tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post113137454239162606..comments2023-10-16T15:59:02.445+01:00Comments on NEIL HARDING: ID Cards: An Update.Neil Hardinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01333739272733802133noreply@blogger.comBlogger98125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-1131754355422008692005-11-12T00:12:00.000+00:002005-11-12T00:12:00.000+00:00At the moment the level of immigration into the UK...At the moment the level of immigration into the UK is beneficial.<BR/><BR/>We both agree on that, right?<BR/><BR/>I think the levels of immigration could increase quite considerably and still be beneficial.<BR/><BR/>We both agree on that, right?<BR/><BR/>If refugees had nowhere else to go and their plight was serious, of course they could come to the UK, whatever their numbers.<BR/><BR/>We both agree on that, right?<BR/><BR/>But surely you must recognise there comes a point where the level of immigration would become not just seriously burdensome but maybe even detrimental to both the country's occupants and the refugees themselves because of strains on the infrastructure- housing, education, sanitory conditions, etc. <BR/><BR/>I think 16 million refugees plus potentially hundreds of millions of economic migrants arriving in the UK over a short period would be past that point.<BR/><BR/>Restrictions are reasonable if it means that refugees are more equally spread amongst recipient safe nations. This is both good for the recipient nations and the refugee.<BR/><BR/>Name me a country in the world that hasn't got some sort of restrictions on asylum applications and on immigration?<BR/><BR/>Unless there is international agreement and every country removes their immigration restrictions, maybe just maybe there would be enough resources for the developed countries to absorb all the economic migrants and refugees in a short period. Any country that did so unilaterally would risk a huge burden to its country and maybe even infrastructure collapse.Neil Hardinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01333739272733802133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-1131746170298945182005-11-11T21:56:00.000+00:002005-11-11T21:56:00.000+00:00Chris: YOU HAVE ADMITTED YOURSELF THAT RESTRICTION...Chris: <BR/><BR/>YOU HAVE ADMITTED YOURSELF THAT RESTRICTIONS ARE CURRENTLY IN PLACE through bureacratic methods.<BR/><BR/>By YOUR DEFINITION that is a quota.<BR/><BR/>I prefer the <A HREF="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=quota" REL="nofollow">dictionary definition</A>.<BR/><BR/>"A number or percentage, especially of people, constituting or designated as an upper limit: a country with strict annual immigration quotas"<BR/><BR/>Michael Howard got into a mess electorally by stating he wanted a quota. The question he was asked was; what is the upper limit? Nobody ever said it doesn't matter because we already have a quota did they?<BR/><BR/>We have restrictions in place, you admit that, but depending on the number of applications the numbers will always vary, there is no upper limit, so it is not a quota.<BR/><BR/>I can admit when I'm wrong, can you? <BR/><BR/>If you can't this will explain a lot about why you believe what you do about ID cards. You have absolute faith in the abstract concept of civil liberties no matter what it does to real civil liberties in practise.<BR/><BR/>There are all sorts of restrictions on refugees entering the UK, some can't afford to get to a safe country, some have made it to a safe country but still want to come here, some are not allowed to leave their country by the authorities and would like to apply for asylum to Britain from there.<BR/><BR/>According to you we have a moral obligation to pay for their travel and let them apply from where-ever. Surely we have a moral obligation to contact those 16 million refugees and let them know they can come here? If we don't we are placing restrictions on their entry, a quota in your semantic world.<BR/><BR/>Remember that as well as refugees, you would have no restrictions on economic migrants either. Do we have a moral obligation to contact all of them and invite them here as well?Neil Hardinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01333739272733802133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-1131727961076677502005-11-11T16:52:00.000+00:002005-11-11T16:52:00.000+00:00Chris: you are playing with words. So, if quotas a...Chris: you are playing with words. <BR/><BR/>So, if quotas are already in place as you suggest, what was Michael Howard on about? Of course a quota is different. It is an exact number, restrictions mean numbers are variable depending on how people apply. I've already stated some restrictions should be lifted and more refugees let in than at present. That has always been my stated position, It has not changed as you suggest and I am sure I have never used the term 'assimulated', show me where I've used it?<BR/><BR/>You are trying to label me the same as Michael Howard, which is completely ridiculous. You know this is an inappropriate slur, you should apologise for this if you've got any decency. I have apologised for getting a few facts inaccurate on biometrics in the early part of the debate. Can you bring yourself to be honest on this?