---

by Samphirette
Who says that the national ID card will stop underage drinkers etc anyway? There have always been some kind of ID knocking around to prove your age, BUT I've always understood that these were only asked for IF an alcohol shop or similar requirement actually thought a person LOOKED underage.

---

They should do what they do in the States. Not necessarily raise the drinking age but ID everyone 'who looks under 30. Even I get ID'd when I'm there and I'm over 30 (Ssssshhhhh )

Yup, I was carded in a hotel casino just out side Las Vegas when I was 28. And, because I had left my passport in a friend's car, I had to step outside.

So, the message is, Acker, learn to live with it till your the right age

(Edited by Whistler 05/05/2004 08:50)

Since when is the reason "other generations where able to break the law" a reason for this generation to break the law?!!!?

I´m sure that most of your parents never ever had the opertunity to download music from the internet when they where young or copy the latest dvds! Because those technology simply wasn´t there.

Same with speedcams......... they weren´t around when Henry Ford invented his first car.

And guess what......... underaged drinking was once legal (as there where no rules about it.

Ooh and don´t forget all that cctv used for security and against pickpockets etc and those little ports to stop shoplifters should we not have those either because the older generation didn´t??

When technology changes law enforcement changes too to make use of these advances. But guess what people will find a way around as especially children are very creative when it comes to breaking the law give them some credit

But remember that it´s still breaking the law so you can´t really complain if with a new technology they try to stop you when they have the chance!

The whole age limit argument runs from my comments, which happen to have the soultion. I hated age limits, why ? because they were measuring a number that had nothing to do with who I was. With the advent of cards a message could be put on it that says you are old enough to drink responsibly, even if you are only 15. This could be set up so you have to both have parents permission and pass an assesment. This way we are not relying on a simple number that doesn't take in to account varying speeds of growth and maturity but taking individuals for what they are: individual.

---

by Havoc
and pass an assesment.

---

I would so fail that *snigger*

---

by Yvonne
I've just sat and read this thread from top to bottom and can't believe some of the predictable kneejerk reactions this proposal is getting.

---

I would hardly call the reactions of people who understand and care about protecting their civil liberties "knee jerk" reactions.

---

Using the argument "it'll stop us breaking the law" as amunition against ID cards borders on ridiculous, you may aswell complain that it'd make your purse bulge unattractively.

---

In fact there is NOTHING ridiculous about this line of argument. Having the choice to break the law is actually one of the biggest freedoms we have. As technology begins to pervade law enforcement these freedoms are removed. When committing many crimes knowledge of the potential punishment is weighed up with the 'benefits' of the crime, when the crime is automatically enforced the choice (almost) no longer exists, regardless of whether it might be a bad choice.

Here is something to think about for all you 'Nothing to Hide' people. If a law made it that a camera was installed in every room of your house and those camera's were monitored 24/7 by sophisticated computer software for any law-breaking activities - would you be happy? Your privacy would not be being invaded because only computers would see you in your day to day activities. It would only be when you committed a crime that the information would be used to prosecute you. And who really has nothing to hide?

Who hasn't smoked the odd joint?
How many gay people had sex before the age of consent (which used to be 21 I think?)
Who hasn't speeded in their car?
In fact who hasnt committed all manner of petty crimes, and sometimes larger ones.

---

Some people on this thread spend too much time watching SciFi and writing consipracy theories and not enough time in the real world.

---

Is that so? Then how come it is now becoming possible to determine someone's likely cause of natural death using genetics, and that as a result of that we may see an insurance underclass emerge where life insurance companies would charge huge premiums for those deemed to die young.
That information could also seriously affect your abiliity to get into your chosen carreer. As shown in the sci-fi film Gattaca.

How about a recent post in T21 about how it is possible to identify a criminal using his thoughts and a picture of the victim? Sounds pretty sci-fi too doesnt it, yet it's now real world.

And whether I have anything to hide or not, why should I as a supposedly FREE man have to carry some piece of plastic to live? We're not in a nazi death camp last time I checked, so I refuse to be tattoed with some number that acts as a token for all my rights as a human being.

(Edited by Funky Monkey 05/05/2004 17:33)

(Edited by Funky Monkey 05/05/2004 17:33)

---

by Funky Monkey
(quotes)


And whether I have anything to hide or not, why should I as a supposedly FREE man have to carry some piece of plastic to live? We're not in a nazi death camp last time I checked, so I refuse to be tattoed with some number that acts as a token for all my rights as a human being.

