• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

NO2ID Campaign against ID cards

andyandy

anthropomorphic ape
Joined
Apr 30, 2006
Messages
8,377
I am opposed to the new ID card system in the UK, and have seen the campaign group NO2ID refered to in the media recently....

i don't really know all the details of the proposed ID scheme so it's difficult to know if they are accurate in their descriptions of the ID system.....and certainly pressure groups are not unknown to exagerate claims :)

so, i was wondering if other JREFers found the site (and the No2ID cause) useful, and something worth promoting, or if No2ID overstep the mark with their claims?

This is from their "why no ID cards page"


Massive accumulation of personal data #
50 categories of registrable fact are set out in the Bill, though they could be added to. Effectively an index to all other official and quasi-official records, through cross-references and an audit trail of all checks on the Register, the NIR would be the key to a total life history of every individual, to be retained even after death.

Lifelong surveillance and the meta-database #
Every registered individual will be under an obligation to notify any change in registrable facts. It is a clear aim of the system to require identity verification for many more civil transactions, the occasions to be stored in the audit trail. Information verified and indexed by numbers from the NIR would be easily cross-referenced in any database or set of databases. The "meta-database" of all the thousands of databases cross-referenced is much more powerful and much less secure than the NIR itself.

Terrorism #
ID does not establish intention. Competent criminals and terrorists will be able to subvert the identity system. Random outrages by individuals can't be stopped. Ministers agree that ID cards will not prevent atrocities. Experts attest that ID unjustifiably presumed secure actually diminishes security.

Illegal immigration and working #
People will still enter Britain using foreign documents—genuine or forged—and ID cards offer no more deterrent to people smugglers than passports and visas.

Benefit fraud and abuse of public services #
Identity is "only a tiny part of the problem in the benefit system." Figures for claims under false identity are estimated at £50 million (2.5%) of an (estimated) £2 billion per year in fraudulent claims.

"Identity fraud" #
Both Australia and the USA have far worse problems of identity theft than Britain, precisely because of general reliance on a single reference source. Costs usually cited for of identity-related crime here include much fraud not susceptible to an ID system. Nominally "secure", trusted, ID is more useful to the fraudster.


Overcomplicated, unproven technology #
Computer system #
IT providers find that identity systems work best when limited in design. The Home Office scheme combines untested technologies on an unparalleled scale. Its many inchoate purposes create innumerable points for failure.

Biometrics #
Not all biometrics will work for all people. Plenty are missing digits, or eyes, or have physical conditions that render one or more biometrics unstable or hard to read. All systems have error. Deployment on a vast scale, with variably trained operators and variably maintained and calibrated equipment, will produce vast numbers of mismatches, leading to potentially gross inconvenience to millions.

Taxpayer pain #
Even at current Home Office estimates, the additional tax burden of setting up the scheme will be of the order of £200 per person. .
http://www.no2id.net/IDSchemes/whyNot.php
 
Last edited:
and a little more from the site, under "no to ID"


Presumption of accuracy #
Data entered onto the National Identity Register (NIR) is arbitrarily presumed to be accurate, and the Home Secretary made a judge of accuracy of information provided to him. Meanwhile, the Home Office gets the power to enter information without informing the individual.


Limited oversight #
As proposed, the National Identity Scheme Commissioner would have very limited powers and is excluded from considering a number of key issues. He does not even report directly to Parliament. The reliance on administrative penalties means severe punishments may be inflicted without judicial process. The onus is on the individual to seek relief from the courts, at a civil standard of proof.

The National Identity Register creates specific new threats to individuals #
Discrimination—no guarantees #
There have been vapid "assurances" made to some minority groups. That underlines the potential for threat. The system offers a ready-made police-state tool for a future government less trustworthy than the current one. A Home Secretary could create classifications of individuals to be registered as he sees fit, introducing onerous duties backed by severe penalties for fractions of the population.