<BR/><BR/>So, as you think there should be no practical limits on immigration and no restrictions in place, there would be no problem if the UK immediately took in ALL 16 million refugees currently in the world. Is that right? If not, why not?<BR/><BR/>"Remind me why you think biometrics make good locks (keys)?"<BR/><BR/>They are going to be extra security features, so even if they were completely useless, which they are not, it wouldn't make something less secure.<BR/><BR/>If I lock my bike with my usual lock and then add a biometric lock as well. That means as well as going to the trouble of getting a photo to unlock the biometric lock (and high tech cameras stop this problem), a thief has to get past the original lock as well. This has obviously made it more difficult for the thief to steal my bike. <BR/><BR/>As John Daugman himself says 'it is an arms race', I have never claimed biometrics are completely unbreakable as a security feature. They are just like the use of antibiotics this century. Eventually bacteria have caught up and got round the early anti-biotics. But nobody would wish we never discovered them or used them.Neil Hardinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01333739272733802133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-1131713978249436712005-11-11T12:59:00.000+00:002005-11-11T12:59:00.000+00:00I forgot to add that biometrics are going to be EX...<I>I forgot to add that biometrics are going to be EXTRA security measures used in conjunction with the current security, so there is no way it can't be less secure than at present.</I><BR/><BR/>This is common sense. It turns out not to be true. http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/jgd1000/combine/combine.html<BR/><BR/>Combining multiple high-tech security measures may make a system weaker.<BR/><BR/>"Also biometrics could be used in conjunction with a pin number."<BR/><BR/>Well, that depends on what they're being used for. We know there will be plenty of systems which do biometric lookups without cardholder consent (the police are planning to compare their 900,000 unmatched fingerprints with the NIR - better hope you're not one of the false positives for that one), so our hypothetical biometric-matching terrorist has to get the use of one of those. Exactly how easy that is depends on how much access private companies are allowed to the system.<BR/><BR/>Incidentally, the ability of people to do biometric lookups on me without my consent is one of the things that specifically offends me about the currently proposed system.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-1131679507896172072005-11-11T03:25:00.000+00:002005-11-11T03:25:00.000+00:00Also biometrics could be used in conjunction with ...Also biometrics could be used in conjunction with a pin number.Neil Hardinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01333739272733802133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-1131678880896863882005-11-11T03:14:00.000+00:002005-11-11T03:14:00.000+00:00I forgot to add that biometrics are going to be EX...I forgot to add that biometrics are going to be EXTRA security measures used in conjunction with the current security, so there is no way it can't be less secure than at present. In fact common sense tells you it will be more secure and could be very secure indeed.Neil Hardinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01333739272733802133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-1131678687940040802005-11-11T03:11:00.000+00:002005-11-11T03:11:00.000+00:00Biometrics can be changed, its difficult, but it c...Biometrics can be changed, its difficult, but it can be done.<BR/><BR/>They change over time naturally anyway. Opponents claim ID cards would have to be reissued every five years for this very reason.<BR/><BR/>Also not all of the biometric data has to be stored on the NIR, as I have explained before, so even if security were breached, these partial biometrics could be changed.<BR/><BR/>Also new technologies in encryption are advancing all the time, and you cannot say that a breakthrough will not be made in the future. I know the fuzzy nature of biometric data makes this difficult but no scientist is saying it won't happen.Neil Hardinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01333739272733802133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-1131676999363402922005-11-11T02:43:00.000+00:002005-11-11T02:43:00.000+00:00"I'm not "trying to suggest it" -- you stated it. ..."I'm not "trying to suggest it" -- you stated it. You said that you want to restrict the entry of legitimate refugees to this country based only on their numbers. That is a quota, and you suggested it, above."<BR/><BR/>I will say it again. <BR/><BR/>I DO NOT SUPPORT, OR HAVE EVER SUPPORTED THE USE OF A QUOTA ON REFUGEES ENTERING THIS COUNTRY AND I NEVER WILL.<BR/><BR/>If that isn't clear enough for you I don't know what is.<BR/><BR/>A QUOTA is a specific number. Bureacratic RESTRICTIONS do not give a specific number. <BR/><BR/>YOU have stated that you agree there are RESTRICTIONS on the number of refugees entering this country using bureacratic and other methods and tighter restrictions are partly why the number of applications have halved.