Mary Fisher wrote:

Wouldn't it be more convenient in some cases to have that information?

And in the case of the car reg. database, it has some medical information on
me and on Spouse and I'm sure we're not unique.What's more, it doesn't worry
us and that's the main basis for my lack of worry about an ID system, we
have nothing to hide. I know I've said it before but people do keep trying
to prove that we have - or might have. We don't. I have a personal attitude
to this, I know that it isn't shared by others, the same applies to all
sorts of other things I care about, don't care about oram neutral about.

Do you truly believe you have nothing to hide? Are you aware of the
implications of hiding nothing?

Given the content of the (proposed) information that would be held about
you in the ID database it would be possible (in fact easy) for those
with criminal intent to misappropriate your identity. From that starting
point, they could demolish many aspects of your life for their own
financial gain. This is not a pipe dream of my over active imagination,
it happens to thousands of people every year already.

You assume that for example your credit rating is of no relevance to you
because you don't seek credit. Do you realise that it will dictate
whether you are allowed to open an account at a bank or building
society, have a cheque book, take out life insurance etc. 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 when someone uses your ID information to open
fraudulent bank accounts, store accounts, gain credit cards etc, then
runs up large debts they do not repay, it will be your rating that suffers.

Would you be concerned if a criminal impersonated you so as to empty
your bank and savings accounts, or perhaps even take out a mortgage
assured against your home?

How would you like to find that you have acquired a criminal record due
to someone's impersonation of your identity? Or perhaps an entry on the
sex offenders register?

What about if a "health tourist" used your details to obtain medical
care on the NHS? What if said care resulted in information being added
to your medical records that is completely incorrect (i.e. fora
different patient) and may result in incorrect treatments being offered
to you in the future?

Even if none of these things are of any concern to you personally, can
you understand why some people may be concerned about them?


--
Cheers,

John.

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

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

I was far more inflamed about the invasion of Iraq. I can be passionate.

Must be true I guess.... you are a mother several times over I believe ;-)

Yes sigh Lust is a powerful urge ... :-(

....

It doesn't. But it seems to me that nothing I've read on this thread
helps further that discussion. I'm enjoying it but haven't learned
anything yet.

Perhaps I am assuming too much too much background knowledge here?

It's very easy to do and something I always try and avoid. But nobody's
perfect - oh that wonderful line from Some Like it Hot!

I understand IT systems, and have specialist knowledge in some of the
technology that would be required to underpin a project of this type. As a
result I find it very easy to spot the many occasions where the talking
heads have glossed over a critical details or major inconsistencies and
conflicts of interest within the proposals that are absolutely fundamental
to it being able to function at all, let alone deliver any of the various
advantages the proponents have claimed.

I don't believe that IT problems are insurmountable, I'm very impressed by
what can be done and disappointed when perceived problems aren't considered
as challenges to be overcome. Take the challenge!

In many cases it is obvious they have fallen for a line fed to them by
technology sales people.

Um. Now I'm lost :-)

(there, I even spell checked that one for you)


Thank you. It's not difficult to do it for every post to avoid
misunderstandings.

Generally I do, however I credit you with more that sufficient intellect

A compliment! Thank you :-)

to be able to deduce my meaning in spite of the occasional spelling
mistake or typo.

It's extra effort though, it irks and I doubt that I'm the only one reading
your posts.

Mary
who isn't perfect on the keyboard even yet :-(

--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Sun, 22 May 2005 04:30:44 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

Mary Fisher wrote:

I was far more inflamed about the invasion of Iraq. I can be passionate.

Must be true I guess.... you are a mother several times over I believe ;-)

That doesn't follow at all. Thousands of Victorian wives, perhaps
millions, suffered in silence as hubby prodded and poked, wheezed and
groaned. It does, after all, only take a second or two, and I expect
the well-behaved men of the time, unlike the brutes we are today,
wanted to make the experience as quick as possible. If we are
embarrassed today to talk about sex, imagine what it must have been
like a hundred and fifty years ago, when even piano legs had skirts. I
have often thought that the mammalian sexual act designed for
procreation of the species is rather a ridiculous affair, like a
third-rate provincial play staged by obvious amateurs, and I predict
that in future years procreation (as opposed to having 'fun') will be
carried out purely in the laboratory, using state-of-the-art test tube
technology (TTT®) and designer robowombs. (Let's have a pink one,
dear, if we decide on a girl.) Also, the term 'making love' is one of
the most risible euphemisms known to man. It is usually very
strenuous, can be unintentionally violent and painful, and nowadays is
often accompanied by a film crew, especially as the recession begins
to bite and mortgages have to be paid.

However, I am not sure how exactly this diversion into spelling helps
further the discussion on national ID registers....


It doesn't. But it seems to me that nothing I've read on this thread helps
further that discussion. I'm enjoying it but haven't learned anything yet.

Perhaps I am assuming too much too much background knowledge here? I
understand IT systems, and have specialist knowledge in some of the
technology that would be required to underpin a project of this type. As
a result I find it very easy to spot the many occasions where the
talking heads have glossed over a critical details or major
inconsistencies and conflicts of interest within the proposals that are
absolutely fundamental to it being able to function at all, let alone
deliver any of the various advantages the proponents have claimed. In
many cases it is obvious they have fallen for a line fed to them by
technology sales people.

The term 'talking heads' is a bit of a misnomer, as the use of the
word 'head' implies a brain might not be far away. But in the case of
our politicians, I would just stop at the word 'talking' and then add
'********'. Heads don't come into it, but they certainly have the
balls to come out with utter nonsense most of the time, especially the
one with the dawg, but also not forgetting the one who looks like he's
escaped from a Noddy adventure in Toytown.

