We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Our worthy commenters yesterday mentioned the Big Blunkett’s nasty pre-emptive move against those who might object against ID cards by refusing to have one. The Guardian has more details.
People who refuse to register or cooperate with the proposed compulsory national identity card scheme will face a “civil financial penalty” of up to £2,500, according to the draft legislation published by the government yesterday. But the home secretary, David Blunkett, insisted that nobody would face imprisonment or criminal court action for failing to pay, because he had no desire to create ID card “martyrs”.
The draft legislation confirms that Cabinet sceptics have secured an assurance that while the scheme remains voluntary ID cards cannot be used as a condition of access to any public service currently provided free of charge, such as the NHS, or to receive social security benefits.
I want to know how long it will take before I will not be able to withdraw my money from a bank without an ID cards or sign-up for broadband, utilities and other everyday tasks…
The state is not your friend.
Computerworld reports that the U.K. Passport Service (UKPS) launched its six-month trial of biometric technology involving 10,000 volunteers, the same day that the U.K. government introduced a draft bill that could mandate compulsory biometric identity cards and a central database of all of its citizens.
As proposed by U.K. Secretary of State for the Home Department David Blunkett in November, the ID cards would carry biometric identifiers in an embedded chip, which would be linked to a secure national database called the National Identity Register.
The draft bill introduced today will be followed by a period of consultation, during which the public and politicians can voice their concerns or support of the proposal. The finalized bill will be introduced to Parliament sometime in the last three months of this year and will most likely become law before the next general election, which is expected to take place in the second quarter of 2005, Blunkett said.
The database would be created by 2010, and by 2013 ministers would decide if the ID cards would become compulsory for all U.K. citizens through the use of biometric passports or driver’s licenses. Though citizens would have to own and pay for the ID cards, they most likely wouldn’t be forced to carry them at all times, Blunkett said.
Blunkett has repeatedly hailed the biometric ID cards as a powerful weapon in the government’s fight against identity fraud, illegal workers, illegal immigration, terrorism and the illegal use of the National Health System (NHS) as well as other government entitlement programs.
The database is expected to contain information such as name, address, date of birth, gender, immigration status and a confirmed biometric feature such as electronic fingerprint, a scan of the eye’s iris or of a full face, according to a Home Office spokesman.
The UKPS trial will test for all three biometric traits: electronic fingerprints, iris scans and full-face scans, according to Caroline Crouch, a spokeswoman for Atos Origin SA, the Paris-based company running the trial for the government.
This is the first time that three different biometric technologies from three different suppliers have been integrated into one solution. The technical challenges may also account for why the trial, launched at Globe House, the London Passport Office, is three months behind the originally announced launch date.
Oh, joy… But there is a good fight put up by the Law Society in its official response to the program. Apart from technology issues, the professional body for lawyers in England and Wales has expressed concerns that the program is too wide-reaching and that the Home Office has been unable to prove it would stop identity fraud.
The Government has failed to show that similar schemes in other countries have helped to reduce identity fraud. Indeed, in the U.S., the universal use of Social Security numbers – a scheme not unlike the one the U.K. Government is proposing – has led to a huge growth in identity fraud.
Despite a compulsory identity card scheme, France continues to battle problems such as illegal working, illegal immigration and identity fraud – the very things the Home Office hopes to address with identity cards. If an identity card has not eliminated these challenges in France, what makes the Home Office believe that these problems can be resolved with an identity card scheme in the U.K.?
Janet Paraskeva, the chief executive of the Law Society concludes an article in Law Gazette with a useful reminder:
History shows that all types of cards are forgeable. From National Insurance numbers to passports, each scheme has been riddled with technological problems and linked with forgery and a profitable black market. The government’s proposals do not inspire confidence that practical problems will be effectively addressed or principled fears allayed. It is the Law Society’s view that the case for identity cards has not yet been made, and extreme caution should be exercised before the government plunges headlong into implementing these proposals.
Quite. I am yet to hear one truly convincing argument for ID cards. It seems there is about five ‘arguments’ for ID cards – immigration and asylum seekers, NHS, terrorism, identity fraud and ‘what-does-it-matter-we-already-have-passports-driving-licences-and-store/loyalty cards… None of these bear closer examination and each raises practical and civil liberties objections. However, the majority of the population probably believes in at least one of them (they all agree that paying for is a bad idea) and so the government does not need to make a clear case, as most people make it for themselves.
Unless a clear and forceful case is made about how ID cards will make matters worse for each one of us, I cannot see how the Big Blunkett will be stopped.
“Money was never ever a motivation whatsoever in the decision that I’ve made . . . anyone who knows me knows that I wouldn’t make any decision based on money.”
— Australian swimmer Craig Stevens, explaining that the reason he elected not to swim the 400m freestyle at the Athens Olympics (to make way for world record holder Ian Thorpe, who failed to qualify after accidentally false starting at the trials) had nothing whatsoever to do with the $130,000 he was paid by the television station that will broadcast the games in Australia for an “interview” in which he revealed his decision.
