Anyone Actually Want An Id Card?

[Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond]

May as well just tattoo bloody numbers on our arms the way we are currently heading. :angry:

Like I keep saying, your fingerprint is your ID card. Carrying a piece of plastic only means people don't have to ask you to put your finger into a fingerprint scanner.

[Guest X-QUORK]

Let's assume then, for the sake of argument, that the government somehow manages to create the most secure, idiot proof, efficient database the world has ever seen. I still don't want details of my internet usage being checked by some minor official in the local council, or the type of boxers I bought being checked by the tax office, or details of my medical history being checked by the TV licensing authority, etc, etc, etc, ad infinitum.

I want some bloody privacy thank you very much.

[Injin]

Personal choice issue.

We don't all havr to eat bacon butties for breakfast tomorrow morning, we don't all have to carry an id card.

If you want to, knock yourself out. You have no right to make choices for others. Equally, if you don't want to, then knock yourself out - you again have no right to make choices for others.

Hardly anyone wants them of course, we know this because you can't buy them at asda.

[pete.hpc]

If you used your ID card to get a buy-to-let mortgage and then you use your ID card to register for mean-tested benefits, the mortgage application might show up when the DWP reviews your application for benefits and see that you have an undeclared source of income.

So it might, possibly, stop one facet of benefit fraud. Hoorah for enormous databases and dogtags! we are free at last from scrounging benefit thieves! will ID cards do anything about the billions upon billions of government sponsored corporate tax evasion that makes benefit fraud look like the cost of a postage stamp? no? so what's the ******ing point then? Daily Mail-esque scaremongering.

They will suddenly find themselves identified on the system and sent home. How? Their fingerprints! All the ID card is a pointer to a database - the alternative is just to take a fingerprint scan which will identify you anyway.

So all those illegal immigrants without documentation will suddenly turn up at the post office and buy an ID card?

Typical nonsensical, hypothethical misinformation which, thankfully, is all pointless anyway seeing as the Tories are going to scrap this ridiculous idea

The people its deterring are going to be serial and serious abusers of state resources.

And that's in everyone's interests, no?

No, not really. "They're" going after the wrong targets, as usual, using fearmongering against "immigunts!" "welfare cheats!" and "tewwowists!!" to get everyone to accept whatever they want to push on us, despite benefit fraud (which I'm far from being convinced will be fixed by this) costing a pittance when compared to corporate tax evasion.

But don't worry, your beloved ID card will mean the bailiffs will be able to track you down easier when you haven't paid your parking fine or your road tax is two days late because you filled in a complex form wrongly, once the DVLA have given any old shitstains access to your details.

[LandOfConfusion]

If you mean 'other countries don't have an ID card system, you're wrong. Most do.

No, my point is that (as far as I can tell) most countries aren't trying to set up what is essentially a database state.

In many of the countires, carrying the ID card is not an obligation, just as it won't be in the UK

While the current plans do indeed make carrying the card optional, that isn't to say this this won't change after they are introduced. Given Labour's track record, I definitely wouldn't rule this out.

You've never actually had any first hand experience of dealing with the Information Commissioner's Office have you?

Not in person. I did once contact the ICO about a potential breach at my workplace but all I got what a description of the law. Not exactly the response what I was looking for.

And I bet you don't know how free they are to enforce data protection issues on the state and private industry.

Well, for starters the government seems to be able to skirt around this issue quite nicely: just include a clause in whatever act they are forcing though which allows then to bypass the commissioner/DPA.

Also, it's quite interesting that you mention industry. My workplace has had at least two serious and willful breaches of the DPA. If I bothered to complain what do you think the chances are that the ICO will do anything more than 'advise' my employer of their legal responsibilities?

Remember the ICO is funded centrally and polices central government policy too - you won't find that kind of power extended to a regulatory body in most democracies.

I agree but my problem is that it's so easily neutered.

You're worried by openness in government? Really?

Openness with my information? Of course. I don't want, say my local council representative knowing about any medical conditions I might have or how much I'm paid, for example. With a centrally linked source of this information it would only take one short and simple act to make this possible.

If you want to find illegal immigrants you don't have to look far - your local takeaway or food processing factory will have a few.

And ID cards won't help here either.

[LandOfConfusion]

As for treating innocent people like criminals, stop letting your emotions get in the way and think about it rationally. Can you imagine how badly it will reflect the instant someone starts seeing how the system is being abused as you indicate in your scenario?

