OT: He's gone.

Chris Malcolm

"Epetruk" <nobody@blackhole.com> writes:

>Colin wrote:
>> Epetruk wrote:
>>> What I *am* saying is that including a
>>> biometric ID card as one of the forms of this evidence would reduce
>>> the occurrences of ID theft.

>> But surely only if the biometrics are checked against the person? In
>> the case of credit cards, loans, HP etc., which AIUI is where most
>> identity theft takes place, then the banks would have to install the
>> biometric scanning devices, train staff to operate them, have access
>> to the centralised database to check the data, insist everyone
>> applying for credit turned up for their scan. This raises the issues:
>> Would the financial institutions trust a system which they didn't
>> control? What the the cost be? (I wouldn't be surprised if it would be
>> more than the current cost of ID theft.) How many customers (read -
>> money) would they lose because of the extra effort required to get a
>> credit card or a loan? I don't see the banks being very keen on using
>> biometric ID cards to prevent ID theft, purely from a financial
>> viewpoint.

>Good points. In fact, since I seem to be getting a battering from all sides,
>I should repeat that I'm actually *not* in support of the government plan to
>roll out ID cards as planned, because I believe the current biometric
>technology is neither *effective* nor *affordable* enough.

A photograph is biometric data.

"Who are you?"

"I'm Joe Smith."

"Have you any proof of that?"

"Here's a signed photograph of me."

It's worthy of the Goon Show.


--
Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

James Annan

Steph Peters wrote:

> Anti money laundering rules forbid the acceptance of cash above a certain
> amount, £10,000 I think.

I find that very hard to believe, since cash is legal tender.

What may be the case is that for large sums of money, the recipient has
to have sufficient confidence that the money was legitimately obtained.
That may in practive lead to them refusing large sums in cash. But if
you owe them a debt, and turn up with a bag of notes to settle, they
cannot easily reject it unless perhaps the contract terms specify the
method of payment in some detail.

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/

James Annan

Jon Senior wrote:

> Tony W wrote:
>
>> Indeed it might be considered that the principle job of the Home
>> Secretary
>> is to maintain the liberty of the citizen.
>
>
> Only if one didn't look too closely at the track record of past
> occupants of that position. How many consecutive home secretaries
> prolonged Myra Hindlay's jail sentence?

I agree. It seems to me that taking the position of Home Sec turns any
"normal" politician (if there is such a thing) into a rabid
authoritarian control freak. I guess the civil servants are largely
responsible for that.

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/

David Hansen

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 20:36:39 +0000 someone who may be
carol@wrhpv.com (Carol Hague) wrote this:-

>> I'm sure Rubens would have wanted you as a model for one of his
>> paintings.
>
>Fortunately, Rob agrees, which is the main thing as far as I'm concerned
>:-)

Remind him he is a lucky man:-)

>I would, ideally, like to be a little slimmer in order to improve my
>overall fitness,

I think lots of people in "the west" have much the same thoughts, I
certainly do.

>but I've given up obsessing about it

I think that I do enough exercise that my body must be at around its
ideal shape and mass. While it might be nice to be a pretty boy, it
is best to get on with things as they are.

>>One of the more memorable television comedy sketches was
>> of Jo Brand commiserating with ISTR Kate Moss that she was too stick
>> like for Rubens to paint her.
>
><giggle>

More of the sketch is coming back to me. Jo was lying on her side
eating things to keep her in tip-top condition for modelling
assignments. Kate was sitting beside her, but would not eat anything
despite accepting it would improve her chances of an assignment.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

David Hansen

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 10:32:40 +0900 someone who may be James Annan
<still_the_same_me@hotmail.com> wrote this:-

>I agree. It seems to me that taking the position of Home Sec turns any
>"normal" politician (if there is such a thing) into a rabid
>authoritarian control freak.

Roy Jenkins.

>I guess the civil servants are largely responsible for that.

Mastermind said (ISTR before last week) that when he started
officials would not do what he wanted, saying they were following
"Home Office policy". If one believes this claim then it implies
that the officials are sometimes not as rabid authoritarian control
freaks as some party politicians.

However, the Home Office do appear to have wanted to re-introduce
"identity" cards since they were abolished.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

James Annan

David Hansen wrote:

> On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 10:32:40 +0900 someone who may be James Annan
> <still_the_same_me@hotmail.com> wrote this:-
>
>
>>I agree. It seems to me that taking the position of Home Sec turns any
>>"normal" politician (if there is such a thing) into a rabid
>>authoritarian control freak.
>
>
> Roy Jenkins.

You had to go a long way back for him - longer than I remember. Of
course it could partly be that the sort of person who is attracted to
the job is usually someone who should be barred from it. Not that
cabinet members can generally pick and choose their jobs, but they may
have an influence.

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/

David Hansen

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 18:35:41 +0900 someone who may be James Annan
<still_the_same_me@hotmail.com> wrote this:-

>> Roy Jenkins.
>
>You had to go a long way back for him

Quite a long way back, though his second incarnation was between
1974 and 1976. However, I suspect that one could find a reasonable
one not long before Michael Howard. Douglas Hurd perhaps and Mr
Howard's predecessor Kenneth Clarke. However, the run of three
unreasonable Home Secretaries (and probably a fourth) may mean a
trend has set in.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

Epetruk

David Hansen wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 03:32:29 -0000 someone who may be "Epetruk"
> <nobody@blackhole.com> wrote this:-
>
>> the advantage I see in ID cards is
>> that they offer a stronger proof that you are who you say you are
>
> You appear to be under the very big misapprehension that some piece
> of paper (or plastic) from some government says that you exist. That
> is extremely un-British.

I'm talking about relatives ("stronger proof") not absolutes ("you exist,
you don't exist").

At the risk of opening a whole new debate here, I would have thought it was
the benefit of the idea rather than the Britishness of the idea that was
important (especially since Britishness is mutable).

--
Akin

aknak at aksoto dot idps dot co dot uk

Epetruk

Jon Senior wrote:
> Epetruk wrote:
>> I think one of the fundamental points of disagreement is the view
>> that a biometric ID card should be viewed as an additional and
>> better means of ID'ing people against the view that there's no point
>> in introducing an additional means that doesn't effectively replace
>> existing means. I think this is one matter that we will have to
>> disagree on, although perhaps in the future I will come across
>> another argument that will change my viewpoint on this matter.
>
> I'm sorry to drag this on (No really. I am!), but why do you think
> that replacing one form of ID with another (equally valid, but no
> greater) form of ID, at great expense, is a good thing?
>
> That might have appeared to be a loaded question, but I'm trying hard
> to be neutral here. ;-)

But Jon, I *don't* believe this!

As I keep on saying, I'm *not* talking about *replacing* existing forms of
ID with the biometric ID card, I'm talking about *adding* biometric ID cards
to the mix of evidence that establishes your ID.

--
Akin

aknak at aksoto dot idps dot co dot uk

Jon Senior

Epetruk wrote:
> But Jon, I *don't* believe this!
>
> As I keep on saying, I'm *not* talking about *replacing* existing forms of
> ID with the biometric ID card, I'm talking about *adding* biometric ID cards
> to the mix of evidence that establishes your ID.

I see. The two are for all intents and purposes one and the same in
terms of what would happen were they introduced, but I now understand
what the confusion was earlier.

Jon

David Hansen

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 10:02:52 -0000 someone who may be "Epetruk"
<nobody@blackhole.com> wrote this:-

>As I keep on saying, I'm *not* talking about *replacing* existing forms of
>ID with the biometric ID card, I'm talking about *adding* biometric ID cards
>to the mix of evidence that establishes your ID.

Having followed the lies of the Home Office on this matter for a
considerable time it is clear that they are talking about using
"identity" cards to replace all sorts of things.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

Dan Gregory

David Hansen wrote:

> However, the Home Office do appear to have wanted to re-introduce
> "identity" cards since they were abolished.

I've still got mine (that ages me doesn't it?) but the interesting thing
is that the Refernce Number is the same as my NHS Number was. Presumably
when they set up the NHS after the War they used the same data..
All the best
Dan Gregory

Not Responding

Steph Peters wrote:
> Jon Senior <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk> of wrote:
>
>>How to deal with ID theft:
>>3) If you're really concerned, cut up your credit cards and make all
>>payments in cash (It's harder to obtain information about cash purchases).
>
>
> This one is becoming ever more difficult. I stayed at a Travel Inn recently
> which had a notice on the wall requiring customers paying by cash to produce
> some ID - a passport, a driving licence or a credit card! It's enforceable
> as they take payment on arrival.
>
> Anti money laundering rules forbid the acceptance of cash above a certain
> amount, £10,000 I think. A side effect of this is to make quick purchase of
> a good car very difficult. How long before the limit gets put down to
> enforce no cash deals on smaller amounts so we can't even buy a bike for
> cash?
> --

It doesn't forbid the use of cash but it may be investigated.

Dave Larrington

Tony W wrote:

> The government must be drawing on the experience of countries with ID
> cards such as Spain and Germany where crime, terrorism, fraud etc.
> are all non-existent.

Tsk, Tony, it's perfectly obvious that FOREIGNERs merely have the /wrong
sort/ of ID card, poor misguided fools that they be.

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
World Domination?
Just find a world that's into that kind of thing, then chain to the
floor and walk up and down on it in high heels. (Mr. Sunshine)