You know this fab new suggestion that we can choose whether to have an ID Card or a passport after we’ve been interrogated, fingerprinted and enrolled on two different registers? I seem to recall someone suggesting three years ago the last people we needed to issue ID cards to were people with passports. But the government was too busy pressing ahead to listen....
Published by William Heath on 07/03/08 at 5:55pm
Next entry: Reflections on the Crosby report
Previous entry: "The web and I" - a reflection
This page has been viewed 387968 times
Entries: 1523 | Comments: 2374 | Trackbacks: 206
Most Recent Entry: 05/16/2008 10:36 pm
Most Recent Comment: 05/16/2008 11:49 am
Members: 185 | Logged in: 0 | Guests: 28
Most recent visitor: 05/17/2008 02:09 am
Most visitors ever: 443 on 10/12/2005 02:21 pm
Yes, but this brings the real purpose into the open: The government is desperate to build a huge “identity database” (even if it is a conglomeration of separate databases).
Having to carry “our papers” everywhere we go would be irritating and a retrograde step; but the “identity database” is the real threat to our liberty and is a hostage to future repression etc.
Until fairly recently, the public had been taught to fear large “data-banks.” These days, politicians, the media and the public often seem to welcome each announcement of yet another intrusive “database”; with yet more fees and “administrative penalties” which trigger automatic fines.
As in the 1930s, most people seem to assume that these measures will affect only “other people"… until it’s too late!
Wibbi: The government - and its advisers - realised that knowing someone’s name (and their past) says very little about their future actions!
Wibbi: The media were not so gullible about this slight change in policy and explained the implications more clearly.
Wibbi: Politicians - any politicians - offered a different view of UK society and life in the 21st century.
Reply by Richard S on 03/07/08 at 11:36 pm