the system the less tolerant it becomes of the antics of senile old 90 year olds, mentally ill people, illiterate people, and people who should know better, the more tolerant you make it, the more loopholes. Catch 22.

 

Secure ID systems are sort of like unsinkable ships.

[Douglas]

So if Americans knew about IRA atrocities, why did the majority of the IRA funding come from the US? [/color'] It seems a little bit empty to be fighting a war on terrorism with one hand whilst funding it with the other.

Severian, you're talking a very small segment of the population, probably not much more than the number of people that support alkaida.

I think the IRA was funded through NORAID, I don't understand why the American gov't did not shut them down and throw them in jail.

[Severian]

Yes, obviously the IRA funding didn't come directly from the US government, but I am fairly sure that if a rich UK businessman started giving money to Al'Qaeda very publiclly, the US would be baying for his blood. And I am quite sure the UK would arrest him.

 

Why should we help you with your problems when you turned a blind eye to ours?

[Pangloss]

Maybe they would, and maybe they wouldn't. Perception is a funny thing. Why should we help you with your problems when you turn a blind eye to ours?

 

Sounds like a chicken or egg problem to me. Wouldn't it make more sense for us to do something about IRA funding AND for you to join us in our fight against Al Qaida?

[Phi for All]

Wouldn't it make more sense for us to do something about IRA funding AND for you to join us in our fight against Al Qaida?

Maybe what we need to do about Al Qaida is stop fighting them and start doing something about their funding. Bombing them seems to make the flames grow. How about removing the fuel?

[Mokele]

Bombing them seems to make the flames grow. How about removing the fuel?

 

Oh, that's easy! Just a few wires into selected portions of the brains of the entire populace, and problem solved.

 

What, why is everyone looking at me like that?

[Phi for All]

What, why is everyone looking at me like that?

Because as a solution to curbing Al Qaida's funding your suggestion is nothing short of brilliant.

 

 

 

With "nothing" being a vast, gaping chasm hundreds of kilometers wide.

[Pangloss]

Maybe what we need to do about Al Qaida is stop fighting them and start doing something about their funding. Bombing them seems to make the flames grow. How about removing the fuel?

 

Well I respect your opinion on it, but I disagree. I think that our involvement in Iraq has lead to terrorism in Iraq, but I don't believe that the increase in terrorism outside of Iraq is due to our involvement there. I believe we would have seen that increase in the wake of 9/11 regardless of our actions. Backing away from terrrorism doesn't decrease terrorism, it increases it, as the Spanish have now learned.

 

That's just my opinion, of course. I don't condemn other positions on this, and I don't pretend that this is a truism or fact. It's just my take on the situation.

 

IMO if the terrorists are screaming and crying, we're probably on the right general track. Osama's upset about our involvement in Iraq? Good. Osama's upset about our creation of a new, democratic government in Iraq? Good. Osama's upset about increased security and anti-terrorist movements around the globe? Good. Osama's upset about our working with security forces in the Phillipines? Good. Osama's upset about our efforts in Afghanistan? Good.

 

You see my point here, right?

 

I don't mean to excuse any bad behavior (such as Abu Graib), but I'd hate to see the war succumb to a simple hasty generalization or fundamental attribution error.

[Phi for All]

All good points, Pangloss, and don't get me wrong. It's the terrorism we've spawned in Iraq by attacking and occupying that has me upset. Al Qaida is there because it's the best place to showcase the injustice being done to Islam, from their POV. If you are an Iraqi displaced by the bombings and angry that your country has been taken over by someone you've been taught to hate all your life, you are a ripe candidate for an Al Qaida recruiter, even if you don't support their past actions.

 

And I'm reasonably sure we are taking some covert measures to insure that Al Qaida's funding is derailed. That's the problem with covert measures, they need to be kept from the public sometimes.

 

I simply take acception to wielding such a heavy hand in Iraq, supposedly against terrorists, when the more military might we show seems to breed more terrorists fueled by religious fervor. I suppose I contest it's effectiveness against terrorism compared to removing the funds and the emotional fervor that is keeping us over there for an unspecified amount of time.

[Pangloss]

I think you're probably right on the funding issue, and I don't think you're necessarily wrong on the other stuff either. At risk of straddling a dangerous fence, I see the best we can do as citizens is to support the efforts that are being made by the people we've elected to make them, and continue to voice our concerns, loudly at times, about methods, extremes, and the handling of mistakes.

 

We certainly live in interesting times.