---

But you already do... Your NI number your medical number, your passport number, your bank account details, credit cards, ISP even your shopping habits are watched if you use any form of store card or bonus points card.

After all there is already so much information held about us all all over the place why do people have a problem with another card? that maybe just maybe might help to save someones life one day? if of course it holds dna reacords finger print details etc...

My only problem with the ID card is that I will have to pay for it

---

by Funky Monkey
Here is something to think about for all you 'Nothing to Hide' people. If a law made it that a camera was installed in every room of your house and those camera's were monitored 24/7 by sophisticated computer software for any law-breaking activities - would you be happy?

---

All they'd find out about me is that I pick my nose, fart in the bath and have an borderline obsession with washing my hands. Other than that I'm usually sleeping

But my privacy would not be being invaded because:

---

by Funky Monkey
only computers would see you in your day to day activities.

---

---

by Sange
(quotes)
But you already do... Your NI number your medical number, your passport number, your bank account details, credit cards, ISP even your shopping habits are watched if you use any form of store card or bonus points card.

---

true but at least [as mentioned in an above post somewhere] you have the choice to break the law and get fake ID's or to not even have some of those things [ie passport, bank account, credit card etc]

(btw im neither for nor against im just joining in the discussion/on the fence/playing for both sides, whichever.)

(Edited by bipolar 05/05/2004 19:05)

---

by Whistler
So, the message is, Acker, learn to live with it till your the right age

---

Learn to live with what? And if you mean the age limits, I never have, and I'm not gonna start now. I'm hardly gonna start just because you tell me to.

---

by Funky Monkey
In fact there is NOTHING ridiculous about this line of argument. Having the choice to break the law is actually one of the biggest freedoms we have. As technology begins to pervade law enforcement these freedoms are removed. When committing many crimes knowledge of the potential punishment is weighed up with the 'benefits' of the crime, when the crime is automatically enforced the choice (almost) no longer exists, regardless of whether it might be a bad choice.

---

Exactly! You are so right. Actually your I totally agree with your entire last post.

(Edited by Acker 05/05/2004 19:12)

---

by Acker
(quotes)

Learn to live with what? And if you mean the age limits, I never have, and I'm not gonna start now. I'm hardly gonna start just because you tell me to.

---

You really are defensive, aren't you, Acker? I didn't tell you what to do, I said learn to live with it coz it ain't gonna change because you're moaning about it. Still, if you're going to start on the slippery slope of breaking the law because you don't like some legislation, then that's up to you. But you might want to start by resist from posting admissions on a public message board

hehe. I must admit, though, it does make me smile that some people on here make The Lone Gunmen's conspiracy theory paranoia look like an indifferent concern. Perhaps Neil Armstrong didn't walk on the moon after all....

---

by Whistler
(quotes)
Perhaps Neil Armstrong didn't walk on the moon after all....

---

Dont be daft of course he walked on the moon, those alien structures they found there are another case altogether

---

by Whistler
You really are defensive, aren't you, Acker? I didn't tell you what to do, I said learn to live with it coz it ain't gonna change because you're moaning about it. Still, if you're going to start on the slippery slope of breaking the law because you don't like some legislation, then that's up to you. But you might want to start by resist from posting admissions on a public message board

---

Yup, I kinda am. It's a flaw, but I don't mind it. And no, no, no slippery slope, I just think that breaking the law for little things like film certificates (pleease don't start another debate about how important they are!) and stuff don't really need to be paid attention to. Well in my opinion anyway.

---

by Funky Monkey
And whether I have anything to hide or not, why should I as a supposedly FREE man have to carry some piece of plastic to live? We're not in a nazi death camp last time I checked, so I refuse to be tattoed with some number that acts as a token for all my rights as a human being.

---

See, that last paragraph nullifies your entire argument. How can anyone take your argument seriously, or not believe that you're arguing on floored judgement, when you make such a spurious comparison. How can you possibly conclude that carrying around a bit of plastic with details about you in your pocket is on the same level as the plight of the hundreds of thousands who suffered in Nazi death camps? I find that quite distasteful.


