Id Cards Not Cancelled

[ken_ichikawa]

From Elreg:

The two biggest contractors on the doomed ID cards scheme will escape any serious financial impact, as the government will not cancel their deals.

With today's announcement that ID cards will be scrapped within 100 days, it's emerged CSC and IBM will simply have the scale of their tasks reduced.

CSC is operating the 10-year, £385m application and enrolment contract. A Home Office spokesman told The Register that because the technology will be used for passports and in issuing ID cards to foreigners - which will go ahead - the firm will not be affected.

Quelle surprise.

It is Injin world time yet time to oil up that old AK yet?

[Guest sillybear2]

No surprise, Jacqui Smiff and the ar$ehole civil service bound everyone's hands when they signed a series of contracts last year :-

http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/regulation/2010/05/14/id-card-contract-cancellation-could-be-costly-40088937/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/compensation-clause-in-id-card-contracts-angers-tories-1242598.html

[interestrateripoff]

Was this cheaper than scrapping altogether with the exit clauses?

[The Eagle]

sounds like the new government is the same old cr*p hidden in a shiny new wrapping. Just like Barack Obama isn't much different than Bush (in his politics, not his manners).

Proof again that they all work for the same masters (the banksters).

[Concrete Jungle]

So how will this affect the former Home Secretary who pushed for ID cards then resigned and went to work for one of the companies involved in the statists wet dream ID card fiasco?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2007/mar/25/uk.idcards

[ChumpusRex]

sounds like the new government is the same old cr*p hidden in a shiny new wrapping. Just like Barack Obama isn't much different than Bush (in his politics, not his manners).

I don't think so - this is just typical NuLabour 'scorched earth' policy: make irreversible commitments to white elephant projects, so that even if a new government comes in, they can't do anything about it.

[Guest sillybear2]

So how will this affect the former Home Secretary who pushed for ID cards then resigned and went to work for one of the companies involved in the statists wet dream ID card fiasco?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2007/mar/25/uk.idcards

He did his job well and is being rewarded appropriately by his pay masters for selling the country down the river, the previous government signed watertight multi-year contracts with high costing get out clauses and sucessfully bound the hands of their successors, remember a change of government means nothing, the government is a continuous legal entity and contracts are binding.

The civil servants who drafted the contracts should be shot.

[The Eagle]

I don't think so - this is just typical NuLabour 'scorched earth' policy: make irreversible commitments to white elephant projects, so that even if a new government comes in, they can't do anything about it.

We'll see in a year or two, it's still too early to tell, but somehow I'm not optimistic and news like this one doesn't help.

[Guest sillybear2]

We'll see in a year or two, it's still too early to tell, but somehow I'm not optimistic and news like this one doesn't help.

There is only one thing better than winning a government contract to do something, and that's being paid to do nothing.

[leicestersq]

There is only one thing better than winning a government contract to do something, and that's being paid to do nothing.

A central identity database for the UK is actually a very good idea indeed.

The state should have a list somewhere, of its citizens, and a means of identifying them. It needs this so that it can discriminate, and give services to people that are ok the UK, and refuse it to those who arent.

For example, I never understood why we should educate every child that turns up at school. Surely it should be UK children, and everyone else has to either pay or lump it? I dont want my tax to be used to educate foreigners. Of course an elected body has the ability to disagree and apply a different set of criteria. If we were to adopt a UK children only system, saving us billions I might add, you would need a central list of UK subjects, to allow you to discriminate between those who are and are not eligible for such an education.

Think about it, education, healthcare, benefits, etc, you need to know if the person you are dealing with is a UK citizen. If there is no centrally maintained list of who is a UK citizen to refer to, how do you achieve that?

Truth is you cant.

So I am all in favour of setting up such a central list.

Mind you, I do disagree with ID cards themselves. If you create them, they will be copied and used to defraud people. Access to the central system should be strictly controlled to make sure its purpose isnt corrupted by criminal elements. Allocate people something like a NI number, that they can carry around in their heads, keep any biometric information on central record. It keeps the cost down and the integrity of they system would be complete.