I’ve just been relaxing in front of the telly watching a show called Fifth Gear, on Channel 5. This show was preceded by another automobile-based show about “Building the Ultimate …” in this case, building the ultimate racing car. (Although, luckily for me, given my actual tastes, I switched back to BBC4 TV in time to witness this amazing boy doing his thing.)
Trouble is, what with speed cameras and satellite snooping systems and politicians who just plane hate cars, except for themselves to be driven about in, there are fewer and fewer places where you can drive these monsters in the manner intended by nature.
So, Fifth Gear went looking for the answer, and they came up with Race Resort Ascari. (Either that or they were told about the answer, and they stitched the question onto the front.) The Race Resort Ascari website is long on atmospheric photography and on self-importantly waffly abstractions (“The best part of beauty is that which no picture can express” – Sir Francis Bacon) and short, as befits the website for a super-luxury product, on trivia like what it is and what it costs to buy it, so I will have to describe this place myself, based on what Fifth Gear showed. Basically what Race Resort Ascari means is that now, you can not only own an ultimate racing car; you can actually drive one at its ultimate speed, around a privately owned race track. You can now go on holiday and drive your car at two hundred miles per hour, just like in the car advers on the telly. And if that palls, you can have a go with one of the other cars they have there permanently. A grand prix car? No problem. A finely tuned rally car? Step inside and foot down.
Financially, obviously, this is one of those “if you have to ask you can not afford it” deals. (I think I heard the figure of £100,000 mentioned.) Personally I would never spend my money this way no matter how much I had. But even so, I salute the principle.
The next step is for someone to build a money-no-object private road which does not just go around in a circuit in the one little lump of land, but on which you can actually go from somewhere to somewhere else, and the further apart these somewheres are the better.
At two hundred miles an hour. In your car. Yours not mine, for once again, I would not be queueing up for this service any more than I now want to spend any time at Race Resort Ascari. Nevertheless, that I would love to see. That I would love to share a planet with.
Looking for trouble? Well, you’ve come to the right place:
People who refuse to register for the government’s planned ID card scheme could face a “civil financial penalty” of up to £2,500, it has emerged.
David Blunkett said not making registering a criminal issue would avoid “clever people” becoming martyrs.
Got that, dickhead? That is what happens to people who try to be ‘clever’. We do not like clever bastards going around being all….clever. So just pack it in, right, otherwise you will be cruisin’ for a bruisin’. Are we clear, pissant? Because if not, its two-and-a-half grand and a punch in the face.
Now just piss off, mind your own bleedin’ business and do you as you are fucking well told.
Another article in The Times on ID and the ID Bill that will give officers right to scan eyes. The Home Secretary’s long-awaited draft Bill on ID cards, published today, will attempt to reassure civil liberties opponents by confirming that it will not be obligatory to carry the card even if, as expected, the scheme becomes compulsory in the next decade.
But police will be able to take biometric data from suspects on the spot if they are not in possession of their card. Officers would then be able to check the national database to find out who the suspect is.
Remember Minority Report?
The Times reports that David Blunkett will today publish his draft Bill on identity cards. Tim Hames writes:
Unless obliged to do so for professional reasons, I have no intention of reading it. He can appear in as many radio and television studios as he likes, talking about the virtues of his blueprint, but I will not listen to him. I neither desire nor need to know about the provisions of his forthcoming pilot scheme either. I am against it.
Not just a little bit against it, either. I am eye-swivellingly, limb-twitchingly, mouth-foamingly hostile to the enterprise. And, as will become starkly obvious, pretty unpersuadable to boot.
That works for us… We also like his summing up of the arguments against ID cards in Britain that he finds compelling:
It seems to me that there are three basic arguments against introducing ID cards in Britain which are so compelling that they should immediately end any discussion on the subject. These are “whose body is it anyway?”, “why should I have to?” and “it’s not British”.
The “whose body is it anyway?” thesis is in many ways the simplest. The cards are not the problem with this proposal, it is the implications they have for identity. The State exists because we individuals choose to permit it to exist, not the other way round. I might volunteer data to the authorities but bureaucrats and politicians are not entitled to obtain access to my personal details.
I am against ID cards for the same reason that I am vociferously opposed to the idea, put about by the donor card lobby, that parts of me should be whipped away on death unless I opt out of their beloved programme. It is my identity and I have every intention of keeping it.
The “why should I have to?” assertion is no less powerful. ID cards are, in theory, a weapon in the War on Terror. Now I am well aware that a small set of fruitcakes out there have convinced themselves that if they blow me up while I travel on the Central Line into work, then they will secure some kind of “Get Into Heaven, Free” pass. I think we should be draconian with them.
Let Mr Blunkett’s men follow them around, tap their telephone calls, lock them up without charge and throw away the key (although, admittedly, al-Qaeda’s de facto allies in the legal fraternity may well release them).
I personally couldn’t agree more with his cry:
Forget the Magna Carta when it comes to Osama bin Laden and his lackeys. I do not, though, see why the existence of these fanatics should compel me to carry, and at all times, a piece of plastic, possibly containing a photograph, which, if the mug shot accompanying this column is any indication, is hardly destined to be flattering. There must be a better way of dealing with terrorism.
