Mary Fisher wrote:

You ought to be hiding the information that would readily enable someone
to commit fraud while impersonating you. If you don't then not only do you
suffer the consequences, but so do many others.


That's not specific enough. And even if it were I'm not going to be told
what I OUGHT to be hiding.

Well look at it this way. Would a criminal be able to impersonate you to
a sufficient extent to clean out your accounts at the bank or building
society simply by trawling through your rubbish? I.e. would they be able
to find you name, address, DOB, account number etc? (using bills, bank
statements, payment counterfoils (if you have any) that you have
discarded and not burnt or shredded?

If the answer is yes (as I suspect it is for a good many people) then
you are exposing yourself to a bigger risk that I would be prepared to
take myself.

Are you aware of the implications of hiding nothing?

There haven't been any problems so far. In that historical context I'm
happy to continue.

This is much like the argument presented by our four year old when told
off for running out into the road - "its ok daddy, I didn't get run
over" - the implication being that since they got away with it this time
they always will. In other words they have no understanding of risk.


So what are you suggesting? That one never crosses the road?

No I am suggesting they learn to cross the road safely, looking,
listening and all that, rather than making a dash for it and trusting in
pot luck.

LOL! Who would want any aspect of my life?

Chances are no one.... directly. However they might like the money they
could either steal from you directly, or more likely, steal from financial
institutions by using your impeccable credit rating.


Money money money money money money money ... there are other things in
life.

I would agree with you, money is not that important. I rate it about
level with oxygen. If you have enough it ceases to matter.

However not everyone will view it that way, and some will take advantage
of the vulnerable given the chance.

If the bank decided you were no longer trustworthy with a cheque book and
took yours away?


We start to use cash. But why should the bank/s think that about us?

Perhaps because over the last six month period your[1] spending pattern
had changed and you started to run up large debts that you did not repay.

Of course you did not notice this because it was not you doing it. The
fraudster will have redirected your account to a new address so you
don't see the statements (well other than the fake ones he sends you so
that you do not to rumble the deception).

What if your bank decides you're not trustworthy?

I would consider that undesirable, and will hence take measures to try
and ensure that does not happen.

Why should they? They have many years of records. A glitch would be
queried.That has happened.

Query to the new address of course.... the crim might even take the time
to reply for you, explaining that you had to seek urgent medical
attention at your own expense, however that pattern will be resolved
shortly once the process of taking out the equity release mortgage on
your home is complete.

If every time you went overdrawn by a penny


We never overdraw. It's not responsible. We are responsible.

I never overdraw intentionally either. However there have been times
when I have paid in cheques in close proximity to writing ones, and have
fallen foul of "debit interest" as they call it (i.e. a virtual
overdraft required to bridge the gap created by the delay in clearing
funds).

Even if you don't care, don't you suppose another might?


What has this to do with the thread? I'm not responsible for others.

I would contend that to an extent you are - if your actions put others
[2] at risk.

[2] others in this context including corporate entities not just
individuals.


take out life insurance etc.

Because I'm honest I couldn't get life insurance but I don't want it.

Some do....


You were targeting me.

[1] No not at all. It is simpler to write some explanations addressed to
"you", however the you could in fact be anyone.

In fact I get the impression that you deliberately interpret many
statements as if they apply only to you, since it provides a convenient
way to sidestep the question in hand.

(e.c. "ID theft can result in someone's credit rating getting
clobbered", "I don't need my credit rating, therefore it is not
important" - the first part of the statement may be true, however the
second part does not follow in the general case.

It will dictate the terms and conditions under which many financial
institutions will deal with you. With a poor rating you become a second
class citizen in their eyes.

So what?

It costs you more to carry out basic transactions, and you have less
flexibility.


You're assuming that we live our lives like Mr and Mrs Average, that we need
'flexibility' (by which, since you haven't specified what you mean, I assume
you mean credit). Loans. Hire purchase. We don't, we don't have or need
those things.

No I don't mean credit as such. Although it may be important for some
(i.e. other definitions of "you").

You may be aware of the rating systems that banks use to score the
desirability of their customers (some seem to use a fruit scale (i.e.
apples, pears etc) for some reason). Depending on which fruit you have
associated with your account will dictate how hard they will work to
keep you as a customer. This can range from not at all (i.e will
actually seek to upset you in the hope you take your business elsewhere
- bills for anything and everything - take it or leave it), to bending
over backwards to retain your custom (i.e. everything being negotiable).

I would, but it could happen now so that's a red herring in terms of an
ID system.

It has everything to do with the ready availability of information - the
ID database will concentrate all these different bits of information in
one place and make them accessible to anyone who wants them (irrespective
of the security measures put in place to prevent that).


I'm not sure that it will and don't know how you can be so sure that it
will. If it does we might change our attitude.

I guess time will tell, but I can't think of many big distributed
computerised databases that has not been compromised in some way, so I
fail to see why the ID card one should be different. Even if you ignore
bent staff (which obviously you can't), most companies have their
private corporate networks and data visible to the outside world at
least some of the time due to incompetence. It only takes one badly
configured router, and unpatched web server, an unofficial wireless LAN
setup by some staff to make their job simpler without thinking though
(or understanding) the implications of what they have done.

We're not prepared to
compromise our principles on the say so of theories.

