Debate: Biometric ID cards

[Simon Brown]

Should every Britain/American be forced to carry a Biometric ID card. Would this be an effective way to stop terrorism - or just another excuse to bring on 1984?

[MattBlackLamb]

No, we shouldn't carry them, if you're carrying your fancy new I.D. card & someone mugs you & takes your card you might as well not exist any more. That person can do what he wants with your card, including something like a nice terrorist attack so as far as I'm concerned the cards shouldn't be brought in.

[Yata]

In my opinion, that is useless and as Matt said, would cause more problems than it solved. Standardizing such things are only going to make more people mad than satisfy them.

In addition, what about people not getting them? Theres absolutely no way on Earth to get EVERY person an ID card. What about that homeless man seen wandering the streets? What about an Amish family that lives in a very rural area and dosen't interact with the community? See where I'm going with this? There's too many situations where this wouldn't be accurate or plausible to do. Come to think of it, why WOULD a terrorist wear one? You can't check every single person every time they look at you funny.

[MattBlackLamb]

Looking at the more short-term aspect & assuming that the US & UK were the only countries using them, what about tourists form other countries that don't use the cards. Do they get given one when they get their passport checked? Or do they wander around our country without one & blow it up?

The idea is a total waste of time, money & resources that would be better spent improving police forces so that they're better equipped if they find out about a terror plot or if one happens. It would also be better spent improving health services so that if anything does happen they are also more prepared & better equipped.

[Myrddin]

For the United Kingdom, we have the Royal Mail to rely on delivering it to us, so that's something else to go wrong.

If it truly came to it where some form of identity marker is necessary, then I'm happy for biometric implants; small chips with personal details on rather than cards which could lead to the issues spoken of by Matt and Yata. I hate for this to sound wrong, but if it's good enough for our pets, then it should be good enough for us. It would be harder to remove, thus harder to be stolen or lost, therefore may save the Government money on the reproduction of more.

I say in our forearms, but I'd personally opt for my forehead... Why? I'm more likely to have my arm amputated than my forehead/head.

[Yata]

Having an implant gives me the feeling of invasion of privacy.And like I said, I doubt your going to be able to make everyone get an implant. Besides, think of how much money it would cost.

[Sozo]

I personally would never go along with I.D. cards or chip implants. I don't love Big Brother.

[Myrddin]

Having an implant gives me the feeling of invasion of privacy.

And the contents of the card doesn't; your whole life on one piece of plastic? And what if it was stolen, wouldn't that be even more of an invasion of privacy for you; some random yob with your life in their grubby little hands?

With an implant, at least you know where it is and it'll be less likely to be elsewhere.

[Yata]

Having an implant gives me the feeling of invasion of privacy.

And the contents of the card doesn't; your whole life on one piece of plastic? And what if it was stolen, wouldn't that be even more of an invasion of privacy for you; some random yob with your life in their grubby little hands?

With an implant, at least you know where it is and it'll be less likely to be elsewhere.

Did I say the card didn't?

[MattBlackLamb]

I think my point about tourists still stands. People won't want to visit a country if they've got to have a computer chip implanted in their body. Not only would it cost money it would also hurt the tourism industry which would hurt the economy, they really aren't worth the fuss.

[Myrddin]

Did I say the card didn't?

True.

Not only would it cost money it would also hurt the tourism industry which would hurt the economy, they really aren't worth the fuss.

Never said I would be happy with such schemes as cards or implants, just that if they did legislate them, I would prefer and implant than another card to carry and risk loosing/breaking/etc.. Nor that I'm saying there would be a choice in the matter, if it came in, it would be either/or and we'd have no real choice about it.

[Yata]

Personally, I don't think there is, or will ever be, an easy fix to terrorists. People are going to (try) to do what they want to regardless of any and all restrictions and walls put in their way. Look at 9/11, they got past airport security. And even before the incident we had decently tight security measures in place.

It comes down to two things:

Implement an extreme measure such as chips and convince all coming to our country to do the same.