<BR/><BR/>YOU have stated this, so stop trying to twist words. RESTRICTIONS are NOT the same as a QUOTA. Even you accept there are currently restrictions. This is NOT the same as a QUOTA.<BR/><BR/>I stated I wanted these restrictions actually REDUCED so more refugees can enter the country. What I said is these restrictions cannot be ABOLISHED altogether, like you claim.<BR/><BR/>To compare my position on this to Michael Howard is like comparing Mahatma Gandi to Ghengis Khan. <BR/><BR/>If you don't apologise for this slur, you are a complete and utter liar and everyone will be able to see that in black and white. You have made a mistake, own up. I have owned up for getting a few facts wrong on biometrics in an earlier thread. It takes a big man to admit he is wrong. IF you can't do that, I will lose all respect for you.Neil Hardinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01333739272733802133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-1131649962872386472005-11-10T19:12:00.000+00:002005-11-10T19:12:00.000+00:00Also I've shown why this IT database has significa...Also I've shown why this IT database has significant advantages over the other ones that have had difficulties.Neil Hardinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01333739272733802133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-1131636522260240792005-11-10T15:28:00.000+00:002005-11-10T15:28:00.000+00:00If you are not going to believe any of the figures...If you are not going to believe any of the figures the govt comes up with, then it is going to be impossible for them to persuade you isn't it?Neil Hardinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01333739272733802133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-1131634999500082732005-11-10T15:03:00.000+00:002005-11-10T15:03:00.000+00:00ack!The "won't" shouldn't be in the above post!ack!<BR/><BR/>The "won't" shouldn't be in the above post!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-1131634947649804102005-11-10T15:02:00.000+00:002005-11-10T15:02:00.000+00:00The Home Office have also estimated it will take 1...<B>The Home Office have also estimated it will take 14 years to break even. Why don't you accept those figures?</B><BR/><BR/>1) Because the governments record on IT systems is absolutely abysmal.<BR/><BR/>2) They won't refuse to release the full figures and working.<BR/><BR/>3) After Iraq I no longer trust a damn word that comes out of the Labour spin machine/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-1131633770069547052005-11-10T14:42:00.000+00:002005-11-10T14:42:00.000+00:00Heres the link for the refugee and migrant figures...Heres the <A HREF="http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/ittmig2002/press-release-eng.html" REL="nofollow">link for the refugee and migrant figures</A> I quoted.Neil Hardinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01333739272733802133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-1131633626595461862005-11-10T14:40:00.000+00:002005-11-10T14:40:00.000+00:00Chris: "No. Anyone can apply for asylum. We do not...Chris: "No. Anyone can apply for asylum. We do not have a quota now, but that appears to be what you are suggesting."<BR/><BR/>Chris-you know you are being very disingeniuos here. I was as disgusted as anyone at the Tories scurrilous campaign. I DO NOT SUPPORT QUOTAS and stop trying to suggest I do. On the question of restrictions, you say there aren't any then say this..<BR/><BR/>"suggesting that this didn't have a 'lot' to do with UK domestic policy."<BR/><BR/>and this...<BR/><BR/>"The rest of the fall is probably down to bureaucratic obstruction of asylum applications"<BR/><BR/>So obviously (as you admit) there ARE restrictions. I'm saying we can LESSEN these restrictions but not bet rid of them altogether.<BR/><BR/>"Suppose that there were a humanitarian disaster in a nearby European country -- let us say, a genocidal government. Millions want to flee; the alternative is death at the hands of their oppressors. Is your preferred policy to shut these people out and let them die?"<BR/><BR/>No, I would let them ALL in if they had nowhere else to go. <BR/><BR/>These are exceptional cases, and of course it would be unfair for the UK to take the full burden if other rich developing countries weren't also taking their share.<BR/><BR/>On the point of infrastructure collapse. The latest figures for 2003 suggest 16 million refugees. Do you think a country of the density of the UK should or could take ALL of these refugees? And this is just refugees, without taking into account economic migrants. <BR/><BR/>The world's developed regions take an estimated 2.3m migrants a year from the less developed regions (Europe takes 0.8m), and that is with all the current restrictions in place. How many do you think the UK could take a year if it dropped all its restrictions? Are you telling me this wouldn't cause infrastructure problems? <BR/><BR/>There are people literally dying to get into the UK, from the safety of France, and you are telling me that if we opened our borders to every country in the world we would be able to cope? You are living in a dream world.