[piece of paper]

Dust it off in 101 days and do a search and replace "Identity" -> "Ration"

p-o-p

[Injin]

A central identity database for the UK is actually a very good idea indeed.

The state should have a list somewhere, of its citizens, and a means of identifying them. It needs this so that it can discriminate, and give services to people that are ok the UK, and refuse it to those who arent.

For example, I never understood why we should educate every child that turns up at school. Surely it should be UK children, and everyone else has to either pay or lump it? I dont want my tax to be used to educate foreigners. Of course an elected body has the ability to disagree and apply a different set of criteria. If we were to adopt a UK children only system, saving us billions I might add, you would need a central list of UK subjects, to allow you to discriminate between those who are and are not eligible for such an education.

Think about it, education, healthcare, benefits, etc, you need to know if the person you are dealing with is a UK citizen. If there is no centrally maintained list of who is a UK citizen to refer to, how do you achieve that?

Truth is you cant.

So I am all in favour of setting up such a central list.

Mind you, I do disagree with ID cards themselves. If you create them, they will be copied and used to defraud people. Access to the central system should be strictly controlled to make sure its purpose isnt corrupted by criminal elements. Allocate people something like a NI number, that they can carry around in their heads, keep any biometric information on central record. It keeps the cost down and the integrity of they system would be complete.

interesting.

I'm not sure my elderly grandmother would agree.

What penslties do you think are fair in order to coerce her into doing things as you outline above?

Fines?

Confiscate her property?

Prison time?

[Guest sillybear2]

For example, I never understood why we should educate every child that turns up at school. Surely it should be UK children, and everyone else has to either pay or lump it? I dont want my tax to be used to educate foreigners.

Human rights, innit.

Article 26.

Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

[piece of paper]

Meanwhile back in the real world of the state and personal data:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10174577.stm

"The private financial details of up to 50,000 people who claim tax credits have been mistakenly sent out in the post by HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC)."

p-o-p

[leicestersq]

interesting.

I'm not sure my elderly grandmother would agree.

What penslties do you think are fair in order to coerce her into doing things as you outline above?

Fines?

Confiscate her property?

Prison time?

Does your grandmother receive a pension?

If so, she appears perfectly happy to have lots of details on the Benefits National Insurance database.

And she is not doubt only too pleased to have all of those taxpayers on the Inland Revenue database, pensions dont grow on trees.

I mean, how do people think you organise and run a state nowadays? Bits of paper and prayer?

What is missing is a central database that can be used to allow the most important information of all, namely the citizens of a state, to have their details stored in a logically central store, available to all the departments that carry out the functions of the state. Used properly, this will save the nation tens of billions each year.

[Guest sillybear2]

I mean, how do people think you organise and run a state nowadays? Bits of paper and prayer?

Looks like it :-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10174577.stm

If they weren't so disorganised they'd be dangerous.

[leicestersq]

Human rights, innit.

Article 26.

Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

Yes human rights. Though this rule is just silly. "Education shall be free"?????? It isnt free, and can never be free. Someone has to pay. This make this particular rule absurd.

More correctly, if you get to the UK, your child has the right to an education, paid for by the British Taxpayer. That would be more correct.

Perhaps if we had a human right that gave citizens of a nation the right not to have a tax levied to pay for a foreigners welfare, which should after all be paid for by that foreigner or their own state, then I would agree with that.

Just another example of how silly the Human Rights Act is. Some good things in there, others just plain wibbly wobbly mad.

[Injin]

Does your grandmother receive a pension?

If so, she appears perfectly happy to have lots of details on the Benefits National Insurance database.

And she is not doubt only too pleased to have all of those taxpayers on the Inland Revenue database, pensions dont grow on trees.

I mean, how do people think you organise and run a state nowadays? Bits of paper and prayer?

What is missing is a central database that can be used to allow the most important information of all, namely the citizens of a state, to have their details stored in a logically central store, available to all the departments that carry out the functions of the state. Used properly, this will save the nation tens of billions each year.