Can anyone spot which continental country he means?
Finally, the real clincher, “it’s not British”. ID cards occur in dubious continental countries whose constitutions keep collapsing, which have been democracies for about 20 minutes and where the policemen wear funny-shaped hats and carry firearms. They do not happen here.
And a rousing finale:
So my sincere advice to the Home Secretary, who in most regards is a quite splendid chap, is to abandon this legislation. If you cannot move me on this matter, a person who is otherwise a model of moderation, pragmatism and sanity, then your chances of convincing an utterly unreasonable bunch of headcases such as the House of Lords that this is a decent idea are minimal.
Furthermore, do not take at face value opinion polls which imply that 80 per cent of the electorate favour ID cards. What they mean is that eight out of ten voters believe that other people should have to suffer the inconvenience of carting them around. As far as I am concerned, the letters ID stand for the place that this draft Bill should be directed. In the Dustbin.
Hear, hear.
Thanks to Alex Singleton for the link.
The Adam Smith Institute‘s blog has moved, so update your links to:
www.adamsmith.org/blog
So we are going to given a referendum on whether or not to sign up to the EU Constitution. Or not. Or maybe. Possibly. Not yet, but soon. In principle. In theory. For certain, provided conditions are right.
Lord knows! Like everything else concerning Britain’s relationship with Brussels this whole referendum issue is buried deep within a fog of obfuscation, misinformation, confusion and misdirection.
What is certain is that the government/media lie-factory is being cranked up to over-production mode forging weapon-grade children for deployment in the propoganda war ahead [“I think we should be a part of Europe so that we can all live together in peace”, said Heidi, aged 10. Yes, it really will be that fatuous and buttock-clenchingly embarrassing.]
So now is to the time for the forces of truth and light to step up to the crease, ready to hit the opposition for six. Among the fearless volunteers are the team behind a new blog called, simply, EU Referendum.
These guys have got the real skinny on the fetid labrynth of EU politics and they tell it exactly like it is. Pay them lots of visits to read, learn, grow and become a better human being.
After an enjoyable day out with fellow libertarian troublemaker Andrew Ian Dodge, I settled in a for a quiet night in front of the television and watched about half of an interesting, if rather depressing, documentary about the late British comedian, Frankie Howerd.
He ranks alongside the late Peter Sellers and Terry Thomas in my pantheon of eccentric Brit funnymen. Howerd was the master of the double-entendre, teasing his audiences with riske jokes at a time when censorship of the press and popular entertainment was still relatively strong by modern standards. He is probably best known for his role as a comic slave in the Roman comedy, “Up Pompei!”, accompanied by his usual refrains such as “No missus!” or “Titter ye not”. (He’s an acquired taste, I will admit).
The programme on Howerd’s life focussed on his private life, which was not particularly pleasant. Howerd was a homosexual and in the post-war years up to the 1960s before gay relationships were legalised. In consequence, Howerd conducted his personal life on the fringes of the law, and at times was vulnerable to blackmail.
With all the current concerns about state ID cards, European Union cross-border arrest warrants and the like, it is easy to become despondent about the threats to our individual freedom. But we should not forget that in that much maligned decade, the 1960s, a group of people like Frankie Howerd were liberated from the bigotry of the law. In certain areas, the cause of liberty has taken a leap forward, and we should not forget that fact.
Oooooh, shut yer face!!
The Guardian reports that thousands of Muslim women will be exempted from having to show their faces on identity cards as the Government moves to allay fears among British Muslims that the new cards will be used to target them in the ‘war on terror’.
As David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, faced attack for not allowing enough debate over the introduction of the first ID cards in Britain since the Second World War, officials made it clear that if Muslim women do not want to reveal their faces in public, that would be respected. Instead of a photograph, there would be an exemption for certain people, who would only have to give fingerprint and iris-recognition data.
How about wearing a veil and refusing to be taken a photo on ‘religious grounds’. It may be worth a try…
This story is already being well bounced around the blogosphere. Let me give it another bounce. Here is what Jacob Sullum of Reason online says:
Although prosecutors admitted Paey was not a drug trafficker, on April 16 he received a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years for drug trafficking. That jaw-dropping outcome illustrates two sadly familiar side effects of the war on drugs: the injustice caused by mandatory minimum sentences and the suffering caused by the government’s interference with pain treatment.
Paey, a 45-year-old father of three, is disabled as a result of a 1985 car accident, failed back surgery, and multiple sclerosis. Today, as he sits in jail in his wheelchair, a subdermal pump delivers a steady, programmed dose of morphine to his spine. But for years he treated his pain with Percocet, Lortab (a painkiller containing the narcotic hydrocodone), and Valium prescribed by his doctor in New Jersey, Steven Nurkiewicz.
Insane.
I got to this by going to Instapundit and then to National Review.
War on drugs: insane; the blogosphere: sane.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