(there, I even spell checked that one for you)


Thank you. It's not difficult to do it for every post to avoid
misunderstandings.

Generally I do, however I credit you with more that sufficient intellect
to be able to deduce my meaning in spite of the occasional spelling
mistake or typo.

John, I did understand every word, and Stevan admirably equipped those
with less of a grasp of the modern world with his excellent expansion
of your exposition. However, I, too, worked 'in computing' for many
years, so to me it's language learned at my mother's knee, so to
speak.

MM

On Sat, 21 May 2005 21:51:19 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"MM" wrote in message
news
snip stuff I couldn't hve put better myself

This scenario I paint is as much for Mary as anyone else,

How flattering!

because the
anti-ID card debate needs people with influence and I believe Mary has
that in some circles.

Um. True but probably not the right circles :-)

But Mary doesn't seem to care one way or the
other, because like so many people in Britain she surmises that 'it
can't happen here, not in good old Britain!'

That's not the reason. I just have yet to be convinced that it would be a
problem, your post emphasises my lack of conviction.

Never mind! We'll keep plugging away till you're a rabid anti-ID
opponent like us!

MM

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

Perhaps they do but very many don't give any evidence to back up their
predictions.

Ah, well here is the conundrum, every time we give you hard "evidence" if
you wish to call it that, or technical explanations of why the system will
fail (i.e. from an engineering prospective not an "armchair expert" one),
you claim to have switched off.

OK, I'll grant that I can see why you think that.

But, seriously, look at it from my point of view - how do I know which is
hard evidence and which is opinion? It seems that everything which is
written is presented as hard fact and I know that not all of it is - or can
be because there's always someone else who sill state the opposite as hard
fact.

This seems to be the functional equivalent of sticking your fingers in
your ears and saying "I can't hear you" over and over...

When I do that (IRL) I'm not as precise, I simply sing, "LA LA LA".

Saying that I can't hear someone is no novelty, being on the (18 month)
waiting list to see someone about my hearing :-)

Mary

On Sun, 22 May 2005 00:18:50 +0100, Stefek Zaba
wrote:

25 years' experience in the IT industry, reasonably careful attention to
the trade press, and the odd personal experience as a consumer. One
well-known favourite-of-the-middle-clarsses department store has hade my
name utterly mangled on its storecard for over 10 years, and hasn't
fixed it after multiple letters and calls. It really doesn't matter
enough to either of us: I get to spend there using my account card, they
get it paid off.

It's taken me ten phone calls and three recorded delivery letters to
get Southern Electricty to supply me and get the meter number and
billing information right following my move six months ago. Just one
entity and most of the time it is like talking to a brick wall. Oh,
very polite they are, but s**t for brains.

MM

On Sun, 22 May 2005 05:20:30 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

.... and the government seem resistant to learning that lesson.

Because they don't want to own up to the fact they they are complete
fools when it comes to high tech, and not just in IT. And you know
what they say about a fool and his money...

MM

"Stefek Zaba" wrote in message
...[i]
Mary Fisher wrote:

................ want to see *each* such connection evaluated on
its *merits*, balancing gains in administrative convenience against
risks to privacy.

And you really believe that will happen?

Well, good software system design practice requires it; and as far as
handling personal data's concerned, the law of the land - the Data
Protection Act - requires it too.

shamefully, two such bent public servant got a small fine and a suspended
sentence. That wasn't exactly a message about strong enforcement.

One swallow ...

positively indicates that claims of a swallow-free land are false.

Indeed. Have I ever suggested that an ID system will be perfect? Or that our
judiciary system is perfect? Nothing designed by Man is. That's largely
because it's evaluated by Man and Man has a wide variety of perceptions of
perfection.

One swallow sighting per person allows a guesstimate of the swallow
population, allowing for whether they fly about a lot or generally hide.
In the case of people who are bent, or are simply helpful on the phone
(look up 'social engineering' if you're not sure what I'm on about),
there's a lot more than just one or two working away.

I prefer to think that there are many more inefficient people than bent ones
and that the IT people can develop systems which can overcome their
inefficiencies.

The potential for social engineering is always there, with or without an ID
system. Always has been and has always been used. I merely can't understand
why the ID system could make it worse than it ever has been and is so
feared.

My opinion isn't important though, I'm not proselytising.

As pointed out above, it's not that there will be more errors
necessarily, but that the consequences of errors will be greater.

To have consequences you have to have the errors.

You're serious that your initial intuition is that the National Identity
Register's data would be error-free?

Nothing is error-free. My intuition is that those errors could be corrected
and wouldn't necessarily be used to an individual's disadvantage.

Would it shake that intuition to hear that the error rate on the Driver
Vehicle Licensing database is 30% - i.e. that a little under one in three
entries have an inaccuracy? (Would you believe me anyway?)

I have no reason to believe or disbelieve you. The information they have on
me is now accurate as far as I know, because the Agency corrected something
I pointed out was not accurate, with no argument.

And the entries will be run not only by public-spirited people, but by
contractors on minimum wage - maybe some offshour outsourced workers
too - whose immediate goals are about meeting their supervisor-set
targets on 'number of cases dealt with per hour', because that's easy to
measure; while 'accuracy', 'quality', 'right first time' are harder to
measure - so aren't in most data-entry shops.

Will they? You know that? How?