Third party abuse #
The requirement that all those registered notify all changes in details risks creating the means of tracking and persecution through improper use of the database. A variety of persons have good reason to conceal their identity and whereabouts; for example: those fleeing domestic abuse; victims of "honour" crimes; witnesses in criminal cases; those at risk of kidnapping; undercover investigators; refugees from oppressive regimes overseas; those pursued by the press; those who may be terrorist targets. The seizure of ID cards (like benefit-books and passports now) will become a means for extortion by gangsters.

Lost identity, becoming an un-person #
By making ordinary life dependent on the reliability of a complex administrative system, the scheme makes myriad small errors potentially catastrophic. There's no hint from the government how it will deal with inevitably large numbers of mis-identifications and errors, or deliberate attacks on or corruption of what would become a critical piece of national infrastructure. A failure in any part of the system at a check might deny a person access to his or her rights or property or to public services, with no immediate solution or redress—"license to live" withdrawn
 
Last edited:
and this is Tony Blair in a reply to a petition against ID cards

The petition disputes the idea that ID cards will help reduce crime or terrorism. While I certainly accept that ID cards will not prevent all terrorist outrages or crime, I believe they will make an important contribution to making our borders more secure, countering fraud, and tackling international crime and terrorism. More importantly, this is also what our security services - who have the task of protecting this country - believe.

So I would like to explain why I think it would be foolish to ignore the opportunity to use biometrics such as fingerprints to secure our identities. I would also like to discuss some of the claims about costs - particularly the way the cost of an ID card is often inflated by including in estimates the cost of a biometric passport which, it seems certain, all those who want to travel abroad will soon need.

In contrast to these exaggerated figures, the real benefits for our country and its citizens from ID cards and the National Identity Register, which will contain less information on individuals than the data collected by the average store card, should be delivered for a cost of around £3 a year over its ten-year life.

But first, it's important to set out why we need to do more to secure our identities and how I believe ID cards will help. We live in a world in which people, money and information are more mobile than ever before. Terrorists and international criminal gangs increasingly exploit this to move undetected across borders and to disappear within countries. Terrorists routinely use multiple identities - up to 50 at a time. Indeed this is an essential part of the way they operate and is specifically taught at Al-Qaeda training camps. One in four criminals also uses a false identity. ID cards which contain biometric recognition details and which are linked to a National Identity Register will make this much more difficult.

Secure identities will also help us counter the fast-growing problem of identity fraud. This already costs £1.7 billion annually. There is no doubt that building yourself a new and false identity is all too easy at the moment. Forging an ID card and matching biometric record will be much harder.

I also believe that the National Identity Register will help police bring those guilty of serious crimes to justice. They will be able, for example, to compare the fingerprints found at the scene of some 900,000 unsolved crimes against the information held on the register. Another benefit from biometric technology will be to improve the flow of information between countries on the identity of offenders.

snip

Proper identity management and ID cards also have an important role to play in preventing illegal immigration and illegal working.

snip

Over 50 countries across the world are developing biometric passports, and all EU countries are proposing to include fingerprint biometrics on their passports. The introduction in 2006 of British e-passports incorporating facial image biometrics has meant that British passport holders can continue to visit the United States without a visa. What the National Identity Scheme does is take this opportunity to ensure we maximise the benefits to the UK.

These then are the ways I believe ID cards can help cut crime and terrorism. I recognise that these arguments will not convince those who oppose a National Identity Scheme on civil liberty grounds. They will, I hope, be reassured by the strict safeguards now in place on the data held on the register and the right for each individual to check it. But I hope it might make those who believe ID cards will be ineffective reconsider their opposition.
snip

Yours sincerely,

Tony Blair
http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page10987.asp
 
I wouldn't worry too much about it andyandy.

Given their recent track record, even if the government amass huge amounts of personal information, they will probably accidently tape over the CD's with repeats of Room 101 or something.
 
Seriously though, Blair has a point about it being taught at terror camps. Ahmed Ghailani, who is currently at Guantanamo Bay, talks with casual politeness about his way of faking passports.