Like the 'outrage' currently happening over councils using anti-terror legislation to snoop on people?

But mutual benefits should be recognised. you can't complain about chavs scrounging unjustly from the state in one breath and then complain about a system being introduced to bring about an end to it.

Sledgehammer and nut come to mind. I also don't see how it will stop chavs from abusing the system, unless you intend to lock them all up.

You've never been a victim of identity fraud, have you?

Do use a shredder for discarded mail now. It's a nasty thing to happen and I've experienced it.

Then tighten the law and get the ICO to do it's job. To take you're example of the man who applied for and got a credit card in the name of his dog, banks and other financial organisations are allegedly required to 'know their customer' and verify their identity. Even a simple electoral roll check would have caught that one out. If they can't even do that then what hope is there for ID cards being any better?

Proof of right to drive, proof of right to entry respectively.

They are both photo ID. Part of the equation.

Where is your proof of residence? you know why there is currently a fine associated with not keeping the address updated on your driving license?

My driving licence has my address on it and I see no reason why my address details could not be registered with the IPS.

They are inseparable. No point taking biometric information if no-one can access it.

Securely put it on the card. This will allow verification of the documents and already happens with biometric passports.

Then you need to disconnect yourself from all public services

So ID cards won't be voluntary then?

All of the services are already connected up. The trouble is that they're inefficient and too costly to maintain without being able to correctly and unambiguously identify people using the services.

Sometimes inefficiency is worth paying a price for. So long as I can prove my ID to each of those separate services then there should be no problem. I can already use my passport to do this for some services and I don't have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is when all this data becomes centralised and linked.

[LandOfConfusion]

And how do you propose this will this change with ID cards?

This government has shown that seriously bad laws can be passed IF you have a sufficiently large enough majority. The Anti Terrorism Act 2000 is just one example of this.

If the databse state goes ahead then it will become trivial for data sharing and more importantly data mining to occour. This is is aserious problem which as far as I can see the government has failed to alleviate.

There is no proposal for that to change and no scope for it to change - the ICO has not allowed it.

The ICO can be overruled.

The government has to state all of the usage scenarios beforehand. The ICO has already made it a condition.

This only affects secondary legislation. It only takes one act.

You already carry the ID card on your fingertips. Think about it.

Yes I agree with you here. My fingerprints are in effect an identity number (or can be converted into such).

And erase their fingerprints in the process? Only Will Smith can do that and only in the right movie.

No, they will just continue to do what they do now: Stall, bid for time and hope that the government does another amnesty.

That's the police using the Automatic Numberplate Recognition System.

ANPR effectively links your numberplate with your ID. OK, it's not totally reliable as someone else could be driving but linkage of such information can become very useful for future data miners.

And yes I saw it and I thought it was an outrageous abuse of their rights. The police are known for that sort of thing.

Then Another good reason not to trust the government and oppose the database state. Did you know that the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) is a private company? Or that it has unique powers in law? And while we're on the subject why do you think it is that this government has repeatedly refused to allow us to elect our police chiefs?

[LandOfConfusion]

There are better ways of doing that. The Telegraph using the Freedom Of Information Act 2000 is busy looking after that as we speak, don't you think? And guess which regulatory body looks after the FoIA?

FoIA? Now that's a good example. Isn't that the same act which can be arbitrarily overruled by the government?

If the bank can be bothered with the expense of validating your identity.

Its a legal requirement for them to do so.

Depends if the locksmith wants to be held liable for not validating someone's identity. in the scenario indicated the locksmith would almost certainly need to get the police involved before letting anyone into the house, so a false flag scenario really.

I don't agree. I believe that particular example came from a TV series callled "The Real Hustle" and was sightly more complicated than made out here. In any case, it's highly unlikely that a locksmith would bother - the time it takes the police to arrive (if at all) would mean that any locksmith doing such a comprehensive check would go out of business very soon.

The way I see this whole issue is that the state's efficient provision of services is dependent on a) the provided services being linked up and being able to determine that you are who you say with the minimum fuss. In both cases, the services are already linked up via NI numbers and the electoral register but it doesn't work well and some people exploit those loopholes to everyone else's disadvantage.

Data separation and non-centrality. Both are effectively lost or seriously eroded in a database state and this is very dangerous.