25 years' experience in the IT industry,

So you - or your colleagues - haven't been up to scratch in designing or
operating their systems?

reasonably careful attention to the trade press,

The word 'press' - even when attached to 'trade' doesn't instil confidence.
Journalists and editors of all kinds are prone to spinning.

and the odd personal experience as a consumer. One well-known
favourite-of-the-middle-clarsses

That's interesting - what's your definition of middle class?

department store has hade my name utterly mangled on its storecard for
over 10 years, and hasn't fixed it after multiple letters and calls. It
really doesn't matter enough to either of us: I get to spend there using
my account card, they get it paid off.

So if it doesn't matter what's the problem?

Do, please, take a look at www.zaba.com,

I did look, you might think it's relevant, I think it's subjective, it's
neither short nor, sorry to say this, readable.

I can't see any problem in submitting the information which is suggested
as a problem. I'll tell you all my relevant information now if you like.
And much good may it do you.

You may be happy to have your information widely available; I accept that
a chunk of mine is, too. However, I've had a *stack* of anguished emails
from police and similar people, who really want themselves OFF the
zabasearch.com database.

....

Why are they anguished?

In the US you see, there's no general data protection regime: data is
considered owned by the company you give it to for one purpose, and
they're free to sell it on to anyone else.

But you're not obliged to give data to everyone who asks for it ... surely
you only give most data to those from whom you want a service?

In the US, police officers and similar typically wear name badges on their
uniforms (rather than the traceable pseudonym approach we have in the UK,
with a constable's shoulder number). So they get kinda twitchy when a new
service makes available - for free and at a coupla clicks of the mouse -
information avout their home addresses,

Why?

If someone is afraid of retribution from someone s/he has offended then that
someone needs to live on an island, surrounded by high security fencing ...
no-one is untraceable from the determined searcher. That fact that it's made
easier by some official or unofficial agency is largely irrelevant.

Nuttin's been said about a referendum on ID cards!

Oh. In that case I've misunderstood.

Er - are you sure,100% certain, that NOTHING has been said about it?

Yes. I follow this stuff reasonably closely (does it show? ;-).

LOL!

The Home Office's first consultation was in 2002-3. The DTI Foresight
programme on Cybertrust and Cybercrime, which touched on this stuff (too
lightly, as I now think) and which I had a non-trivial role in, was in
2003-4. The draft Bill was lost at the end of the last parliamentary
session, but is to be reintroduced very early in the next one. I've
skimmed the text of the Bill itself, and read the commentaries. Nowhere in
there, or in Home Office statements, have I seen any mention of a
referendum. We tend to reach for those only for things which are of
massive constitutional importance, and (cynically) upon which the
government of the day is itself internally divided. So, we had one on
entering the European Common Market, as I believe it was called back in
the days of Heath, Wilson, and Callaghan. We're promised one on adopting
the Euro, and on the next European Constitution (unless the French and/or
Dutch avoid Tony having to put it to us at all, by voting No ahead of
ours).

I'm not going to be sidetracked by that can of worms but I take your point.
If you say that a referendum hasn't featured in the matter of ID cards I
believe you ... pick yourself up! I don't believe that a referendum would be
worth much anyway.

It's interesting that so many words have been used in this thread to
persuade one old woman - sorry, big hairy bloke with tattoos - that ID cards
would be a Bad Thing. By the time it happens (oh yes it will) I probably
shan't be around.

Make the most of me while you can :-)

Mary

"raden" wrote in message
...

Having just given Mary an example of someone I know in another NG who had
major problems due to an admin error which she twisted into a problem of
him having a debt, I'm coming to the conclusion that she doesn't seem to
be able to come to terms with evidence which doesn't fit into her
established mindset

I object that that assessment. It suggests that I'm like everyone else on
Usenet :-)

Mary


--
geoff

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Stefek Zaba wrote:

(look up 'social engineering' if you're not sure what I'm on about),
there's a lot more than just one or two working away.

Mary, you may find this a very enlightening read:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/...ternodeltdcomp

not that techie, but shows just how easy it is for a skilled social
engineer to obtain information that you would anticipate it is not even
possible to obtain.

There's nothing anyone can discover about me which I'm not prepared to tell
them face to face - or monitor to monitor. That's why I'm not worried about
an ID system, even the most draconian. Why waste effort using social
engineering skills when I can be asked outright?

Mary

--
Cheers,

John.

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

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

And the entries will be run not only by public-spirited people, but by
contractors on minimum wage - maybe some offshour outsourced workers
too - whose immediate goals are about meeting their supervisor-set
targets on 'number of cases dealt with per hour', because that's easy to
measure; while 'accuracy', 'quality', 'right first time' are harder to
measure - so aren't in most data-entry shops.


Will they? You know that? How?

Because big IT projects of this nature are only procured by government and
not run by it. They will accept tenders for the work from the usual
suspects. They will award contracts for the one with the most convincing
pitch (big buzzwords, snazzy sounding high tech stuff that must be really
good because it says so), and with the lowest price (as they always do).

In that case perhaps the more responsible companies should use the same
temptations ...

Mary

"Peter Parry" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 21 May 2005 17:32:45 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


The national all-embracing census perhaps - with all those Jedi ... No, I
didn't have the wit to say that but I did write "irrelevant" on the race
question. There was no come-back, sadly.

There will be if you write the same on your registration for your ID
card - £2,000 or a few months in jail.

A doubt that anyone would be sentenced to a few months in jail for not
paying a £2,000 fine - and has all that been decided yet?

You're assuming that there WILL be bent insiders.

