OT: He's gone.

Jon Senior

Epetruk wrote:
> Surely it's not enough for the card simply to be able to ID you? I would
> assume that the difficulty in forging the card should also be raised to
> acceptable levels. There's no point in having a card which IDs A as A when,
> for all you know, A might really be B because B has easily got hold of a
> forged ID card.

This is exactly my point. For it to have any meaning WRT identifying the
holder, it must be able to replace at least two existing forms of ID
(Otherwise you have made no progress). If it can do that then it holds
more sway than the previous two forms of ID did individually. Thus a
fake ID card will be of higher value than a fake bank statement (For
example). If you have reduced the number of pieces of ID to two, then
you have made it easier for a criminal to do whatever it was you were
trying to prevent.

The only way around this problem is if the ID card cannot possibly be
faked. If that is so then it can replace all the forms of ID. History
has shown that there is a way around any security system that has been
used (Starting with a giant wooden horse and working from there!).

> Let me ensure I understand what you mean when you say "the greater
> acceptance
> of them as evidence there will be and the greater the problem will be if
> they can be falsified". Is this like the scenario where people believe that
> DNA at the scene of a crime conclusively proves that the owner of the DNA
> committed the crime, no matter whatever evidence is available?

Pretty much.

> Do you not believe that this would be less of an issue if people regard
> biometric ID cards as simply *ONE* of many items of evidence needed to
> establish your identity, albeit a very efficient one? Or do you think that
> human beings are naturally lazy and will default to accepting the ID card
> without doing further checks?

But if it cannot replace existing forms of ID then you have made no
progress. And human beings are naturally lazy, it's a survival trait!
Think back over the last few credit card transactions that you made in
person (prior to chip'n'pin). How often was your signature checked
against the one on the card?

> I don't quite understand why you haven't gained anything if the requirement
> for additional proof of ID remains. What you have is a more reliable form of
> ID added to existing forms of ID, which should ensure that the person is
> more likely to be who he says he is if he presents all forms of ID. As to
> cost - yes, that is an issue, which is why in my second post on this topic,
> I say that the technology is still too expensive to be introduced.

See above.

> I'm not sure I understand you liberty argument - how I feel the cards should
> be used is purely to say that 'you are X'. I don't see the need to store any
> other information besides that in a central database. And really, the
> information held on the database could purely be for the purposes of
> ensuring that no attempt is being made to create duplicate identities. Could
> you please expand on the liberty question?

I've explained this elsewhere but in brief, the problem is not so much
the cards themselves as the abuse of the system that can take place as a
consequence. I do not see why I should be forced to explain myself
unless I am suspected of a crime. By introducing a compulsory-to-carry
(Trust me... it *is* the endpoint) ID card, you empower a legitimate
detention of anyone on suspicion of not being able to prove their ID.
The starting point is annoying but not the main problem. The problem is
where that leads ultimately leads us. Again, I recommend (re)reading
1984. Mr Orwell was not so far off the mark!

Jon

Epetruk

Jon Senior wrote:
> The civil liberties argument is as follows. Why should anyone have the
> right to confirm your identity for no reason?
>
> If you have an ID card scheme, then to be worthwhile (For combatting
> crime, terrorism etc) it must be compulsory. If it is compulsory then
> there must a law against not owning one. If you allow people to keep
> them at home, then it is impossible to track down those who claim
> they'll bring it in to the police station then don't. So it must be
> compulsory to carry one. At this point the police gain the power to
> stop you and demand to see your ID.
>
> The police are human. They are also predominantly (It would appear)
> white, and male. They have a track record of misusing their power to
> harass minorities. You are proposing to hand them another tool with
> which to do the same. This is a Bad Thing (TM).
>
> The above assumes that the Right to Demand ID isn't extended beyond
> the police.
>
> If you haven't already, I would strongly suggest reading 1984 and
> paying close attention to how the police state came into being.

Thanks for explaining this. No, I wouldn't want the card to be used for the
purpose of preventing crime and terrorism - apart from the fact that it
wouldn't effectively deter criminals and terrorists, I think the hassle of
requiring that people will carry it about is too much!

David Martin

Carol Hague wrote:
> dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers <wafflycathcs@aol.compomcom> wrote:
>
>
>>I don't mind at all. If you are younger, slimmer and prettier than me
>>(entirely likely) I wouldn't mind being mistaken for you ;-)
>
>
> Younger, possibly. Slimmer, I very much doubt - I'm a small round
> person. Prettier, probably not - there's a mugshot here:-
>
> http://www.wrhpv.com/about_us/index.html
>
broken link to image on the page. Anyway, you are not round but well
proportioned..

...d

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers

>Younger, possibly. Slimmer, I very much doubt - I'm a small round
>person. Prettier, probably not - there's a mugshot here:-
>
>http://www.wrhpv.com/about_us/index.html
>
>if you're feeling brave - I'm the one who isn't a big blue fish :-)

I'm a round person as well, and the fish is great!