The ID card is not going to tell the benefits office that you smoke dope at the weekends (even if you do get caught by the police) and its not going to tell the NHS that you didn't pay your council tax.

At the moment.

A while back this government tried to pass a law which would allow wide-scale data sharing by public bodies. They failed and true to form this is their next attempt. Given the size, quality of information and scope of this database how long do you think it will be before they start to add features and do things which they are currently prevented from doing?

With data mining they could tell where I buy my dope from (possibly a good thing) and which political parties I support (possibly not a good thing). The temptation to abuse this data under the guise of 'protecting the public' or 'fighting crime' will always be there so long as the capability exists and what they are proposing takes us dangerously close to that edge.

[LandOfConfusion]

It's honest of you to come out with being a paid up member of NO2ID.

I don't think that could be fairly described as a "vested interest".

I've paid money to a lobbyist organisation so it's probably better that I disclose that.

I may be easily impressed but I was impressed by the thoroughness and reasonableness of your argument.

Thanks.

[LandOfConfusion]

If they contained all the right information and if they were compulsory unlike this daft failing government was suggesting "would not be compulsory", I would carry one.

Well you'd have to - they'd be compulsory. And in any case under these plans they are in effect compulsory. Should you want to do any business with any part of the government then you will need one. It's what Labour calls a 'voluntary scheme'.

We might see benefits against people defrauding the benefits system

Yes, *might*.

do people know there are allegedly 3m more NI numbers than people!

I didn't know this. Source please?

If you want your benefits, fine, prove we are paying the right person.

From experience, it's not if your paying the right person but whether they are entitled to those benefits.

If you want work, prove who I am employing and paying!

Too many employers just don't care so long as they're cheap.

I think being filmed by over 300 CCTV cameras each time when you go into London more of a worry!

This is a major concern for me too.

I also see benifits for injured people being easily identified and having your blood type contained in the card details

I agree that this is one possible benefit.

I think we should automaticaly have a donar skeme you opt out of instead of opt into on the card

Well, from a personal point of view I value my right to make an informed choice. If they did that then I would reverse my current position and opt out.

Do people realize we only did 180 heart transplants in 2008 because of a lack of donars!

You need to qualify that statistic. How many potential donors were there with matching tissue types?

[QP1]

Like I keep saying, your fingerprint is your ID card. Carrying a piece of plastic only means people don't have to ask you to put your finger into a fingerprint scanner.

Is it really the case that these fingerprint scanners/technology can reliably/accurately identify one fingerprint from (lets say) 50 MILLION stored on file without any human intervention? Yes, every fingerprint is unique, but how unique? There will have to be a certain level of tolerance or any smudge on screen or scratch or dirt on finger will return a negative result, too much tolerance and multiple matches will be returned. In either case the system is useless.

Going down the card route, if the scanner simply confirms that your fingerprint matches the fingerprint stored on the card then it is a total waste of time - you will never stop people finding away to forge the cards.

What if some criminal gets hold of my fingerprint (much easier than getting hold of one of my utility bills) and bodges a fingerprint scanner so it sends my fingerprint data? I can't very easily apply for a new finger to prevent further fraud (unlike a new PIN number or credit card).

This will not prevent fraud, the fraudsters will simply adapt (as with Chip & Pin).

I don't think there is much of a problem with identifying illegal immigrants - the bigger problem is the will/infrastructure to actually deport them, so this is a red herring.

[LandOfConfusion]

The ID card and National Identity Scheme are very poorly understood. And I blame the government for that completely.

I must admit, it doesn't help when they keep on moving the goal posts. Oh and why is it that government IT projects keep failing?

[Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond]

Okay you're actually asking me to repeat the points I've made earlier addressing your questions.

In most countries, public services are already connected up. In fact they are here, but not very well.

Your entry in the electoral register identifies you at your address. Your National Insurance number identifies you for HMRC and HMRC has your current address for tax purposes. See? The circle is closed. If this is a shock to you, see my advice about living on an island somewhere they don't provide public services.

Immigrants will not buy ID cards, no. But they won't be required to.

I've addressed the information breach arguments already - go back and see my earlier answers. BTW, a PIN number will be required if anyone wants to check more than your address AFAIK.

The tories say they are going to scrap the card rollout (and all political parties are very very good at honouring pre-election promises, oh yes).