There are now, many hundreds of them in the Civil Service. There
were when we last had ID cards,

What was the effect then?


I believe that there still would be ways of amending information on the
proposed ID system. Don't ask me how I know, I don't know, I said I
believe.

Religion has always been a fine substitute for thinking, keeps
millions happy.

Who on Earth mentioned religion? Oh, you have. Hmm ...



I have a son and a daughter in different branches of the civil
service and they despair at the lack of common information about the
people
they deal with, it would make them able to do their jobs more efficiently
if
there were more.

A very good reason for dispatching the idea of a national database to
the dustbin if there ever was one. Given the damage Snivel Serpents

I shan't read on.

cause to people without such a database it beggars belief that anyone
would want to give them more power to cause hurt.

Subjectively speaking (which is all anyone can do) I'd welcome not having
to
key in data or fill in forms or repeat information every time I want to
order something, renew something or book an appointment. But whenever I
take
any of those actions, or receive confirmation,there's always the request
for
confirmation of my details.

As there will be in the future, a national ID system will soon be
subverted.

Somewhere we have to have trust.

Who? Politicians - they are yet to earn any. Snivel Serpents? The
standards of the Civil Service are so abysmal and their record of
incompetence so dire that one would have to be a fool to trust them.
Once upon a time one could assume they were stupid but honest. The
Civil Service had some sort of ethos. Now it is a ragbag of
"agencies" and corruption is so commonplace that in most cases it
isn't even investigated. To get someones record from the Police
National Computer is about GBP150, Social Service files can be bought
for a small packet of the social workers favourite chemicals. Inland
Revenue information is about GBP50.

At the moment there are severe restrictions on the data we can keep on
others, I've just realised that the way I keep some information about
others
is illegal. If they want to get me for it so be it, no-one's hauled me off
yet and there's no reason why they should. If I MISUSE that information
that's a different matter of course.

How many prosecutions have taken place for the daily misuse of
information by civil servants and police officers of the most
sensitive civil database in existence today - the PNC and associated
intelligence databases? Of the very few that have occurred what have
the penalties been?

Lets face it, most people conform anyway, they only want an easy life. I'm
one of the world's oddballs in my lack of conformity and I STILL don't get
into trouble. Do you think I would with an ID system?

No, you just like to think you are non-conformist.

I believe that a referendum has been talked about, which still means that
(probably) a majority of people won't be happy :-)

It may have been talked about, there is no mention of one in the
draft bill and no intention of holding one.

Oh come on! You're surely not suggesting that those freedoms will be
stamped
on?

Of course not - who on earth would think that any government would
make you a criminal for moving an electric point without paying tax
on it. Which government would make you a criminal for having a horse
manure middin? Which government could possibly think of giving you a
criminal record for having your bath water too hot? What stupid
ideas.

Why should the State want to do that?

The state probably wouldn't. Your local MP might, your local council
might. The policeman whose daughter your son is dating certainly
will, the librarian you argued with might well want to.


--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

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

You see, Stefek, that's the kind of assumption I rail against. How do you
KNOW that it can be harder to get bureaucracy to fix things? Or that
errors will be more widespread than they are on other databases anyway? I
believe that there will be checks.

It comes down to the "trust" in the source of the information - the
greater the trust (real or perceived) the harder it is to for people to
accept challenge to it.

Ah! Trust. Yes.

Mary

--
Cheers,

John.

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

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

Wouldn't it be more convenient in some cases to have that information?

And in the case of the car reg. database, it has some medical information
on me and on Spouse and I'm sure we're not unique.What's more, it doesn't
worry us and that's the main basis for my lack of worry about an ID
system, we have nothing to hide. I know I've said it before but people do
keep trying to prove that we have - or might have. We don't. I have a
personal attitude to this, I know that it isn't shared by others, the
same applies to all sorts of other things I care about, don't care about
or am neutral about.

Do you truly believe you have nothing to hide?

Yes. What sort of thing do you think I might be hiding?

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.

Given the content of the (proposed) information that would be held about
you in the ID database it would be possible (in fact easy) for those with
criminal intent to misappropriate your identity. From that starting point,
they could demolish many aspects of your life for their own financial
gain. This is not a pipe dream of my over active imagination, it happens
to thousands of people every year already.

LOL! Who would want any aspect of my life?

You assume that for example your credit rating is of no relevance to you
because you don't seek credit. Do you realise that it will dictate whether
you are allowed to open an account at a bank or building society, have a
cheque book,

We already have those things but they're not essential.

take out life insurance etc.

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

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?

So when someone uses your ID information to open fraudulent bank accounts,
store accounts, gain credit cards etc, then runs up large debts they do
not repay, it will be your rating that suffers.

So what? I have a ridiculously high credit rating because, I suspect, I
don't use it. They keep raising it and I tell them I don't want or need it.
They still do it. If that's being a first class citizen I'll be happy going
down a notch or two.

Would you be concerned if a criminal impersonated you so as to empty your
bank and savings accounts, or perhaps even take out a mortgage assured
against your home?

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

How would you like to find that you have acquired a criminal record due to
someone's impersonation of your identity? Or perhaps an entry on the sex
offenders register?

In my arrogance I believe that if that happened my powers of persuasion
would put it right.

What about if a "health tourist" used your details to obtain medical care
on the NHS? What if said care resulted in information being added to your
medical records that is completely incorrect (i.e. fora different patient)
and may result in incorrect treatments being offered to you in the future?

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

Even if none of these things are of any concern to you personally, can you
understand why some people may be concerned about them?