Cheers, helen s


--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam--
to get correct one remove fame & fortune
h*$el*$$e*nd**$o$ts**i*$*$m*m$o*n*s@$*a$o*l.c**$om$

--Due to financial crisis the light at the end of the tunnel is switched off--

Tim Woodall

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 20:07:42 -0000,
Epetruk <nobody@blackhole.com> wrote:
>
> First of all, I notice that in your reply, you've made the assumption that
> the technology to forge cards *will* be widely and cheaply available,
> without attempting to substantiate this.
>
No, I've made the statement that the technology to produce cards that
LOOK real is both cheap and widely available. (maybe you don't think
c1000GBP is cheap but it really isn't that much money)

google for ID card printer

> But I'll repeat what I've said elsewhere already:
>
> Generally, people will ask for proof of evidence in proportion to the
> seriousness or importance of the issue concerned. So for a pint down at the
> pub, yes - a biometric ID card should be enough. I would wonder though
> whether someone would go to the trouble of forging a biometric ID card
> solely for this purpose.
And how does the pub verify your biometric ID? Do they have a biometric
ID reader? So now every pub, club and bob's your uncle can get your ID.

Try googling for gummy fingers to see how easy finger print sensors are
to fool. Indeed people have managed to fool finger print sensors using
latent prints lifted off objects.

>
> For more serious issues (like opening an account), the biometric ID card and
> some other forms of ID would be required - just like what happens today. And
> for court-related issues, I don't expect that an ID card by itself should be
> enough to convict you of a crime (even though it might be contributory
> evidence).

So this unforgable, infallible ID isn't good enough even for opening a
bank account? So what is the point in spending however many tens of
billions it will cost for it?

>
> But the usage of the ID card anyway would depend very much on how reliable
> it was. If it was demonstrated to the public that a biometric ID card could
> easily be forged and was an unreliable form of identification, then of
> course it wouldn't even be accepted down the pub. On the other hand, if the
> hype about its forgeability proved to be just that - hype - then people
> would rely on it more.

But the real danger is that people _believe_ it is reliable when it
isn't. This is every ID thiefs dream because people will believe the
hype. Same thing is happening with Chip and Pin. Yes it may well reduce
much credit card fraud but those people who know ways to defeat it will
be safer because everyone will believe that the card holder must be at
fault for disclosing their pin.

Look at the technology that is both cheap and widely available to
capture card data and pins from people using cashpoints and clone cards.
So much so that one bank even advised its customers to only use cashpoints
once per week to help avoid the risk of getting caught out.

>
> I honestly don't know how things will pan out. What I *do* care about (and
> sadly what you failed to answer) is how to deal with the problem of ID
> theft. If it turns out that biometric ID cards are not the answer to this,
> fine. But I prefer to wait and see what happens rather than making
> predictions about the future of a technology that is still in its infancy.
>
There is no easy answer to ID theft. It will happen. The biggest defence
is for everybody to be aware it can happen and be on their guard. But I
would rather see the x bn spend on the health service and risk the odd
ineligible person getting treated rather than spend it on ID cards and
probably manage to stop 99% of them (at what I guess will be a saving of
a few million at most) and also risk not treating people who are
eligible because they don't have their papers with them.

I'm concerned about ID theft. I bought a shredder. One shredder will do
a whole family.

Blunket said that getting a passport + id card together would cost 100GBP
(85 passport + 15 ID card - the ID card would be more if got separately)
so a family of 4 going on holiday will now have to fork out 400GBP to
renew their passports rather than the 160GBP currently. Children are
cheaper currently but I don't know what a biometric childs passport
would cost nor whether they would get an ID card so I've assumed adult
costs for everyone.

Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

Andy Leighton

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 23:10:59 +0000,
Jon Senior <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk> wrote:
>> I'm not sure I understand you liberty argument - how I feel the cards should
>> be used is purely to say that 'you are X'. I don't see the need to store any
>> other information besides that in a central database. And really, the
>> information held on the database could purely be for the purposes of
>> ensuring that no attempt is being made to create duplicate identities. Could
>> you please expand on the liberty question?
>
> I've explained this elsewhere but in brief, the problem is not so much
> the cards themselves as the abuse of the system that can take place as a
> consequence.

Indeed - even with a card system where there is no central database this
is one of the biggest problems. With a central database, you also have
all the problems introduced by data-aggregation as well.


--
Andy Leighton => andyl@azaal.plus.com
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

Carol Hague

David Martin <martin-family@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> Carol Hague wrote:
> > dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers <wafflycathcs@aol.compomcom> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I don't mind at all. If you are younger, slimmer and prettier than me
> >>(entirely likely) I wouldn't mind being mistaken for you ;-)
> >
> >
> > Younger, possibly. Slimmer, I very much doubt - I'm a small round
> > person. Prettier, probably not - there's a mugshot here:-
> >
> > http://www.wrhpv.com/about_us/index.html
> >
> broken link to image on the page.

Do you mean the picture of Rob? I've just tested the page and the only
browser that one works in is Firefox. How odd - it worked fine when I
tested it before.