They'll be keeping the Government Secure Intranet and National Identity Scheme though ...

Police illegally keeping DNA from suspected criminals is an utter red herring. Nothing to do with ID cards whatsoever. However that won't stop people tangentially referencing it in a "by the way have you seen ... " way to create a straw man argument.

Referencing the No2ID website to support an argument against ID cards is hardly going to be objective!

There's always a danger in basing your opinions of something according to what you hear reported in the news, so isn't it best not to judge public sector IT projects only by the ones you've heard about in the news?

Just so I don't need to say it again:

• You already carry an ID card - it is your fingerprint. If you don't want to carry the card you won't be required to.
  
• Most countries have a means of uniquely identifying you on their public sector systems. The only thing unusual about the UK is that we haven't done it yet.
  

I agree that the ICO is still too weak, but they've made everyone sit up and take note of privacy issues after the first consultation on ID cards so in many respects, they've actually done a good job.

[LandOfConfusion]

Apply for a job and invent a National Insurance Number and it works 100%, there appears to be no control any number works.

If true that's pretty astonishing. Then again the government is involved.

[pete.hpc]

[*]You already carry an ID card - it is your fingerprint. If you don't want to carry the card you won't be required to.

Definition of irony;

Making this comment in the same breath as highlighting the honesty of political parties

Do you honestly think this will remain, realistically, optional to carry the card?

I'm not talking about legally binding (yet), but rather that it will very quickly become impossible to do anything without brandishing your dogtag?

I fail to see how mentioning the DNA database is a straw man argument when this government have systematically set about destroying civil liberties and are about to be hauled out of power in disgrace

On the contrary, you appear to be presenting a rather muddled "defence" consisting of hypothetical benefits that don't stand up to any scrutiny

There remains no good reason for the introduction of ID cards. In fact, you'd think NuLab and their stooges would've got the message by now just how anti-everything they do and say we all are

-edit- also, comparing a finger print to an ID card

[LandOfConfusion]

In most countries, public services are already connected up. In fact they are here, but not very well.

And it's this data separation which provides protection. Some of the arguments in favor of ID cards/the database state amount to wide scale data mining operations, something which cannot happen unless the data is linked.

Your entry in the electoral register identifies you at your address.

That's right. It acts as proof of address.

Your National Insurance number identifies you for HMRC and HMRC has your current address for tax purposes.

The electoral roll only contains my name and address, the only details which are necessary for it's operation

And HMRC only has the details necessary for their job. They don't need to have access to say my health records and any such linkage would require either my permission, a court order or an act of parliament .

I've addressed the information breach arguments already - go back and see my earlier answers. BTW, a PIN number will be required if anyone wants to check more than your address AFAIK.

You mean at the moment they require a pin. It's what happens when they decide that this is too clumsy and that we should trust our officials which worries me.

[Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond]

pauloakes - you've joined this debate quite late so you're repeating points already made earlier by LandOfConfusion. You can't bully people into bringing you up to speed just because you can't be bothered to go back and look through the points already raised!

And it's this data separation which provides protection. Some of the arguments in favor of ID cards/the database state amount to wide scale data mining operations, something which cannot happen unless the data is linked.

But it doesn't provide any protection - it only provides an illusion of anonymity.

And HMRC only has the details necessary for their job. They don't need to have access to say my health records and any such linkage would require either my permission, a court order or an act of parliament .

But that's all they'd have access to even after ID cards are introduced. You're maybe thinking that no-one will be mediating departments' access to the information - they will be. That's what the new appointment of the Identity Commissioner is all about - making sure that the card doesn't confer any extra or invasive rights to government.

You mean at the moment they require a pin. It's what happens when they decide that this is too clumsy and that we should trust our officials which worries me.

I think that's unfeasible. Its very difficult to step down protections after they've been introduced because of the fallout and liability.

I don't expect you to agree with me LandOfConfusion, because I can see that you're fundamentally against NIS and the database (actually it'll be a number of databases connected up only by heavily restricted messaging and return queries - HMRC will not get access to your NHS records because they are not allowed access now) whatever form they come in. I'm just addressing your points from my fairly detailed understanding of the scheme.