No. It really does seem to display paranoia at best, guilt at worst.

Mary

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Stefek Zaba wrote:

Hope that helps round out John's pithy comments... Stefek

Thank you kind sir!

A very well constructed and hopefully less "Russian novel" expansion of
what I thought I was saying.

It was. Not that I have anything against Russian novels per se, just the
older, heavier ones. Even One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovitch (sp?) was
confusing, all those names, all those patronyms - and yet the Soviet (non
IT) system still managed to control lives - for a time.

Makes one wonder about the value of IT designers and engineers ... :-)

Mary


--
Cheers,

John.

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

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
. net...

snip

Saying that I can't hear someone is no novelty, being on the (18
month)
waiting list to see someone about my hearing :-)


Just think of all the hearing specialist the estimated cost of ID
cards would fund and how many operations it would fund, whilst any ID
card system will not stop someone blowing to bits if you happen to be
in the wrong place at the wrong time when they detonate themselves....

"MM" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 May 2005 04:30:44 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

Mary Fisher wrote:

I was far more inflamed about the invasion of Iraq. I can be passionate.

Must be true I guess.... you are a mother several times over I believe ;-)

That doesn't follow at all. Thousands of Victorian wives, perhaps
millions, suffered in silence as hubby prodded and poked, wheezed and
groaned.

How do you know? Were you there?

It does, after all, only take a second or two, and I expect
the well-behaved men of the time, unlike the brutes we are today,
wanted to make the experience as quick as possible. If we are
embarrassed today to talk about sex,

Well, perhaps some are embarrassed to talk about it but they're not too
embarrassed to do it or watch it wherever they are.

imagine what it must have been
like a hundred and fifty years ago, when even piano legs had skirts.

A myth.

Also, the term 'making love' is one of
the most risible euphemisms known to man.

Not all men.

It is usually very
strenuous, can be unintentionally violent and painful,

That's your experience?

and nowadays is
often accompanied by a film crew, especially as the recession begins
to bite and mortgages have to be paid.

As I said, voyeurs are everywhere. Bums and tits on page 3 aren't enough for
many, it seems.

However, I am not sure how exactly this diversion into spelling helps
further the discussion on national ID registers....

....

The term 'talking heads' is a bit of a misnomer, as the use of the
word 'head' implies a brain might not be far away.

Depends whether it's a man's or a woman's head :-)


(there, I even spell checked that one for you)


Thank you. It's not difficult to do it for every post to avoid
misunderstandings.

Generally I do, however I credit you with more that sufficient intellect
to be able to deduce my meaning in spite of the occasional spelling
mistake or typo.

John, I did understand every word, and Stevan

Stefen

admirably equipped those
with less of a grasp of the modern world with his excellent expansion
of your exposition. However, I, too, worked 'in computing' for many
years, so to me it's language learned at my mother's knee, so to
speak.

Your mother taught you about IT?

She has a lot to answer for :-)

"MM" wrote in message
...

That's not the reason. I just have yet to be convinced that it would be a
problem, your post emphasises my lack of conviction.

Never mind! We'll keep plugging away till you're a rabid anti-ID
opponent like us!

You'll get tired before I do. But I'm not going to be around for ever!

Mary

MM

Stefek Zaba wrote:
... and as far as handling personal data's concerned, the law of
the land - the Data Protection Act - requires it too.

But if the ID database isn't already exempted from the Act on grounds of
'national security', such an exemption can easily be created.

Owain

On Sun, 22 May 2005 10:58:19 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"Peter Parry" wrote

There will be if you write the same on your registration for your ID
card - £2,000 or a few months in jail.

A doubt that anyone would be sentenced to a few months in jail for not
paying a £2,000 fine - and has all that been decided yet?

It is in the second draft, unchanged from the first. It is unlikely
to change.

You're assuming that there WILL be bent insiders.

There are now, many hundreds of them in the Civil Service. There
were when we last had ID cards,

What was the effect then?

The effect is (and was) that information is used to the detriment of
innocent people and to remove from people the legal protection
Parliament felt they required. What is the point of a Data
Protection Act when today information from police and civil servant
databases, supposedly protected by that act, is freely available to
anyone for small payments?

Misuse also took place officially.

"The wartime ID card used in the UK outlived the war, and found its
way into general use until the early 1950s. Police became used to the
idea of routinely demanding the card, until in 1953 the High Court
ruled that the practice was unlawful. In a landmark ruling that led
to the repealing of the National Registration Act, and the
abandonment of the ID card, the Lord Chief Justice remarked :

... although the police may have powers, it does not follow that
they should exercise them on all occasions...it is obvious that the
police now, as a matter of routine, demand the production of national
registration identity cards whenever they stop or interrogate a
motorist for any cause....This Act was passed for security purposes
and not for the purposes for which, apparently it is now sought to be
used.... "(Wilcock v. Muckle (1952) 1 KB 367, page 369)



--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

John, I did understand every word, and Stevan

Stefen

Stefek, actually ;-)

I'm quite used to various twists of the name; Stefak's a common one,
while the finest deliberate anagram has me adorned with Middle-Eastern
headgear: Fez Atabesk.

Mary Fisher wrote:

If someone is afraid of retribution from someone s/he has offended then that
someone needs to live on an island, surrounded by high security fencing ...
no-one is untraceable from the determined searcher. That fact that it's made
easier by some official or unofficial agency is largely irrelevant.

I'm mildly astonished.