I'm sorry, I asked what penalties do you think should she face if she doesn't want to join in?

Do you think she shoudl be -

Fined?

Have her stuff confiscated?

Put in prison?

Tortured?

What do you think is the appropriate level of punishment that my gran should face for not going along with your wishes?

[leicestersq]

Looks like it :-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10174577.stm

If they weren't so disorganised they'd be dangerous.

Good old IT. Things go wrong, just like anything else.

But whether you agree with the principle of things like benefits and pensions, millions get paid every week. Due not just to the power of computers, but due to the computers having the correct personal information to process against. And yet we as a nation, have no definitive list of UK citizens. The government has no record of who it is representing.

As a result we spend billions each year, trying to reconcile and gather information, that we should already have. For example, electoral role anyone? Completely unnecessary to gather that information if we have a database of UK citizens.

[SarahBell]

. Used properly, this will save the nation tens of billions each year.

A clean database might. But using dirty data is a recipe for letting conmen and criminals continue to play the game. And unless they DNA sequence and cross check it then dna is useless too.

[oracle]

Dust it off in 101 days and do a search and replace "Identity" -> "Ration"

p-o-p

certainly what I am expecting.

we've had plenty of predictive progamming with vera lynn reaching the top of the singles charts,and all that gubbins about dunkirk on breakfast telly.

The new gov have made a moderately positive start,but I'm still reserving judgement on whether they are the same shit in a different colour box.

[leicestersq]

I'm sorry, I asked what penalties do you think should she face if she doesn't want to join in?

Do you think she shoudl be -

Fined?

Have her stuff confiscated?

Put in prison?

Tortured?

What do you think is the appropriate level of punishment that my gran should face for not going along with your wishes?

Are you saying that she doesnt want a pension?

I dont know if I can really answer your question better than that. I mean, nearly all of us have details on government computers somewhere. You have no right to have that information taken off the bots as far as I am aware, except in very specific instances.

I wouldnt be opposed to people asking to be removed, I wouldnt have any problems with that.

Of course, without those details on a central system, that means she couldnt receive a pension.

[leicestersq]

A clean database might. But using dirty data is a recipe for letting conmen and criminals continue to play the game. And unless they DNA sequence and cross check it then dna is useless too.

Yes, bad data is always a problem.

We have that problem at the moment, like people who get bad credit records when someone else has faked their ID.

Ironically, a state database, if used properly, could alleviate much of this problem.

And remember, we do have data protection laws that allow bad data to be put right. And you have access to your own data, to allow it to be checked and corrected if wrong.

But yes, special attention must be paid to the integrity of such a database. If misused , the power for evil that it wields is also equal to the power of good that it can create.

[Injin]

Are you saying that she doesnt want a pension?

No, i'm ignoring it as irrelevent to the question of what you would do to people who aren't interested in your schemes.

I dont know if I can really answer your question better than that. I mean, nearly all of us have details on government computers somewhere. You have no right to have that information taken off the bots as far as I am aware, except in very specific instances.

And? So what?

I asked you what you were willing to do to those like my gran who weren't interested in your little scheme.

I wouldnt be opposed to people asking to be removed, I wouldnt have any problems with that.

Why should anyone ask to be removed?

Why don't you ask to put them on in the first place?

Of course, without those details on a central system, that means she couldnt receive a pension.

Pensioners do recieve money without the central database at the moment, so this is illogical.

But you are saying that as far as you are concerned, there is no need for a mandatory relationship with the state. Righto.

How many people do you think will be signing up for the database voluntarily, if they don't have to?

[Guest sillybear2]

Good old IT. Things go wrong, just like anything else.

But whether you agree with the principle of things like benefits and pensions, millions get paid every week. Due not just to the power of computers, but due to the computers having the correct personal information to process against. And yet we as a nation, have no definitive list of UK citizens. The government has no record of who it is representing.

Oh, I think it does, not that its in the governments best interests to release accurate statistics and highlight how incompetent other areas of the government are.