Roland Perry on 06 April 2004 at 21:53 said:-
> In the USA the population already accept that they need ID
> cards for lots of different things.
That viewpoint of the US position, much like the one in the UK, does not
seem to be by any means a consensus opinion, more an indication of a
perceived need by certain interests where other easily available options to
answer those needs have been avoided for various reasons. (Perhaps a
'somebody else will pay' approach) But it does admirably illustrate the
covert intrusiveness of a change being made without openly deciding, and how
some changes can be avoided by taking other options.
> ps In terms of intrusion by foreign regimes, I'm rather more
> exercised by those that require hotels to grab your passport
> overnight (or longer) and send the details to the local
> police. There are also Commission buildings in Brussels that
> require your passport or ID card as a "deposit" at the
> reception desk, in exchange for a visitors pass.
Those official purposes are served by the hotel register in the UK, what
else the hotel used the register information for is up to them, together
with what they inform their customers about in line with the purposes. I
imagine that it will be perceived as simpler and more secure for official
needs to interface with electronic hotel records, in much the same way as
vehicle insurance, and so moves/demands to achieve that functionality are
likely to occur on the back of the international terrorist threat. Smart of
the terrorists to use false details and not to normally use hotels, perhaps
that is why official access to housing and voters material is also needed.
Social functions, similar to privacy functions, do not seem to vary
tremendously, the variance seem to be more the cultural preference or method
of reaching a position which does not cause upset but does maximise the
perceived need of the lead social group in question. Sad for privacy, but
perhaps much loving care will see the perceived problem for the individuals
dissipate.
Clearly, being concerned with data handling matters or openly discussing
some of them can be seen as indicative of being opposed to changes some see
as beneficial. Seems a tough life for DP practitioners at times, especially
when a hidden agenda is seen as being brought into the open in requiring the
answers needed to determine if the principles are being met. Even more so
where the origin and details of those answers have to be documented to prove
principle compliance and enable the tracking of changes. Perhaps that is
one reason why some elements in the USA are so against Federal Data
Protection Legislation, a preference to work in the dark could not so easily
exist. A paradoxical sort of support for the existing strong FOI culture
could be created, with similar interests probably seeing similar
difficulties.
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: 06 April 2004 21:53
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Compulsory ID cards
>
>
> In message <001301c41c07$34ebbd70$b8b068d5@ntlworld>,
> ianwelton <[log in to unmask]> writes
> >In support of that statement see Roland Perrys' comment 05
> April 2004
> >at 13:14 > It's called an "Identification Card".
>
> <cough>
>
> In the USA the population already accept that they need ID
> cards for lots of different things. Some that I can
> immediately think of:
>
> To prove you are old enough to buy alcohol (yes, compulsory
> in many places even if you are clearly well over 21!).
>
> To pick up your own child from school before closing time.
>
> To board a domestic airplane (few Americans have passports).
>
> To use a cheque (there are no such things as cheque guarantee cards).
>
> ...and so on.
>
> Given that most Americans have a driving licence, the
> remainder need something else. What they've done is use the
> Driving Licence infrastructure, and the same levels of proof,
> but without the driving test. The resulting card isn't called
> a driving licence, but an ID card.
>
> I believe the Conservatives were promoting a similar scheme
> when they were last in power. So far, I don't think Labour
> has decided whether to base their ID card on the Driving
> Licence or the Passport infrastructures, but the latter seems
> more likely as the driving (sic) seems to be coming from the
> Home Office (and to a certain extent the USA recently wanting
> aliens to have a biometric passport has rather helpfully
> dropped into their lap).
>
> ps In terms of intrusion by foreign regimes, I'm rather more
> exercised by those that require hotels to grab your passport
> overnight (or longer) and send the details to the local
> police. There are also Commission buildings in Brussels that
> require your passport or ID card as a "deposit" at the
> reception desk, in exchange for a visitors pass.
> --
> 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)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