You really think the difference between some undersocialised criminal
with a grudge against someone involved in punishing them having to

(a) find out which office to go to, get down there, perhaps be seen on
CCTV or identify themselves, trawl through some printed material
organised in address-order rather than by name, versus

(b) enter a name in a free Web search

is 'largely irrelevant'? You don't think making (b) available would
significantly increase the incidence of such retribution? Gosh.

Stefek

Owain wrote:

But if the ID database isn't already exempted from the Act on grounds of
'national security', such an exemption can easily be created.

You anticipate the Bill drafters' every move, you cheeky little mole you
;-) That's pretty much exactly what the draft Bill does - not on grounds
of 'national security', but baldly asserting superiority over the
inconvenient requirements of the Data Protection Act. Oddly enuff, the
Information Commissioner seemed a little exercised about that...

"Stefek Zaba" wrote in message
...
John, I did understand every word, and Stevan

Stefen

Stefek, actually ;-)

I thought that's what I typed, sorry. It's certainly what I intended.

I'm quite used to various twists of the name; Stefak's a common one, while
the finest deliberate anagram has me adorned with Middle-Eastern headgear:
Fez Atabesk.

I'm interested in the origin - but not enough to press you if you don't
divulge such things :-)

My first name was my mother's, my middle one her maternal grandmother's
surname (family name), originally, I suppose, where part of the family
lived, and the last my husband's family name.

Mary

"Stefek Zaba" wrote in message
...
Mary Fisher wrote:

If someone is afraid of retribution from someone s/he has offended then
that someone needs to live on an island, surrounded by high security
fencing ... no-one is untraceable from the determined searcher. That fact
that it's made easier by some official or unofficial agency is largely
irrelevant.

I'm mildly astonished.

You really think the difference between some undersocialised criminal with
a grudge against someone involved in punishing them having to

(a) find out which office to go to, get down there, perhaps be seen on
CCTV or identify themselves, trawl through some printed material
organised in address-order rather than by name, versus

(b) enter a name in a free Web search

Is that what they do? They'd have to be aware of the site. If they already
do then nowhere's safe for their intended victim, is s/he?

is 'largely irrelevant'? You don't think making (b) available would
significantly increase the incidence of such retribution? Gosh.

But you say it's already available.

I know JPs, teachers, policemen, two prison governors and others who *might*
be victims of people with a grudge against them. The prison governors are Ex
D but they give out their numbers freely and lots of people know where they
live, including ex-prisoners.

One of our sons is in the RAF but apparently we're not supposed to use his
rank on an envelope. The fact that he lives in officer's quarters on an
known RAF housing site (not inside a protective base) makes that a bit
silly, doesn't it!

I really do think this is another example of exaggerating a possible
situation. One can't live in a protective bubble, well, not to have anything
like a normal life anyway.

Stefek

Mary Fisher wrote:

I'm interested in the origin - but not enough to press you if you don't
divulge such things :-)

Oh, it's come up here before now, I think. 'S Polish: Stefek is 'Steve'
(the formal one's 'Stefan' = Ste(ph|v)en); Zaba - we write it with a dot
over the Z in the Olde Countree, making it a harsh sound wot doesn't
occur in English but is least dissimilar to the 'dr' in 'children' -
means Frog. Never know when that mightn't come up in Trivial Pursuit, as
I usually go on to say...

Stefek

"Stefek Zaba" wrote in message
...
Mary Fisher wrote:

I'm interested in the origin - but not enough to press you if you don't
divulge such things :-)

Oh, it's come up here before now, I think. 'S Polish: Stefek is 'Steve'
(the formal one's 'Stefan' = Ste(ph|v)en); Zaba - we write it with a dot
over the Z in the Olde Countree, making it a harsh sound wot doesn't occur
in English but is least dissimilar to the 'dr' in 'children' - means Frog.
Never know when that mightn't come up in Trivial Pursuit, as I usually go
on to say...

How do *you* pronounce the Zaba?

Mary

Stefek

Mary Fisher wrote:

Do you truly believe you have nothing to hide?


Yes. What sort of thing do you think I might be hiding?

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.

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.

Given the content of the (proposed) information that would be held about
you in the ID database it would be possible (in fact easy) for those with
criminal intent to misappropriate your identity. From that starting point,
they could demolish many aspects of your life for their own financial
gain. This is not a pipe dream of my over active imagination, it happens
to thousands of people every year already.


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.

You assume that for example your credit rating is of no relevance to you
because you don't seek credit. Do you realise that it will dictate whether
you are allowed to open an account at a bank or building society, have a
cheque book,


We already have those things but they're not essential.

If the bank decided you were no longer trustworthy with a cheque book
and took yours away? If every time you went overdrawn by a penny they
billed you a 25 quid unauthorised ooverdraft fee, rather than allowing a
little flexibility as they do for their better rated customers?

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

take out life insurance etc.


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

Some do....

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 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).

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.

How would you like to find that you have acquired a criminal record due to
someone's impersonation of your identity? Or perhaps an entry on the sex
offenders register?


In my arrogance I believe that if that happened my powers of persuasion
would put it right.

As your civil liberties erode still further and we progress away from
the "innocent until proven guilty" tenet our legal system was based on,
to the reverse (as enacted in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers
Act, The anti terrorism act, the football hooliganism act an so on) for
example, what proof of your innocence would you rely on?

What about if a "health tourist" used your details to obtain medical care
on the NHS? What if said care resulted in information being added to your
medical records that is completely incorrect (i.e. fora different patient)
and may result in incorrect treatments being offered to you in the future?