Or go on with our lives and handle things as they come, hopefully not leading to war. (Don't get me started on wars, I don't want to go there.)

The thing is, not everyone is 'out to get us', and I'm not saying to sit back and do nothing, but be active in security and keep everything calm. Taking extreme measures would cause issues, and taking no security measures would just be incompetent on the official's part.

[MattBlackLamb]

If these things do come in I would prefer an implant, but not somewhere like an arm, partly coz it wouldn't be hard to get it out & assuming everyone had them in the same place all it would take is a scalpel in the right place & someone is you. I'd prefer it somewhere much harder to get out & in a limb that won't be amputated, so, the torso somewhere would be an ideal place.

On another point, chips should be able to recognise the DNA of the person they're in so that if someone does end up with your chip & implants it in themselves, it doesn't work. Other measures that would help would be things to check pulse & if the chip didn't register a pulse it shut down.

Fake Edit: I'd be perfectly happy with your second solution Yata.

[vista?]

I may be 11 but I do deserve a say in this.

We shouldn't have ID cards at all. In the UK, firstly, some data about god knows what on 2 cds has been lost from the hmrc. As well as that blunder, the Irish lost some motorist's data when it was on its way to the DVLA in Swansea. My last blunder to point out was when the UK lost motorist's data in what was an apparently a "safe" place in Iowa. I mean, what was UK data doing in the US - it seems weird!!!!!

Plus, how would they stop terrorism? These ID cards would have chips etc - what if a hacker did something?

Just before I finish this post I want you to list as many POSITIVE things about ID cards. It'll be hard - but then you'll really realise how pointless ID cards are.

[Simon Brown]

Just before I finish this post I want you to list as many POSITIVE things about ID cards. It'll be hard - but then you'll really realise how pointless ID cards are.

Are you talking to me? I don't support ID cards.

[MattBlackLamb]

No, I think he means just to highlight any such pro's out of the system.

[vista?]

No, I think he means just to highlight any such pro's out of the system.

mattblacklamb is right - u may have misunderstood my sentence.

[Yata]

Going slightly off-topic, I'm enjoying these debate threads. Keep 'em coming :wink:

[MattBlackLamb]

I didn't say put everyone's DNA in a government facility so that they could Big Brother us. I mean that the chip would recognise the DNA of the person it's in & de-activate itself if the DNA of the person changed...

[vista?]

I didn't say put everyone's DNA in a government facility so that they could Big Brother us. I mean that the chip would recognise the DNA of the person it's in & de-activate itself if the DNA of the person changed...

I'm confused, are u saying that to me?

[MattBlackLamb]

No, the poll says something about the general populaces' DNA being available to the government.

[Simon Brown]

I mean that the chip would recognise the DNA of the person it's in & de-activate itself if the DNA of the person changed...

The chip could only detect the DNA directly around it - so I could imagine a sick way they could get around the system.

[Simon Brown]

No, the poll says something about the general populaces' DNA being available to the government.

I decided to add that to the poll - remembering what that judge said ages ago.

[Stephan]

Yes, I think everyone should be forced to carry a biometric ID card, or at least have the possibility to. Checking out on an airport should be SO much easier. Just scan your face, and your card, and off you go! I don't know about implants though... I would like a card from these guys: https://www.ironkey.com/ Their thumb drive is hot! And protective. Seeing as no one but the producer can access the data, and an advanced registry code algorithm could be used to lend acces to the cards' contents for tiny amounts of time, No one would be able to change the data.

[MattBlackLamb]

I mean that the chip would recognise the DNA of the person it's in & de-activate itself if the DNA of the person changed...

The chip could only detect the DNA directly around it - so I could imagine a sick way they could get around the system.

If the chip takes a DNA sample for the person it's in when it's entered then there's no problem with that. Then if it registers no pulse there can only be two conclusions, either 1) the person is dead, or, 2) the chip's been removed. The chip would need to be programmed to only accept the DNA that it gets given when it enters the person & upon the persons death, they get destroyed or self destruct when they come into contact with oxygen or something.....