UK ID database and cards - discuss

[purpletigron]

Quoting from http://www.no2id.net/ :

"The government claims that 73% of people asked were in favour of ID cards, but two thirds of those same people were not aware of what the introduction of the cards actually involved. Here is a glimpse...

YOU WILL:

ATTEND an appointment to be photographed, have your fingerprints taken and iris scanned, or be fined up to £2500. Additional fines of up to £2500 may be levied each time you fail to comply until you submit to these procedures.

PROMPTLY INFORM the police or Home Office if you lose your card or it becomes defective, or face a fine of up to £1000. If you find someone else's card and do not immediately hand it in, you may have committed a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment for up to two years or a fine, or both.

PROMPTLY INFORM the National Identity Register of any change of address or face a fine of up to £1000 (you will supply evidence of your previous addresses, not just your current address).

PROMPTLY INFORM the National Identity Register of significant changes to your personal life or any errors they have made or face a fine of up to £1000. You may also be obliged to submit to being re-interviewed, re-photographed, re-fingerprinted and re-scanned, or face a fine.

PAY between £30 and £93 (or more) to be registered, with further charges possible to change your details and to replace a lost or stolen card.

When ID cards were introduced in this country during World War II, they had three functions. By the time they were abolished in 1952 they had 39 administrative uses. So what won't we be able to do without an ID card, according to Government plans? We'll be prevented from renting or selling a home or staying in a hotel. We won't be able to buy a car or a mobile phone; open or use a bank account; travel abroad; register with a doctor; get education; work or run a business; (officially) live or (officially) die..."

Comments

[stevegreen.livejournal.com]

Agreed: it's our duty to refuse this nonsense. (I also love the idea that we can be fined for not picking up on their errors..)

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

And besides, what do women need with an identity of our own when our identity is always subsumed in that of our father's or (if married) our husband's (http://flickgc.livejournal.com/563567.html?thread=7092591#t7092591)?

[stevegreen.livejournal.com]

Surname, not identity: there's a difference. Send me your address and I'll send you a dictionary for xmas.

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

Surname, not identity: there's a difference.

Hee. Now you're just being silly.

Send me your address and I'll send you a dictionary for xmas.

Thank you! (http://www.oed.com/services/cd-rom/)

[vgnwtch.livejournal.com]

Ooh, can I have a copy, too?

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

Depends whether Steve is sending them to every woman who thinks her surname is part of her identity, or only to women who make comments which reek of the kneejerk femo-politics he'd hoped we'd all got past a long, long time ago.

Either way, it's likely to be an expensive xmas for him.

[the-gardener.livejournal.com]

At the risk of winding you up all over again, I think stevegreen is correct. Surname is not identity. Changing your name does not change who you are -- how you were brought up, what you believe, what you do, how you think, what you think about, etc..

To argue that surname and identity are co-terminous seems to me a category error. (And I do of course have first-hand knowledge of changes of name!)

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

Changing your name does not change who you are -- how you were brought up, what you believe, what you do, how you think, what you think about, etc..

I was going to say "But none of these things will be visible on an ID card" but in fact, given what the government's database is planned to cover, they probably will.