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.

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

If someone decided that your identity was a good one to steal, what
would you rather they have to do: log into one civil service Intranet
site and make a single update then have it ripple through all the
interconnected systems, or, make approaches to a multitude of different
agencies and bodies repeatedly telling them the same thing. Perhaps
visit your branch of the bank, where there is a possibility the teller
may recognise you. Each transaction they carry out in enacting the
change brings with it the risk of detection. More transactions are hence
less convenient, but as a result more secure.


I suspect you are playing devil's advocate, I can't believe you really
are that green.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

Mary Fisher wrote:

Makes one wonder about the value of IT designers and engineers ... :-)

Like anyone else (as a class) they will do what is asked of them if it
will put food on the table. Even if the people asking have no clue what
they actually want, and it has no possibility of ever working.

In fact the less scrupulous prefer it that way, because they can charge
them far more in the long run.



--
Cheers,

John.

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

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

Do you truly believe you have nothing to hide?


Yes. What sort of thing do you think I might be hiding?

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.

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?

Given the content of the (proposed) information that would be held about
you in the ID database it would be possible (in fact easy) for those with
criminal intent to misappropriate your identity. From that starting
point, they could demolish many aspects of your life for their own
financial gain. This is not a pipe dream of my over active imagination,
it happens to thousands of people every year already.


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.

You assume that for example your credit rating is of no relevance to you
because you don't seek credit. Do you realise that it will dictate
whether you are allowed to open an account at a bank or building society,
have a cheque book,

We already have those things but they're not essential.

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?

What if your bank decides you're not trustworthy?

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

If every time you went overdrawn by a penny

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


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.

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.

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.

That reminds me of the time I chose to take out a six months interest free
loan so that our money could continue earning interest, we'd pay before the
endof six months.There was a terrible kerfuffle to our amusement, they
couldn't give us the loan because we had no credit rating - because we
didn't have a mortgage nor any loans of any kind.

In the end they did, because I laughed so much. They'd never come across
that situation before. What a society! Naturally the 'loan' WAS paid within
the time limit.


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


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.

How would you like to find that you have acquired a criminal record due
to someone's impersonation of your identity? Or perhaps an entry on the
sex offenders register?


In my arrogance I believe that if that happened my powers of persuasion
would put it right.

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

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

Why should we?

to the reverse (as enacted in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act,
The anti terrorism act, the football hooliganism act an so on) for
example, what proof of your innocence would you rely on?

I flutter my eyelashes.

What about if a "health tourist" used your details to obtain medical care
on the NHS? What if said care resulted in information being added to your
medical records that is completely incorrect (i.e. fora different
patient) and may result in incorrect treatments being offered to you in
the future?


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.

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.

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

How do you know?

If someone decided that your identity was a good one to steal, what would
you rather they have to do: log into one civil service Intranet site and
make a single update then have it ripple through all the interconnected
systems, or, make approaches to a multitude of different agencies and
bodies repeatedly telling them the same thing. Perhaps visit your branch
of the bank, where there is a possibility the teller may recognise you.
Each transaction they carry out in enacting the change brings with it the
risk of detection. More transactions are hence less convenient, but as a
result more secure.

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


I suspect you are playing devil's advocate, I can't believe you really are
that green.

And I suspect the same about you.

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

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.

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
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..

Mary

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

Makes one wonder about the value of IT designers and engineers ... :-)

Like anyone else (as a class) they will do what is asked of them if it
will put food on the table.

Does that apply to you?

What food?

Even if the people asking have no clue what they actually want, and it has
no possibility of ever working.

In fact the less scrupulous prefer it that way, because they can charge
them far more in the long run.

Is that the voice of personal experience? If so I don't respect it.

Mary

John Rumm wrote:
Mary Fisher wrote:
Yes. What sort of thing do you think I might be hiding?
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.

Including the person who commits the fraud. I think we have a moral
obligation not to put temptation in front of the weak, foolish or
criminally-minded.

Owain

Mary Fisher wrote:

How do *you* pronounce the Zaba?

Depends on the language(s) whoever I'm talking to is comfortable with!
For non-Slavic speakers, it's 'Zarba' - like 'Zorba the Greek' with an
'ar' in place of the 'or'. In Polski or similarski companyski, it's
pronounced the Polish way (there are cognate words immediately
recognisable in Czech, Russian, and probably most other Slavic
languages). But ninety-five or more times out of a hundred, it's just
Stefek, which is pretty much the same in both settings ;-)

Mary Fisher wrote:

Even if the people asking have no clue what they actually want, and it has
no possibility of ever working.

In fact the less scrupulous prefer it that way, because they can charge
them far more in the long run.

Is that the voice of personal experience? If so I don't respect it.

John can (and will) speak for himself. However, the practice of agreeing
unachievable or patently inadequate system specifications at the start
of a contract (and bidding low to secure it), then penalising the
customer heavily for the inevitable changes to those agreed
specifications, is notorious throughout the IT industry, throughout
public procurement, throughout outsourcing deals, and therefore all too
common in public-sector outsourced IT deals.

Rather than give you (possibly 'spun') chapter and verse, I invite you
to take a read through current and archived issues of 'Computing', one
of the UK IT industry's trade papers, conveniently on-line at
www.computing.co.uk - and/or its rival Computer Weekly, over at
www.computerweekly.com. Both papers survive through the advertising they
carry - for specific vacancies and for products and services; so it's in
their economic interests not to peddle an unremiting diet of 'this IT
thing, it's all one big con'. Nevertheless, I'm sure - without checking!
- that you'll find plenty of public-sector IT horror stories in its
columns. Whether you'll often find the analysis down to sharp practice
by IT vendors is more doubtful - for that you'd have to read the on-line
scandal-sheet, www.theregister.co.uk : though I call it the
scandal-sheet, it's read (and leaked to!) by a substantial fraction -
probably a majority - of IT practitioners.