[Guest X-QUORK]

I don't expect you to agree with me LandOfConfusion, because I can see that you're fundamentally against NIS and the database (actually it'll be a number of databases connected up only by heavily restricted messaging and return queries - HMRC will not get access to your NHS records because they are not allowed access now) whatever form they come in. I'm just addressing your points from my fairly detailed understanding of the scheme.

Do you honestly not see any danger that in future such a database could be misused by the wrong sort of government?

[LandOfConfusion]

But it doesn't provide any protection - it only provides an illusion of anonymity.

There is currently no formal way of linking up those data sources without either my permission, a court order (the only real safeguard) or a change in the law. From where I'm standing and from what has been said it is this latter route which is being taken.

And HMRC only has the details necessary for their job. They don't need to have access to say my health records and any such linkage would require either my permission, a court order or an act of parliament .

But that's all they'd have access to even after ID cards are introduced.

So far you've described a system of data linkage. Whether or not they have access to other information as a result of this particular phase is a moot point. Some of the rationales given for the existence of the database (but not the card) would necessarily involve the association of what is currently separate information and this I have a problem with.

As I have said, at the moment the only way that this data can be used like this is though one of the three ways mentioned above. When this system is introduced, access could be quickly and cheaply provided with just one act of parliament.

You're maybe thinking that no-one will be mediating departments' access to the information - they will be. That's what the new appointment of the Identity Commissioner is all about - making sure that the card doesn't confer any extra or invasive rights to government.

And who appoints the commissioner? Also will the commissioner have any real powers or will the government neuter him after the dust has settled?

I think that's unfeasible. Its very difficult to step down protections after they've been introduced because of the fallout and liability.

If you were to ask me back in 1998 whether the Magna Carter would ever be torn up by a future democratic British government I would probably have said no. The actions of this government have really startled me, not just in their scope but with the ease of which they happened.

I don't expect you to agree with me LandOfConfusion, because I can see that you're fundamentally against NIS and the database

Well, in the words of Phill Zimmerman:

"we should not deploy those technologies that would strengthen the hand of a police state"

This government has shown that it cannot be trusted and I cannot support any scheme, initiative or Act which would take them so close to such a tantalising goal.

(actually it'll be a number of databases connected up only by heavily restricted messaging and return queries - HMRC will not get access to your NHS records because they are not allowed access now) whatever form they come in.

At the moment. As I keep saying, this scheme goes further than is necessary for the purposes of which the government has described. Many people including people posting in this thread have mentioned 'advantages' which would necessarily require data linkage of a scale and nature which doesn't currently happen and from what you describe this current scheme will not allow.

The temptation and opportunity will be there. Can you really trust this or any other government not to take them?

I'm just addressing your points from my fairly detailed understanding of the scheme.

And thank you for your input. It's been interesting debating with you.

[Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond]

There is currently no formal way of linking up those data sources without either my permission, a court order (the only real safeguard) or a change in the law. From where I'm standing and from what has been said it is this latter route which is being taken.

I'm quite sure they don't need those authorisations right now, but if they do, the ID card system or NIR won't change that - it would still be implemented in the context of current laws.

So far you've described a system of data linkage. Whether or not they have access to other information as a result of this particular phase is a moot point. Some of the rationales given for the existence of the database (but not the card) would necessarily involve the association of what is currently separate information and this I have a problem with.

Sure. And my argument is that they're already linked but not very well. This is perceived anonymity (security in this context) through obscurity which Phil Zimmerman is certainly against! nothing about the implementation of an encryption algorithm should be hidden - only the key should be secret.

In the same way, nothing should be hidden from the individual's view in their entries in the NIR. And they won't be - you will be able to review it anytime online.

Here's a list of the actual items the ICO has permitted for the card:

Information to be contained on the National Identity Register

In addition, I've just seen that organisations that have permission to access the data held on the Register can only do so with the individual's permission - unless it's to prevent or investigate a crime. That's fair enough isn't it?

As I have said, at the moment the only way that this data can be used like this is though one of the three ways mentioned above. When this system is introduced, access could be quickly and cheaply provided with just one act of parliament.

Have you checked that? Seriously - I'm really not sure that's the case.

And who appoints the commissioner? Also will the commissioner have any real powers or will the government neuter him after the dust has settled?

Dunno. I doubt they'll be able to go particularly long being a complete waste of space before the media swoops in for the kill.