And on this point:

---

by Funky MonkeyIn fact there is NOTHING ridiculous about this line of argument. Having the choice to break the law is actually one of the biggest freedoms we have. As technology begins to pervade law enforcement these freedoms are removed. When committing many crimes knowledge of the potential punishment is weighed up with the 'benefits' of the crime, when the crime is automatically enforced the choice (almost) no longer exists, regardless of whether it might be a bad choice.

---

But you still have that choice. The likelyhood of you being caught may be much higher, but surely that's just another factor that you weigh up in your decision? And besides, people always seem to hide behind 'freedoms' and 'human rights', but they have to stop somewhere. No one can have total freedom, as there will always be negative effects on other people. Try telling a rape/burglary/GBH victim that the perpetrator should have the freedom to have chosen to commit that crime.

*Pops on the mod hat, which is very much like Noid's hat*

Guys, invoking Godwin's Law here: let's keep the discussion on ID cards.

*Actually it probably is Noid's hat, I better get it back to him pronto before the universe implodes and we get a plague of shapeshifting lizzards or something, so play nice*

---

by Byron
*Pops on the mod hat, which is very much like Noid's hat*

Guys, invoking Godwin's Law here: let's keep the discussion on ID cards.

*Actually it probably is Noid's hat, I better get it back to him pronto before the universe implodes and we get a plague of shapeshifting lizzards or something, so play nice*

---

Ahhh, but surely then you're infringing on the human rights of some of the membership ie their right to break T21 laws and go off topic

Just getting a *little* back on track (kinda )

Has there been any mention by the government on when an ID card would be issued? If it is at 16 when you can get a full time job etc, then it doesn't really affect 15 ratings at a cinema for example.

Although I still think from a serious crimes point of view that it would be a good idea to have people's DNA on file due to the amount of crimes where DNA samples have been found, but matches cannot be made because they don't have that particular person's information on file (because they haven't been caught and tested previously)

There was a case in the paper recently of the M3 brick incident where a drunk bloke decided to throw a brick off a flyover for fun and killed a truck driver a number of years ago. By all accounts DNA was available, but because he'd never been in trouble before they couldn't trace the bloke responsible because his DNA wasn't on file.

Recently it appears they managed to test a new theory of distant type of DNA relation testing, where they probed the database for likely relative matching (still in the hope that a relative was a criminal on file) Luckily they had a distant match (an uncle with a record) and managed to locate the bloke responsible after managing to test his DNA for a positive match.

This is where I see the advantage of having to produce DNA samples for an ID card because it will help the system in finding criminals who have never been caught. Although to be fair as seen in cases in the past, it's not always over 16s who have been known to harm or murder

People who want to drive have to get a licence, and people who want to travel abroad have to get a passport. Really these aren't choices I admit.

But you only get asked for your licence or passport WHEN there's a reason for an official to see it, so why should the release of the ID card be any different? Where do people see the abuse of the system happening really?



(Edited by Samphirette 05/05/2004 23:41)

And Idcard (Oooh look thats on topic ) will not stop you from breaking the law...

If you want to see a movie sneak in the backdoor.... If you want to drink make your own or get someone else to buy it for you.

And believe me they will never (well atleast not for the next 25 years) install iris scanners in your local cinema!
Why? Because they are very expensive and you would need multiple or you would get horrible queue's. So the benefits (stopping underaged people) would not weigh up against the cost.

If you get such a Idcard doesn't mean that everywhere irisscanners will pop out of nowhere. These things are very hightech, you need someone next to it to check that you don't let someone else do the irisscan on their pass and you sneak in anyways (ooh another way to break the law ). And so on and so forth. So if that guy has to be there anyways why don't you just let him check the id of people he doesn't think are the right age....... way cheaper

So faking your id is still totally doable One takes an old bankcard with a chip on it... scratches of the top prints out a neat little label that looks perfectly like your old card (as in 2007+ everyone would have a decent printer ) stick it on and show it to the guy at the door...nothing changes

Aslong as it's still the guy at the door and not an automated system like in the metro / trainstations you should still be okay with all that. Just be creative

Just because you have a card with biometrical information on it doesn't mean that they will check on the biometrics everywhere and for everything! It's just not time and cost effective so it will just work as your normal id now. With banks etc that might be another matter as there are some bigger things at stake there. But for your normal stuff no reason to.

