Roland Perry on 07 April 2004 at 15:20 said:-
> From a small number of people, not the general population.
>
So do the people objecting only belong to small minority groups?
> It seems to make law abiding middle classes happier. For what
> that's worth.
I don't suppose they see anything to hide then. And that particular social
segment supports much of the vocal political lobbying in one form or
another, so there would be no need to worry things might not happen as they
wish.
> I'd have expected that too. But remember, almost all the uses
> for ID cards are not by government, but private sector. (Even
> if it's government who are behind the regulations - which in
> any event are widely supported).
I refer to my previous comment:- > And how can such use meet the DPA
principle requirements, or should they be ignored for this particular
matter?
> In what circumstances will people be gathering and processing
> the information on the ID cards? If they are eye-ball only
> (to confirm identity),
But if they contain other material, for passport/DL they would surely have a
chip incorporated within them. And just think of all the opportunities made
available then, both in the card and by the up to date and accurate data
within the centralised database. Very valuable information enabling all
sorts of useful things I would imagine. With passport travel information,
driving material, medical information, and all other sorts of useful data
held within chips on the card the value would be increased extensively.
It just makes me wonder, who benefits the most and who can suffer any of the
potential dysfunctional consequences.
Ian W
> -----Original Message-----
> From: This list is for those interested in Data Protection
> issues [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Roland Perry
> Sent: 07 April 2004 15:20
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Compulsory ID cards
>
>
> In message <000001c41ca8$ca6dbf50$633468d5@ntlworld>,
> ianwelton <[log in to unmask]> writes
>
> >All of the e-mails in privacy groups voicing concerns against such
> >matters which I have read must emanate from outside the US.
>
> From a small number of people, not the general population.
>
> >I would also expect an inherent trust in
> >authority to exist, which seems somehow antithetical for the US
> >culture.
>
> I'd have expected that too. But remember, almost all the uses
> for ID cards are not by government, but private sector. (Even
> if it's government who are behind the regulations - which in
> any event are widely supported).
>
> >I suppose what I am asking is - adding up and including the issues
> >emanating from every social group, is ID really justifiable as
> >inclusive for every purpose it may be used for outside of
> that type of
> >lifestyle, or is it divisive?
>
> It seems to make law abiding middle classes happier. For what
> that's worth.
>
> >And how can such use meet the DPA principle requirements, or should
> >they be ignored for this particular matter?
>
> In what circumstances will people be gathering and processing
> the information on the ID cards? If they are eye-ball only
> (to confirm identity), then it isn't a DPA issue, is it?
> Having said that, when you buy alcohol at the supermarket
> they type in your DoB from the DL (and it appears on the till
> receipt), as proof that they've seen it.
> --
> Roland Perry
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
All archives of messages are stored permanently and are
available to the world wide web community at large at
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/data-protection.html
If you wish to leave this list please send the command
leave data-protection to [log in to unmask]
All user commands can be found at : -
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help/commandref.htm
(all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|