However, the greatest threat Britain faces is from homegrown terror. As far as I understand it, Khan, Tanweer and Ibrahim all went to Pakistan under their own names, and lived in Britain under their own names.

It seems to be more an issue for Afghanistan and Pakistan to be honest. What you think?
 
Last edited:
Seriously though, Blair has a point about it being taught at terror camps. Ahmed Ghailani, who is currently at Guantanamo Bay, talks with casual politeness about his way of faking passports.

However, the greatest threat Britain faces is from homegrown terror. As far as I understand it, Khan, Tanweer and Ibrahim all went to Pakistan under their own names, and lived in Britain under their own names.

It seems to be more an issue for Afghanistan and Pakistan to be honest. What you think?

the point is that today, if you lose your wallet (and nearly 1m people do in the UK each year), you can deal with it pretty easily - cancel credit cards & any documents.

If you lose your new biometric ID card however, some criminal will have your retina scan and fingerprints. How do you "cancel" them? With an eye transplant and a skin graft? Not to mention the governments track record of keeping this sort of thing safe...
 

well, when you put it like that...I just do not want criminals having the ability to forge my ID forever. Yeah, there are probably more worrying things on the planet. (the ID card scheme is also going to waste billions, don't forget - see Private Eye magazine)


I'm also a little worried that forensics will take precidence over witness statements - and these cards seem to indicate this. For example, if someone picked up your beer glass and threw it at someone, forensics would say you did it, but witness statements would say you were innocent.

Or perhaps I just watched The Minority Report.
 
Last edited:
well, when you put it like that...I just do not want criminals having the ability to forge my ID forever.
How does a criminal forge a retina scan or a fingerprint? Is there a surgery that can do this?
 
I'm also a little worried that forensics will take precidence over witness statements
Not me, in fact quite the opposite. We've had quite a few people here put on death row because witnesses said they were sure they were the perpetrators of a crime, except that forensics (dna) proved they didn't do it.

You really want eyewitnesses to trump forensic evidence?
 
Last edited:
How does a criminal forge a retina scan or a fingerprint? Is there a surgery that can do this?

You clearly have not seen Minority Report. Rest assured, it is not very realistic. For example, Tom Cruise's character has been left by all those who once found him responsible, and is also addicted to a bizzare sci-fi drug.

Oh.. wait..
 
I'm also a little worried that forensics will take precidence over witness statements - and these cards seem to indicate this. For example, if someone picked up your beer glass and threw it at someone, forensics would say you did it, but witness statements would say you were innocent.

I should bloody hope so too!
 
Not me, in fact quite the opposite. We've had quite a few people here put on death row because witnesses said they were sure they were the perpetrators of a crime, except that forensics (dna) proved they didn't do it.

You really want eyewitnesses to trump forensic evidence?


No, I wasnt really thinking from that angle, but now would be the best place to promote these brilliant people:

http://www.innocenceproject.org/
 
How does a criminal forge a retina scan or a fingerprint? Is there a surgery that can do this?

? Just re read this and it doesn't make sense.

With the new ID card scheme, the criminal doesn't have to forge a fingerprint. He can steal (or find) your wallet instead. That is my point. It is difficult to forge a fingerprint (impossible?), but easy to steal if you have a copy in your pocket.

It would be fairly simple to leave a print of your thumb on a box of explosivives, which is made possible by the new ID card scheme...which is also a waste of money - even more then is being wasted on the Olympic 2012oddity.
 
How does a criminal forge a retina scan or a fingerprint? Is there a surgery that can do this?

There was a piece by ben goldacre in the guardian on the relative ease on fooling fingerprint scanners

Sometimes just throwing a few long words about can make people think you know what you're talking about. Words like "biometric". When Alistair Darling was asked if the government will ditch ID cards in the light of this week's data cock-up, he replied: "The key thing about identity cards is, of course, that information is protected by personal biometric information. The problem at present is that, because we do not have that protection, information is much more vulnerable than it should be."

