"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Mary Fisher wrote:

Your reply was far too long for me to answer in detail at a time when I'm
getting on with my little life - Monday is washing day you know. But since
everyone needs a hobby and although you say that you're short of time you've
spent a lot of it on just this one post I did what seems to be common on
Usenet and picked out a couple of things to answer.


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?

No. We shred and compost non shiny paper, you should have expected that :-)


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.

We have enough experience to be prudent. That doesn't mean we have to be
secretive.



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.

Trite. I might as well say that if you don't have money you have no money
worries.


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.

You underestimate me. Ever heard of on-line banking? Ever heard of being
able to check your account at any time? We don't rely on paper statements.


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.

I'm beginning to wonder if you've done this yourself, it's so carefully
thought out.

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).

Perhaps you have but we haven't. We don't overdraw. Credit accounts are paid
by DD, in full. As are all utility bills. We have no debts, none.

That doesn't mean, by the way, that we are wealthy, it means that we don't
spend more than we can afford. Ever. If we can't afford something we do
without - but as I've said ad nauseam we don't want anything we don't need
and we have everything we need.


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.

If you're replying directly to my post and my words what other
interpretation is there?


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.

I don't want 'flexibility'. I don't know how basic transactions can cost
more.



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).

They seem to do that with us, for what reason I don't know, our income is
very low, our activity fairly high, they can't make much profit on us! They
could exist without us and we without them.


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.

Usenet is compromised, you use that.


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?)

I think you are. Possible mischievously. I've told you what our principles
are, look back.

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).

So it can't be so difficult.

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.

You're saying that you know better than anyone else...

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 or
why 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.

You said, "Your" civil liberties. Is this the variable value of 'your'
again?

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.

Very boring though. Here, what do you want to know?

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.

Then you and your highly able colleagues must make sure that the defences
you design and implement must be 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.

Non sequitur.


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?

I couldn't be bothered.

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.

So that makes it so.

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 ;-)

OK, I shan't waste my time.

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,

LOL!


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.

This thread has listed so many reasons for objecting to ID cards that I
suspect no-one's really sure why they are nervous about them.

They sound like a child giving reasons for not wanting something:

Because it's blue
because it smells
because it's too big
because I've never had one
because I had one and didn't like it
because don't want it

....

Only one VALID reason is needed, add more than one and the validity of the
first is diminished. That's a philosophical argument which isn't easily
understood by many but it works.

It was never my intent to question your conscience, integrity, or faith in
yourself.

It wouldn't bother me if you did.

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.

I assume that the 'you' has reverted to the personal. You simply don't know
me well enough to make judgements of any kind.

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).

I'm not unique. Argumentative, arrogant and opinionated but not unique.

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.

Ah! I've been elevated to a foil :-)

nor against 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

Yes sigh It shows.

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.

You really think that most people in this country are trembling at the
thought of ID cards?

I think they have more things to worry about, such as whether to get a new
i-Pod or wait until there's one with a striped strap ...

Mary