<BR/><BR/>At least I know how to argue against you now. I'm sure any reasonable person would object to what you say. Can't you see how you have been driven to this ridiculous position by opposing ID cards. You now have to oppose passports and all border controls as well, to try and justify your opposition to ID cards. I think you've lost the argument on this point, Chris.Neil Hardinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01333739272733802133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-1131631210206554602005-11-10T14:00:00.000+00:002005-11-10T14:00:00.000+00:00urko: "No post war government has reduced taxation...urko: "No post war government has reduced taxation overall."<BR/><BR/>Measured as a percentage of National Income, the overall tax take used to be around <A HREF="http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn25.pdf" REL="nofollow">48% in the 1970s, it now is around 38%</A>.<BR/><BR/>ID cards will bring about savings, whether this is dished out in tax cuts or extra public spending will depend on who is elected, probably.Neil Hardinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01333739272733802133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-1131630523717195982005-11-10T13:48:00.000+00:002005-11-10T13:48:00.000+00:00Pete: Think of any long-term project, you don't fa...Pete: Think of any long-term project, you don't factor in the start-up costs over the short term. Do you think the railways would ever have been, or the roads. You have to think over 20 years or maybe longer or no beneficial long-term project would ever come about.Neil Hardinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01333739272733802133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-1131630362470134812005-11-10T13:46:00.000+00:002005-11-10T13:46:00.000+00:00pete stevens: As you well know the £580m a year is...pete stevens: As you well know the £580m a year is over the first ten years 'including start up costs'. The start-up costs are a one off cost. In the long term these costs will diminish but the benefits will acrue. The actual annual maintenance cost is £85m. The Home Office have also estimated it will take 14 years to break even. Why don't you accept those figures?Neil Hardinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01333739272733802133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-1131630239715646292005-11-10T13:43:00.000+00:002005-11-10T13:43:00.000+00:00...will actually REDUCE our taxesExcellent - If I ...<I> ...will actually REDUCE our taxes</I><BR/><BR/>Excellent - If I get my lawyer to draw up a contract, will you promise to pay any extra taxes for me if this proves not to be the case.<BR/><BR/>No post war government has reduced taxation overall. Thatcher redistributed the burden on to the poor, but contrary to many Tory apologists, didn't reduce taxes.<BR/>Your faith on this would be funny if it wasn't so sad. By the way, I'm not generally against paying my taxes for decent services. Not even the government has said the ID cards scheme would reduce taxes (presumably because they know it won't).John Eckersleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12874387296463362537noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-1131624517030548572005-11-10T12:08:00.000+00:002005-11-10T12:08:00.000+00:00"The cost of running the ID scheme has been put at..."The cost of running the ID scheme has been put at £85 million a year."<BR/><BR/>Er, no.<BR/><BR/>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11/09/egov_idcard_costing/ <BR/><BR/>"The total average annual running costs for issuing passports and ID cards to UK nationals is currently estimated at 584million." -- source - the Home Office<BR/><BR/>Given the ID card scheme is currently estimated to cost almost seven times your estimate, do you still expect it to save money? Where in particular do you think the half a billion a year of savings will come from?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-1131622655748129812005-11-10T11:37:00.000+00:002005-11-10T11:37:00.000+00:00It is true that not everyone has a passport or a d...It is true that not everyone has a passport or a driving licenece.<BR/><BR/>However those that drive often NEED to drive for all kinds of reasons. Public transport isn't massively wonderful and many many people need to drive to get to work, to keep family ties, to visit friends, in short to live their lives.<BR/><BR/>If these people cannot have a driving licence without an ID card then they have a choice between getting an ID card or not living their life. This is really so close to compulsion that to deny otherwise is spectacular pedantry.<BR/><BR/>Ditto to passports, not everyone has one. For example foreigner hating sun readers (that paper has been annoying me lately) won't want to travel abroad and come into contact with filthy foreigners. There are many others however who need to travel abroad to work. They will be compelled to get an ID card or find another job. People who holiday abroad may have a choice in getting an ID card or not having holidays abroad, but I'm reasonably sure this will feel like compulsion.