Well, in the words of Phill Zimmerman:

"we should not deploy those technologies that would strengthen the hand of a police state"

That's a little out of context though - PGP's creator is talking about the use of personal encryption to protect anonymity, and the diea of not using encryption keys for which government agencies have superkeys.

This government has shown that it cannot be trusted and I cannot support any scheme, initiative or Act which would take them so close to such a tantalising goal.

I think the benefits have to be made more obvious - I believe the current use of the NIR with UK Borders Agency is generating gains for the scheme. There's some documentary on about it in the early evenings where they raid Pakistani Sweet shops and dodgy abbatoirs and fingerprint scan people. It appears to turn up a frightening number of people who really shouldn't be here - I know there could be an agenda there though.

At the moment. As I keep saying, this scheme goes further than is necessary for the purposes of which the government has described. Many people including people posting in this thread have mentioned 'advantages' which would necessarily require data linkage of a scale and nature which doesn't currently happen and from what you describe this current scheme will not allow.

I believe the ICO has addressed that and trimmed the scope right back. When it was first introduced, they wanted carte blanche for future scope creep - they didn't really even know why they wanted it, all they knew was that they needed it for certain issues.

The temptation and opportunity will be there. Can you really trust this or any other government not to take them?

Trust between the state and citizenry is always a tricky issue.

[Guest X-QUORK]

Ahem...hello!

[pepsi]

One of the most relevant points seems to have been made earlier and then not responded to by

SirSidney who keeps going on about "carrying your fingerprint".

We are not talking about comparing fingerprints, we are talking about comparing a number derived from your fingerprint. This is just a number like the social security number.

So there will be a scanner that can derive this number from your finger and compare it to something.

Firstly it will not be a unique number given the tolerance of the scanner and the number of people in the system. So it in itself will not identify you. Especially if you consider a number of people who might be missing fingers, have scars etc - or maybe who get them after having received their cards.

Secondly, what is the check between? If it's between the number derived from your finger and the card then it will be quite possible to create forged identity cards that work for many purposes (i.e. where there is no check back to the central database). If every reader is going to have to connect to the central database the traffic will be massive (and what would the fall-back be when something failed?).

What about false negatives - where the number on my card does not match with the number derived from my finger? This is going to happen a lot (misaligned readers, scratches etc). What happens when I have a perfectly valid card (and finger(s)!) but they don't match.

I'm sure there won't be fingerprint readers everywhere - so it'll just end up being a card, like the driving license and not be validated by anything more than a picture - if it's trusted more then it will be more valuable for forgers to copy / clone.

[Injin]

Simpel question for the loon who is in favour of ID cards -

If I don't want to give you my fingerprints or carry an ID card - what do you advocate doing to me?

[LandOfConfusion]

I'm quite sure they don't need those authorisations right now, but if they do, the ID card system or NIR won't change that - it would still be implemented in the context of current laws.

Sharing of data between governmental organisations was (the last time I heard) only permissible though those routes. Otherwise the ID card would just be that - and ID card (there may be some other specific exceptions I can't remember but that's the jist of it).

Sure. And my argument is that they're already linked but not very well.

A passive link is different from what is being suggested here.

This is perceived anonymity (security in this context) through obscurity which Phil Zimmerman is certainly against!

I don't see where this 'anonymity' comes from - the data can already be linked but only in a way which makes mass surveillance much more difficult and much more obvious.

In the same way, nothing should be hidden from the individual's view in their entries in the NIR. And they won't be - you will be able to review it anytime online.

Will I be able to see who has accessed it and the reasons why?

Here's a list of the actual items the ICO has permitted for the card:

Information to be contained on the National Identity Register

Thanks, I'll have a read. Also, as I'm more concerned about what will be on the database rather than the card itself. Can you tell me what the safeguards are to prevent future feature creep (assuming that the Information Commissioner is a Blairite and Liebour get in again?)

In addition, I've just seen that organisations that have permission to access the data held on the Register can only do so with the individual's permission - unless it's to prevent or investigate a crime. That's fair enough isn't it?

In a word, NO.

This reeks of feature creep and the operative part of that sentence is "prevent crime". No crime has to be committed for the database to be used in a way which is potentially hostile to our liberties. That's why that couple had their car tagged - under a law designed to prevent crime. You have to watch for exceptions like that.

[indirectapproach]

How about we prevent crime by enforcing the laws we've got rather than creating new ones?