Yes, that's the problem. We need biometric identification. Fingerprints. Iris scans. Gordon Brown says so too: "What we must ensure is that identity fraud is avoided, and the way to avoid identity fraud is to say that for passport information we will have the biometric support that is necessary."

Tsutomu Matsumoto is a Japanese mathematician, a cryptographer who works on security, and he decided to see if he could fool the machines which identify you by your fingerprint. This home science project costs about £20. Take a finger and make a cast with the moulding plastic sold in hobby shops. Then pour some liquid gelatin (ordinary food gelatin) into that mould and let it harden. Stick this over your finger pad: it fools fingerprint detectors about 80% of the time. The joy is, once you've fooled the machine, your fake fingerprint is made of the same stuff as fruit pastilles, so you can simply eat the evidence.

But what if you can't get the finger? Well, you can chop one off, of course - another risk with biometrics. But there is an easier way. Find a fingerprint on glass. Sorry, I should have pointed out that every time you touch something, if your security systems rely on biometric ID, then you're essentially leaving your pin number on a post-it note.

You can make a fingerprint image on glass more visible by painting over it with some cyanoacrylate adhesive. That's a posh word for superglue. Photograph that with a digital camera. Improve the contrast in a picture editing program, and print the image on to a transparency sheet, then use that to etch the fingerprint on to a copper-plated printed circuit board (it sounds difficult, but you can buy a beginner's etching set at Maplin for £10.67). This gives an image with some three-dimensional relief. You can now make your gelatin fingerpad using this as a mould.

Should I have told you all that, or am I very naughty? Yes to both.

It's well known that security systems which rely on secret methods are less secure than open systems, because the greater the number of people who know about the system, the more people there are to spot holes in it, and it is important that there are no holes. If someone tells you their system is perfect and secret, that's like quacks who tell you their machine cures cancer but they can't tell you how: it's cobblers.

Open the box, quack. In fact you might sense that the whole field of biometrics and ID is rather like medical quackery: as usual, on the one hand we have snake oil salesmen promising the earth, and on the other a bunch of humanities graduates who don't understand technology, science or even human behaviour. Buying it. Bigging it up. Thinking it's a magic wand.

But it's not. The leak last week wasn't because of unauthorised access, it couldn't have been stopped with biometrics; it happened because of authorised access which was managed with a contemptible, cavalier incompetence. The damaging repercussions for 25 million people will not be ameliorated by biometrics.

So will biometrics prevent ID theft? Well, it might make it more difficult for you to prove your innocence. And once your fingerprints are stolen, they are harder to replace than your pin number. But here's the final nail in the coffin. Your fingerprint data will be stored in your passport or ID card as a series of numbers, called the "minutiae template". In the new biometric passport with its wireless chip, remember, all your data can be read and decrypted with a device near you, but not touching you.

What good would the data be, if someone lifted it? Not much, insisted Jim Knight, the minister for schools and learners, in July: "It is not possible to recreate a fingerprint using the numbers that are stored. The algorithm generates a unique number, producing no information of any use to identity thieves." Crystal clear, Jim.

Unfortunately, a team of mathematicians published a paper in April this year, showing that they could reconstruct a fingerprint from this data alone. In fact, they printed out the images they made, and then - crucially, completing the circle - used them to fool fingerprint readers.

Ah biometrics. Such a soothingly technical word. Repeat it to yourself
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/nov/24/idcards.homeaffairs

retiner scanners, i presume would be more tricky....though the trouble is that the concerted might of the criminal fraternity when turned to something lucrative is rather impressive in its abilities :)
 
Last edited:
Seriously though, Blair has a point about it being taught at terror camps. Ahmed Ghailani, who is currently at Guantanamo Bay, talks with casual politeness about his way of faking passports.

However, the greatest threat Britain faces is from homegrown terror. As far as I understand it, Khan, Tanweer and Ibrahim all went to Pakistan under their own names, and lived in Britain under their own names.