<furtle> Right, that should be fixed now - for some reason the picture
wasn't on the server, so I've re-uploaded it. Must've been in the
browser cache for Firefox but not the other browsers.

Thanks for letting me know about that, much appreciated.


>Anyway, you are not round but well
> proportioned..

Thank you - but what I am is this: fat. I just try to be fairly fit as
well.

--
Carol
"Mmmmooooowooooff!" - the Moobark, "The Treacle People"

Carol Hague

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers <wafflycathcs@aol.compomcom> wrote:

> >Younger, possibly. Slimmer, I very much doubt - I'm a small round
> >person. Prettier, probably not - there's a mugshot here:-
> >
> >http://www.wrhpv.com/about_us/index.html
> >
> >if you're feeling brave - I'm the one who isn't a big blue fish :-)
>
> I'm a round person as well, and the fish is great!

I keep planning to use them as flags in the York Rally procession but I
the one year I remembered to pack them there was a Ginormous
Thunderstorm and we didn't process after all :-(

Come to think of it there are two fish hanging up in my office, but
there should be a third one somewhere. I wonder where it went?
--
Carol
"Mmmmooooowooooff!" - the Moobark, "The Treacle People"

Tony Raven

Carol Hague wrote:
>
> <furtle> Right, that should be fixed now - for some reason the picture
> wasn't on the server, so I've re-uploaded it. Must've been in the
> browser cache for Firefox but not the other browsers.
>

Curious, worked from the start for me in Firefox.

Made a great discovery though - you sell Prolink lube! Fantastic stuff
and the one they recommend on all the US Usenet cycle groups. I have a
personal stash I top up each time I'm over there but now I don't need to
worry. Well done that person

Tony

Epetruk

Tim Woodall wrote:

<snip>

Tim, thanks for your response.

To everyone against a biometric ID card scheme, I understand most of the
views better than I did before I started this debate, which is a good thing.

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.

Once again, thanks all.

Steph Peters

" [Not Responding] " <not_responding@dev.null.invalid> of wrote:
>Having not driven for a while and admittedly not having kept abreast
>of legal changes when I did, is my manky scrap of paper still valid?
>It's the original; never had to go back to Swansea for point adding.

The bits of paper type are legal until the holder reaches 70. In the
meantime you have to avoid needing a replacement, so don't get any points,
move house, change your name, take a test for an additional vehicle type or
lose it.

I plan on bloody-mindedly keeping mine for another 33 years, envisaging lots
of fun with officialdom when they've forgotten the paper sort.
--
Reality.Sys corrupted -- Reboot Universe (Y/N)?
Steph Peters delete invalid from incm@sandbenders.demon.co.uk.invalid
Tatting, lace & stitching page <http://www.sandbenders.demon.co.uk/index.htm>

Steph Peters

Dan Gregory <dangregory@brakes.palaver.freeserve.co.uk> of wrote:

>Epetruk wrote:
>
>
>> I don't think that ID cards are a bad thing in principle. However, I don't
>> think that the technology to be used and the cost of the project justify
>> introducing them at this time.
>Surely these are going to be an "exit tax" with the price of a passport
>rising to £85 (?) to cover costs just after mine expires ''''
>:-((

You can renew a passport early if you want to.....

--
Reality.Sys corrupted -- Reboot Universe (Y/N)?
Steph Peters delete invalid from incm@sandbenders.demon.co.uk.invalid
Tatting, lace & stitching page <http://www.sandbenders.demon.co.uk/index.htm>

David Martin

Carol Hague wrote:
> David Martin <martin-family@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>Carol Hague wrote:
>>
>>>Younger, possibly. Slimmer, I very much doubt - I'm a small round
>>>person. Prettier, probably not - there's a mugshot here:-
>>>
>>>http://www.wrhpv.com/about_us/index.html
>>>
>>
>>broken link to image on the page.

> Thanks for letting me know about that, much appreciated.

Nae bother..

>>Anyway, you are not round but well
>>proportioned..

> Thank you - but what I am is this: fat. I just try to be fairly fit as
> well.

You and me both then..

Carol Hague

Tony Raven <junk@raven-family.com> wrote:

> Carol Hague wrote:
> >
> > <furtle> Right, that should be fixed now - for some reason the picture
> > wasn't on the server, so I've re-uploaded it. Must've been in the
> > browser cache for Firefox but not the other browsers.
> >
>
> Curious, worked from the start for me in Firefox.

Actually when I came to upload, the file listing said there was a file
there, but the size was 0KB. I changed the filename and uploaded again
and it seems to work now.
>
> Made a great discovery though - you sell Prolink lube! Fantastic stuff
> and the one they recommend on all the US Usenet cycle groups. I have a
> personal stash I top up each time I'm over there but now I don't need to
> worry. Well done that person

:-)

I can't remember who recommended it to us, but Rob tried it and liked it
a lot, so we started selling it. The company that makes it has been
trying for ages to get a distributor over here, but having very little
luck apparently.

--
Carol
"Mmmmooooowooooff!" - the Moobark, "The Treacle People"