Are all IT companies con artists? Certainly not: not even a majority.
But the kind of sharp practice (or is it just normal business, Matt
Crawford style) I describe does go on, and the relative naivety of much
public sector IT management perpetuates it.

We've drifted a long way from uk.d-i-y normal topics, and (having spent
a coupla hours on the roof between, and dammit in, showers, clearing out
drains and the moss which was clogging them up from higher up; and taken
the kids out to the cinema for Hitch-Hiker's Guide - pretty OK) I've a
bed to get to and work to be in not long after. So I'll draw to a close
on this topic now. I'm sorry if you feel too many of your questions and
points were ignored, but I for one have only so much time I choose to
spend in even so friendly and informative a group as this. Nor do I
expect to have convinced you; but I hope I've explained a little more
why I hold the opinions I do, and that you - and those following along -
come away with a bit of new information.

G'night - Stefek

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 |
\================================================= ================/

Mary Fisher wrote:

Makes one wonder about the value of IT designers and engineers ... :-)

Like anyone else (as a class) they will do what is asked of them if it
will put food on the table.


Does that apply to you?

Good question.

I would hope not, but I guess I have been fortunate to never have been
tested too hard in that way (or maybe it is just the type of projects /
contracts I accept tends to pre filter getting into too many ethical
quandaries)

What food?

Tonight alas was a takeaway (the routine was a little disrupted by
carting our eldest off to A&E with a hurt arm after a little armchair
climbing expedition ended a little more abruptly that she anticipated).
The good news is it is probably not broken (as best they could tell from
the X-ray)

Still, roast porky and apple sauce tomorrow which should make up for it! ;-)

In fact the less scrupulous prefer it that way, because they can charge
them far more in the long run.


Is that the voice of personal experience? If so I don't respect it.

I have not personally worked on a project that practised that sort of
approach[1]. However it is common with many of the larger consulting
companies, especially the ones good at winning large IT projects from
the government it seems.... (yes that would also be the ones with
directors and former employees in prominent positions in government)! -
cynical?

[1] I only ever worked a total of three years for GEC anyway before a
friend and I got so hacked off with them we quit and started Internode
Ltd.

To be fair however, the blame does not rest totally with the suppliers -
some of it comes down to the way the procurement is done.

It used to be that big government projects (especially defence and
aerospace ones) were commissioned on a "cost plus" basis - i.e. the
customer paid for whatever work needed doing to finish the job. The
government moved away from doing this because they felt they were
getting milked by the suppliers, and the suppliers had no incentive to
ever actually finish the work.

Hence the move to fixed price working. The danger of quoting a fixed
price however, is that customers *never* know up front what they want
let alone need, and so the supplier could end up committing unlimited
resources to unlimited amounts of work for a fixed payment. The ones who
made this mistake are no longer going concerns in general.

Hence the current style of baseline contracts that define a core level
of delivery, but with a framework for charging extra for changes imposed
by the customer that generate extra work. Needless to say it is here
there is great scope for good / sharp negotiating on both sides.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

"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

"Owain" wrote in message
...
John Rumm wrote:
Mary Fisher wrote:
Yes. What sort of thing do you think I might be hiding?
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.

Including the person who commits the fraud. I think we have a moral
obligation not to put temptation in front of the weak, foolish or
criminally-minded.

Oh come on! I expect better than that from you, Owain - or perhaps your
tongue was in your cheek too :-)

Owain

"Stefek Zaba" wrote in message
...

snip hard stuff

Are all IT companies con artists? Certainly not: not even a majority. But
the kind of sharp practice (or is it just normal business, Matt Crawford
style)

Ah! Now you're talking my language ;-) He's growing on me though ...

I describe does go on, and the relative naivety of much public sector IT
management perpetuates it.

There's corruption in EVERY part of life. Should we close schools,
hospitals, almost all business and the rest because of that?

We've drifted a long way from uk.d-i-y normal topics, and (having spent a
coupla hours on the roof between, and dammit in, showers, clearing out
drains and the moss which was clogging them up from higher up; and taken
the kids out to the cinema for Hitch-Hiker's Guide - pretty OK) I've a bed
to get to and work to be in not long after. So I'll draw to a close on
this topic now. I'm sorry if you feel too many of your questions and
points were ignored, but I for one have only so much time I choose to
spend in even so friendly and informative a group as this. Nor do I expect
to have convinced you; but I hope I've explained a little more why I hold
the opinions I do, and that you - and those following along - come away
with a bit of new information.

I accept that you have your own convictions. I haven't attempted to change
them. Other people's opinions are interesting but I don't expect other
people to attempt to change mine.

G'night - Stefek

Hope you slept well, I'm flitting between baking, laundry, preparing for the
weekend, gardening - the usual boring stuff done by big hairy blokes with
tattoos.

Oh! And wasn't this morning's R4 wonderful without all that nastiness!A
hint: herbaceous borders.

Mry

On Mon, 23 May 2005 02:52:15 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

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).

Interesting? Frightening, I'd call it. Especially as there will likely
be hundreds of thousands of like-minded people up and down the
country, all of whom will shrug and say, can't happen here, love.

MM