It seems to be more an issue for Afghanistan and Pakistan to be honest. What you think?


i agree - i think the greatest threat is from people who will qualify for ID cards in the first place - and just giving a wannabe British Jihadi an ID card isn't going to stop them.

my main problems are

(1) Any centrally held database itself is vulnerable to leaks/attack/unauthorised access - i simply don't trust our incompetent government and associated civil servants to look after the data correctly

(2) It vastly increases the problem of identity theft - you can't cancel your fingerprints like you can a credit card

(3) the criminal (and much smaller terrorist) fraternity will still be able to fake them or steal other people's to carry on unhindered

(4) It's hugely expensive

But, i can't see any way in which the government will back down on it.....
 
Last edited:
? Just re read this and it doesn't make sense.

With the new ID card scheme, the criminal doesn't have to forge a fingerprint. He can steal (or find) your wallet instead. That is my point. It is difficult to forge a fingerprint (impossible?), but easy to steal if you have a copy in your pocket.

It would be fairly simple to leave a print of your thumb on a box of explosivives, which is made possible by the new ID card scheme...which is also a waste of money - even more then is being wasted on the Olympic 2012oddity.

There was a piece by ben goldacre in the guardian on the relative ease on fooling fingerprint scanners

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/nov/24/idcards.homeaffairs

retiner scanners, i presume would be more tricky....though the trouble is that the concerted might of the criminal fraternity when turned to something lucrative is rather impressive in its abilities :)
I'm still waiting to hear how someone fakes this fingerprint in person... andy you're claiming a terrorist will put fake fingerprints on a box of explosives? Wouldn't it be simpler just to wear gloves and leave no fingerprints? And what of retinal scans?

I'm sorry, I don't see how fingerprints and retinal scans lead to identity theft.
 
Last edited:
If the government put that amount of money (Billions) into giving some visible inspiration to boroughs of Leeds and East London, we may not have to deal with the threat of radicalism in the incredible form we do now.

(Note: I don't believe Khan, Tanweer, Lindsay and Hussein were motivated by poverty. I do believe they were motivated by emotional neglect by western society however.)
 
If the government put that amount of money (Billions) into giving some visible inspiration to boroughs of Leeds and East London, we may not have to deal with the threat of radicalism in the incredible form we do now.

(Note: I don't believe Khan, Tanweer, Lindsay and Hussein were motivated by poverty. I do believe they were motivated by emotional neglect by western society however.)
If Islam as currently practiced wasn't ideologically the polar opposite of Western values perhaps they wouldn't feel such emotional neglect. I certainly won't advocate Western governments "submitting" to Islam in order to appease the radicals, rather Islam should reform itself or stay the hell out of Western countries.
 
If Islam as currently practiced wasn't ideologically the polar opposite of Western values perhaps they wouldn't feel such emotional neglect. I certainly won't advocate Western governments "submitting" to Islam in order to appease the radicals, rather Islam should reform itself or stay the hell out of Western countries.

Islam is indeed the polar opposite of Western values. I'd go further and say it always has been and always will. That is the problem.
However, like most religions, it embodies a lot of emotional rhetoric which is as much grounded in our biology as it is in the page.

As a Brit, I see plenty of Muslims (many, many) abandoning the strict doctrine of Islam, because they find Western society as so much more appealing. But it is worth bearing in mind that As-Sahab had one video that once had an entire (emotional) speech from Malcom X calling on the brotherhood of man to unite. This is a direct example of what Islamism does to disillusioned youth.

I don't see it as submitting to Islam, as much as submitting to the doctrine layed down in Africa all those millions of years ago.
Western science has let us discover this fact. A fact that makes brotherhood all the more powerful than Mohammed's words. After all, we are all brothers coming from that one spot on Earth, Ethopia.

You, Wildcat, are my biological brother. It is just our father is not somebody who should be reported to the NSPCC.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom