The Starmer Years - Can The New Broom Sweep Clean?

[Farmer Saint]

1 minute ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Boat issue does need sorting and annoys me as much as you. There isn’t a panacea though, as Reform would find out. Making it far harder to employee illegals by shutting down firms and much bigger penalties for boards of large companies would help more than smashing the gangs or Rwanda though. SMEs are getting some heavier penalties but drop in the ocean compared to the fast food firms.

Nobody wants the boats, but you also have to be proportional and invest in ways of getting them processed and back out of the country ASAP.

ID cards would help, as would cashless society, but neither are acceptable.

[whelk]

36 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

ID cards would help

I really don’t know what the objection is - ridiculous in this day and age. 
Do those who object refuse to travel as surely a passport being verified to identify is an infringement of rights?

[Farmer Saint]

29 minutes ago, whelk said:

I really don’t know what the objection is - ridiculous in this day and age. 
Do those who object refuse to travel as surely a passport being verified to identify is an infringement of rights?

Agreed, and yet they do. It's the usuals as well - the ones that really hate immigration...

[Weston Super Saint]

1 hour ago, Gloucester Saint said:

Boat issue does need sorting and annoys me as much as you. There isn’t a panacea though, as Reform would find out. Making it far harder to employee illegals by shutting down firms and much bigger penalties for boards of large companies would help more than smashing the gangs or Rwanda though. SMEs are getting some heavier penalties but drop in the ocean compared to the fast food firms.

Trouble is, there is a large portion of society who don't ask who is doing their McDelivery or Whooshing their groceries to them.

I'd challenge most deliveries aren't being delivered by the person pictured on the app!  Massive 'blackmarket' economy growing with almost zero checks and balances.

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, whelk said:

I really don’t know what the objection is - ridiculous in this day and age. 
Do those who object refuse to travel as surely a passport being verified to identify is an infringement of rights?

Surely the point is that getting a passport and then travelling is a choice. A future ID scheme would be mandatory which is rather different whether you agree with it or not. 

[whelk]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

Surely the point is that getting a passport and then travelling is a choice. A future ID scheme would be mandatory which is rather different whether you agree with it or not. 

Other countries have them. Almost no one has no digital footprint these days and if authorities can basically track anyone legitimate should they need to with ANPR, CCTV, Simcard location etc. so I don’t fear deep state bs, it is here anyway. When people are scratching their heads how to solve illegal immigration seems an obvious move to me.

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, whelk said:

Other countries have them. Almost no one has no digital footprint these days and if authorities can basically track anyone legitimate should they need to with ANPR, CCTV, Simcard location etc. so I don’t fear deep state bs, it is here anyway. When people are scratching their heads how to solve illegal immigration seems an obvious move to me.

I would just object on principle if it becomes mandatory to bring an ID card with me and be forced to prove who I am in order to live my life. I also don't want to go e the government more data on me than they already have if I can help it. Just a personal thing really. 

[The Kraken]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

I would just object on principle if it becomes mandatory to bring an ID card with me and be forced to prove who I am in order to live my life. I also don't want to go e the government more data on me than they already have if I can help it. Just a personal thing really. 

Assuming you pay tax and therefore HMRC have your details, and assuming you have a passport, what additional data would a national id card require you to provide?

Just a personal thing yes. Personally I could give a fig about carrying ID, I always have my driving licence plus my irish passport card on me. If I had a uk passport card rather than the actual book id probably carry that too.

Edited Sunday at 20:27 by The Kraken

[Holmes_and_Watson]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

I would just object on principle if it becomes mandatory to bring an ID card with me and be forced to prove who I am in order to live my life. I also don't want to go e the government more data on me than they already have if I can help it. Just a personal thing really. 

Here's a FT article from a few years back. It shows some strengths and weaknesses of ID cards, through how they have worked (or not) in other countries.

https://www.ft.com/content/2ec95b9a-4709-11e8-8c77-ff51caedcde6

[Farmer Saint]

10 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

I would just object on principle if it becomes mandatory to bring an ID card with me and be forced to prove who I am in order to live my life. I also don't want to go e the government more data on me than they already have if I can help it. Just a personal thing really. 

What additional data would be on the ID Card though? I also assume you take your driving license with you?

Edited yesterday at 05:53 by Farmer Saint

[hypochondriac]

30 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

What additional data would be on the ID Card though? I also assume you take your driving license with you?