Which are? (I thought you said your were disinterested in the whole ID
register debate, now you have principles? or am I missing your point?)

If a criminal decides that they can alter your ID database records, then
they can then use their highly trusted new identity with its good credit
rating to carry out fraud. Because it is assumed to be a high class form
of ID, less, rather than more checking is likely to be carried out.
Because it will subsume and slowly replace other databases (manual or
electronic) that contain versions of your ID, then the ability to cross
check will diminish as there will be ever fewer trusted sources to check
against.


That doesn't make sense in my eyes. You're painting a worst case scenario.
Such things can happen now, they rarely do.

It is difficult for the worst case scenario to occur now although it
does happen now (recent figures put the money lost to ID theft at over
1.3bn / year now).

One of the ID register's supporters claims is that it will make this
type of activity harder. One of the things that is clear to those who
understand the engineering and the social interactions of what is being
proposed, can see it that in fact the reverse is true - it will make
these things not only more common, but also far harder to detect.

As your civil liberties erode still further


Civil liberties. What civil liberties are you thinking about? But why should
they erode? I haven't read a convincing argument that they will orwhy they

Do a web search on the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act for a good
example. For the first time that I am aware of (other than perhaps the
original anti terrorism act) it enshrines a principle of guilty unless
proven innocent (also with a negative burden of proof for some aspects)
into English law.

should. Or perhaps you're one of the people who would want to infiltrate the
system and are trying to get my details?

Perhaps I am, it would be an example of social engineering. Collect
enough seeming innocent bits of low grade information and before long
you have the foundations of a very strong attack - right round the
defences that the designers implemented to keep it secure.

and we progress away from the "innocent until proven guilty" tenet our
legal system was based on,


Why should we?

Too late, see above.

Look, what has all this to do with ID cards? Despite its imperfections
there

The cards, not much... the database means the criminal has easy access to
all the the quality, correlated information necessary to perpetrate these
things.


What information do you imagine is going to be held on the database? And
what reason do you have for knowing that? And you ignored - no, cut - what I
said about my medical records.

I can't find the link for the fuller description of all the fields being
considered at the moment, but this is a top level overview from the
government documents:


(a) his identity;

(See below)

(b) where he resides in the United Kingdom;
(c) where he has previously resided in the United Kingdom and
elsewhere;
(d) the times at which he was resident at different places in the
United Kingdom or elsewhere;
(e) his current residential status;
(f) residential statuses previously held by him;
(g) information about numbers allocated to him for identification
purposes and about the documents to which they relate;
(h) information about occasions on which information recorded about
him in the Register has been provided to any person; and
(i) information recorded in the Register at his request.


Note that g will provide cross linking to other documentation like
passport, DVLA records, NHS number etc.

The implications of part (h) are very deep and far reaching.

(6) In this section references to an individual’s identity are
references to—

(a) his full name;
(b) other names by which he is or has previously been known;
(c) his date and place of birth and, if he has died, the date of
his death; and
(d) physical characteristics of his that are capable of being used
for identifying him.


(7) In this section “residential status”, in relation to an individual,
means—

(a) his nationality;
(b) his entitlement to remain in the United Kingdom; and
(c) where that entitlement derives from a grant of leave to enter
or remain in the United Kingdom, the terms and conditions of that leave.


If I were looking to assume a false identity I can't really think of
much else I could ask for in the way of information to do it. Can you?

are many (too many sometimes) enforced checks on health care for such
things to be extremely unlikely. If you tell me that they happen already
I believe you - but that means that it's not an argument against an ID
system.

The ID system will streamline them and automate them.


Not if it's as poorly designed and operated as you've suggested.

I disagree.

It will remove many points of human contact that often detect fraud.


How do you know?

By reducing the number of transactions required to effect a change. I
gave examples.

You know, John, I'm beginning to feel sorry for you.

No need ;-)

I notice that my questions are often cunningly snipped so that appropriate
spin can be applied. Other answers are ignored.

Not by intent, but then there are other things I need to do with my
time, so accept my apologies if I am not being sufficiently thorough.

Well, it don't work with me. My conscience is clear, my integrity is intact,
I have faith in myself and I suspect that others either don't or they're
frightened of something because they have something to hide.

Missing the point alas IMHO. It was never my intent to question your
conscience, integrity, or faith in yourself. I also don't anticipate
that you are about to indulge in an attempted identity theft, or to
begin a carer as a professional fraudster. Although I do believe that
your disregard for your own personal data increases your risk of falling
victim to one - perhaps you take more care than you let on. However if
you are either aware of that risk and happy with it, or simply happy
being blissfully unaware, then so be it.

What's more, I can't understand why you're so determined to convert me to
your suspicious belief system. You're wasting your energy. I'm neither for

I have no particular need to "convert" you one way or the other. I do
however find your position interesting (strange and incongruous, but
interesting nether the less).

You do present a good foil to air some discussion points for a larger
audience however - ones they may not have given much thought to.

nor aagainst ID systems, I can't understand why anyone's getting so uptight
about it. There are more important things to be concerned about than our
meaningless little lives - such as the fate of the Earth..

I guess many people are actually quite attached to their meaningless
little lives and the fate and well-being of their families. Hence they
have very real fears that these will be threatened by being railroaded
into ill conceived systems that may result in their being exposed to new
ways for their status quo being upset.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/