hypochondriac

Maybe so. The done well bit is the bit I highly doubt.

Yeah I can support that!

We are all in agreement that you should be free to act like a bellend and say twatty things on TV and not be jailed for it. If you want to discuss specifics of Israel there's a thread for that...

Who are in the IDF?

100% but also if you're a Jew going to Glastonbury you've got to expect some middle class twats with luxury beliefs such as jew hate surely?

Wasn't he about 7 million?

I really don't think Lucy connolly should have been jailed and certainly not for the amount of time she has been but the flip side of that is that she pleaded guilty so she kind of left it up to the system to decide. In most cases I wouldn't be jailing anyone for speech as its pathetic and certainly something that has changed for the worst in my lifetime. Chanting death to the IDF on TV is pathetic but treating the viewing public like toddlers because some people found those words a bit offensive is mad.

As much as that bloke is a bellend, he really shouldn't be charged with anything. I'm fed up of the police taking an authoritarian stance on ridiculous things.

He wanted digital ID with biometric integration linked to facial recognition and fingerprints, he wanted to use it for banking, health, education and employment and to track health. Giving government easy access to banking, or health is in my view a terrible idea and ripe for misuse even if this data is already theoretically accessible by a bad actor it won't be as simple or as tempting for the government to access. I could see potential in an AI system with some sort of blind protection that can solely inform an employer of an individuals right to work although arguably that already exists. I fail to see how digital ID will prevent people going off grid and working for cash in hand jobs like they do already. Even if you went cashless there would be work around (and that sort of thing has its own problems.)

Did you not read my posts where I outlined clearly what sort of information I was worried about and the sort of info that Blair was proposing last time this came up? I'm not making a song or dance (can we leave off the emotive language?) I'm simply outlining the difference between someone choosing to share their data and being mandated to provide it by the government. They are two separate things.

You are still failing to understand. Whether I choose to have a mobile phone is entirely optional and my choice. And regarding your first point, you asked me what data I was concerned about, I gave you an answer and then you said I didn't know what data they wanted anyway so why did you bother to ask me the question? (that's also if we ignore what data Blair was calling for the last time this was attempted which provides at least an indicator of the direction of travel.)

Do you know for certain what data is being proposed at present for mandatory ID cards? And who is making it clear that any data collected wouldn't be expanded? Again I'm not scared I'm answering why I would oppose mandatory ID schemes from the government.

I'll check it out later. I'm sure it can work, I just personally wouldn't trust the government to implement a system that I coukd agree with.

The act on ID cards is open ended and the type of data it can collect may be added to in the future. In the first instance the last thing I want is some giant database full of identifying information that is ripe for misuse. We may trust the government of today but we don't know what the government of tomorrow will look like and how data could be expanded to habits, finances, online activity, travel etc which I believe is what Blair was proposing originally in the early 2000s. A fairly high risk of mission creep too. There's not a UK government I would trust not to penalise someone when they engage in political protest for example and mandatory ID would make this a lot easier. I rnemever reading in the paper that local councils were misapplying enti terror legislation to check if parents were living in catchment areas for schools. The temptation to misuse these vast amounts of information or to expand the scope down the line will be great. Also as I mentioned in a liberal democracy I shouldn't be forced to identify myself to the state if I don't want to and the cost will clearly be enormous and much bigger than they estimate.

Is your tone really necessary? I haven't responded to you rude or sarcastically.

Tighten up right to work rules. A right to work certificate could act in the same way as an ID card if that is the concern. Have a clear validity period and make employers review eligibility once a year.

I already conceded that there may be ways to make it work and address security concerns but really the bonus should be on the businesses and those without citizenship to prove their right to live and work in the country.

I think being a mentalist is his thing which is the main problem.

Employers already have requirements for right to work checks. I my have less objections if there are no requirements to produce the on demand and also if they can anonymise it and just get a straight yes or no on eligibility maybe using AI or something. I think I saw an age verification system where you just access the one bit of data to say you were old enough for something without linking it to anything. That would address some of the security concerns. On another note, are the government still looking to plough ahead with a porn pass? That was widely publicised a few years ago but haven't heard much about it since.

If you have nothing to hide then what's the problem is the line of argument for every bit of abuse of power ever.

It's not mandatory to have a smart phone or to give Google your information if you don't want to.

I'm not scared of anything. I don't want the UK to go even further towards a surveillance state than they already are which is already pretty far. It's likely inevitable with technogy in the end but the slower we get there the better from my perspective. Requiring people to carry and produce ID on demand undermines the principle that people should be free to go about their lives without interference from the government unless they have done something wrong. It will only encourage arbitrary checks of identification that I don't support. Additionally I don't want the government having more of my data than they already have and giant databases would be ripe for hacking or data theft.

Didn't we spend something like 15 million on Charles last time?

Driving a car and whether I bring my license with me or not is entirely optional.

Statistically that appears to be the case.