<BR/><BR/>The other option is to to renew all these documents ahead of time. Something most people won't think to do as it seems that the public is woefully unaware of the ID card scheme. My passport runs out in 2011, 2 years before the cards are to become even more compulsary. I won't be renewiing my passport because if the ID card hasn't been killed stone dead by then I'll be taking my IT skills and experience and emigrating to a country less on the slippery slope to totalitarianism, that doesn't demand my fingerprints simply for existing.<BR/><BR/>Hopefully this won't be needed, yesterdays vote on the plan to intern people for 3 months on the whim of the police has given me some hope in Parliament.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-1131594361609299912005-11-10T03:46:00.000+00:002005-11-10T03:46:00.000+00:00Chris: We have restrictions on refugees applicatio...Chris: We have restrictions on refugees applications now. You must know that. How else have applications been halved by this government? <BR/><BR/>I'm not saying make them tougher, I'm just not saying we should abolish them altogether. I'm all for the free movement of people. I would distribute wealth massively across the globe and abolish countries altogether if I could, but that is not the current reality. Without border controls, the number of refugees descending on the developed world would cause infrastructure collapse, it would be chaos.<BR/><BR/>What you suggest would be madness. I'm sure you wouldn't use this as an argument against ID cards with the general public, because you would quickly lose sympathy.Neil Hardinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01333739272733802133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-1131593737399564882005-11-10T03:35:00.000+00:002005-11-10T03:35:00.000+00:00Chris: Are you suggesting that incorporating biome...Chris: Are you suggesting that incorporating biometrics will not make it harder for a fraudster?<BR/><BR/>Well you are alone in believing that, if you do. Even the LSE accept that biometrics will have an impact in reducing ID fraud.Neil Hardinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01333739272733802133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-1131593387670080992005-11-10T03:29:00.000+00:002005-11-10T03:29:00.000+00:00eben upton: Fraud by its very nature is under-repo...eben upton: <BR/><BR/>Fraud by its very nature is under-reported, it could be higher than £20 billion a year. Even opponents like NO2ID accept that identity specific theft was at least £150 million a year 2 years ago. With ID theft rising 500% in the last 4 years. The cost of running the ID scheme has been put at £85 million a year. Even if the costs are underestimated and ID fraud is not underestimated, it seems the scheme could easily break even on ID fraud alone, before all the other benefits are taken into account. But the fact of the matter is ID fraud (as NO2ID admit) is probably significantly higher than this. I'm not saying ID cards will solve it all, but it wouldn't need to, to make it worthwhile. Talking of cardholder-not-present fraud, this is less than half of ID fraud, criminals prefer face to face fraud for a number of reasons I have already mentioned. All the links for these figures are provided in the posts I've already written.Neil Hardinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01333739272733802133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-1131579234103928612005-11-09T23:33:00.000+00:002005-11-09T23:33:00.000+00:00neil: Generally I believe that the efficiency gain...neil: Generally I believe that the efficiency gains of having an ID scheme will outweigh the costs and that our taxes are higher because we don't have an ID scheme.<BR/><BR/>Do you have a citation for this from a reputable source, or some personal experience to lend your opinion credibility? <BR/><BR/>Given your (outrageously offensive) attitude to the 'middle classes' (by which I guess you mean people who labour under the curse of book learning), I worry that this may be purely speculation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-1131568485983092492005-11-09T20:34:00.000+00:002005-11-09T20:34:00.000+00:00Chris: Don't try to twist my words, I have stated ...Chris: Don't try to twist my words, I have stated that I can see the present system loosened in terms of both economic migrants and refugees. <BR/><BR/>Even the most open bordered person realises that there are limits to how many refugees any one country can take in a certain time period. There is obviously an optimum level of intake for an economy and infrastructure in any time period. I believe this is higher than our present intake, but it is not unlimited. You can't pretend that the UK should or even could take every refugee on the planet without causing significant problems for our infrastructure and economy.<BR/><BR/>If I increase the number of locks on my bike, I reduce the chance of it being stolen. You can pretend biometrics aren't very good, I disagree, but you can't pretend that they won't make it more difficult for forgers.Neil Hardinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01333739272733802133noreply@blogger.com