So if they don't store the biometrical info in a central database there is no privacy risk. They won't install those scanners everywhere because it's not cost effect (the laws you break don't weigh heavy enough to actaully spend a few 100.000 pounds each year (don't forget maintance, technical staff, devaluation etc) per device.

So whats the problem? That it costs you an extra 35 pounds if you don't have any other form of id? Or that you have to carry it around all the time? I don't really see those two as a major problem to be honest sure I would rather keep my 35 quid but if it's only once very 10 years... and an extra creditcard shaped card in my wallet... (who doesn't have a few of those size cards already?)

Can someone please explain to me what their problem with those cards is (besides the "I just don't want one".... I might be blind or something but I just don't see the issue here.

Ok my bad, I wasnt aware of Godwins law....

I don't feel it nullifies my argument any it just goes to show how some analogies can be rather explosive.

If we're to have a serious discussion and remain on topic here then remaining calm and rational seems to be key. This is hard to achieve since people's rights are an emotive subject.

As for my argument being spurious, let us qualify it. I believe that it's a fundamental right of human beings to be able to exist freely without the need to have a forced identification by the state. Hence my example. I mentioned nothing of the suffering (per se) of people in death camps, I was alluding to the fact that those prisoners were stripped of their rights and treated as quantities, as numbers instead of as humans. Forced identification is a step in that direction - it is a licence to live. Remember the state is there for our benefit, it does not own you. The moment you have this kind of forced identification you are effectively becoming a slave to the state.

In history slaves didnt just rebel against their masters to release themselves from physical bondage, they did so to be free men.

(Damn i feel i've induced Godwin's wrath again)

I'm happy to admit that the introduction of forced ID cards cannot be directly compared with Slaves or Nazi death camps, the realities of the situations are very different, it's the core principals that hold some parralells.

As for rape victims, a man attempted to rape me when I was about 10 years old. As horrific as it was i wouldn't deny him the oppurtunity to commit his crime. I believe the freedom of individuals is more important - that by using technology to limit those freedom's mean we're all being treated as criminals.

---

by Funky Monkey
As horrific as it was i wouldn't deny him the oppurtunity to commit his crime. I believe the freedom of individuals is more important - that by using technology to limit those freedom's mean we're all being treated as criminals.

---

What about your freedom as an individual?!? This just shows that there is no such thing as complete freedom as in my view your freedoms should stop where they infringe mine too much.

Rules and laws are there not to limit you in your freedom but maximize the freedom of all (as dispurse the total amount of freedom a bit more equal) That this limits you in your freedoms somewhat is side effect of the main goal of these rules and laws (nobody said it was a perfect system )

You freedom as an individual comes down to expressing your individualilty. Which is basically expressing my uniqueness as a person- There aren´t many things more unique than your iris print and your DNA

---

I believe that it's a fundamental right of human beings to be able to exist freely without the need to have a forced identification by the state.

---

And I believe that it´s impossible to enforce a lot of the other basic human rights in a modern sociaty without proper means of identification.

(Short list of the basic human rights as defined by The Universal Declaration of Human Rights)
equality before the law; protection against arbitrary arrest; the right to a fair trial; freedom from ex post facto criminal law; the right to own property; freedom of thought, conscience, and religion; freedom of opinion and expression; freedom of assembly and association; the right to work and to choose one's work freely; the right to equal pay for equal work; the right to form and join trade unions; the right to rest and leisure; the right to an adequate standard of living; and, the right to an education

Lets pick out one.....
The right to own property. Without a proper means of identifcation in a modern global sociaty it´s impossible to enforce this right. As when it´s known that something is owned by someone a person will have to identify him / herself as that someone to prove that he / she is the owner. In the good old days everyone in the local village knew that the house on the corner next to the postoffice belonged to a certain person but now a days it works a bit different. This is very tricky in a global world in which we live now without proper means of identification. And the only way you can have standardized uniform identifcation (equality for the law) is to let the government sort it

Here your idea of a fundamental right totally goes in against the fundamental human rights as defined in the human rights declaration which is widely supported by loads of countries and human rights organisation. I´m not saying that means you are wrong (as 5 billion flies each day eat dogsdropping but this doesn´t mean it´s tasty) but you might have to re-evaluation your position a little because can´t evade reality by saying that there is no use or need for identification.