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

[tdmickey3]

11 hours ago, The Kraken said:

Assuming you pay tax and therefore HMRC have your details, and assuming you have a passport, what additional data would a national id card require you to provide?

Just a personal thing yes. Personally I could give a fig about carrying ID, I always have my driving licence plus my irish passport card on me. If I had a uk passport card rather than the actual book id probably carry that too.

Exactly, why people object is beyond me, if you have nothing to hide its not a problem surely?

[Farmer Saint]

2 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

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

But what data are you scared of them having that they don't already have?

This is one of those things I just can't get my head around.

Edited 22 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[Whitey Grandad]

17 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

But what data are you scared of them having that they don't already have?

This is one of those things I just can't get my head around.

Yet I suspect that almost all of the complainants have a smartphone and have no worries about the information that Google holds about them. 

[hypochondriac]

22 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

But what data are you scared of them having that they don't already have?

This is one of those things I just can't get my head around.

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.

 

Edited 21 hours ago by hypochondriac

[hypochondriac]

2 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Yet I suspect that almost all of the complainants have a smartphone and have no worries about the information that Google holds about them. 

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

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, tdmickey3 said:

Exactly, why people object is beyond me, if you have nothing to hide its not a problem surely?

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

[whelk]

10 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

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.

 

It doesn’t have to be necessarily produced on demand but required for things like employment and ensure employers are breaking law if employ anyone without one.

 

[hypochondriac]

7 minutes ago, whelk said:

It doesn’t have to be necessarily produced on demand but required for things like employment and ensure employers are breaking law if employ anyone without one.

 

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. 

Edited 21 hours ago by hypochondriac

[Weston Super Saint]

2 hours ago, whelk said:

It doesn’t have to be necessarily produced on demand but required for things like employment and ensure employers are breaking law if employ anyone without one.

 

There is already a law in place for exactly that!

All employers HAVE to check eligibility to work - passport / birth certificate & NI / right to work share code.

The issue is no one is checking that businesses are doing this - presumably through lack of resources. I doubt that will change if ID cards are introduced...

Edited 19 hours ago by Weston Super Saint

[tdmickey3]

2 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

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

Where is the abuse of power?

[Farmer Saint]

3 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

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.

 

Again, what additional data?

The problem is if you have loads of undocumented people in a country, how do you document them without something like this?

[whelk]

1 hour ago, Weston Super Saint said:

There is already a law in place for exactly that!

All employers HAVE to check eligibility to work - passport / birth certificate & NI / right to work share code.

The issue is no one is checking that businesses are doing this - presumably through lack of resources. I doubt that will change if ID cards are introduced...

Fully aware of that - it was an example although right to work can be ambiguous and very much temporary as well.

Not saying it will solve all rogue behaviour but can at least start by saying why haven’t you got one? 
 

 

[hypochondriac]

18 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Again, what additional data?

The problem is if you have loads of undocumented people in a country, how do you document them without something like this?

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. 

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, whelk said:

Fully aware of that - it was an example although right to work can be ambiguous and very much temporary as well.

Not saying it will solve all rogue behaviour but can at least start by saying why haven’t you got one? 
 

 

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. 

[Farmer Saint]

3 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

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. 

But it's the ones that get lost and work cash in hand that are the issues, not those with a NI number.

I assume that you're not going to name the data points you don't want the government to have? Considering that you've mentioned it multiple times, I would have thought you'd have something that you don't want the government to have.

[Farmer Saint]

4 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

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 thought one of the main gripes about illegal immigrants was that they come over here, are given free homes and live off benefits? That's what it seems the vast majority of the public have an issue with.

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, Farmer Saint said:

But it's the ones that get lost and work cash in hand that are the issues, not those with a NI number.

I assume that you're not going to name the data points you don't want the government to have? Considering that you've mentioned it multiple times, I would have thought you'd have something that you don't want the government to have.

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

[Farmer Saint]

13 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

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

Sorry, no real tone intended, but I am very interested to know what data you are not comfortable with the Government having that will come about from introducing ID cards?

[Weston Super Saint]

41 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Again, what additional data?

The problem is if you have loads of undocumented people in a country, how do you document them without something like this?

 

16 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

But it's the ones that get lost and work cash in hand that are the issues, not those with a NI number.

 

Do you really think that the ones getting 'lost' and working cash in hand are going to be queuing up to get an ID card?

Essentially you're relying on people being 'caught' working without the legal right - which is no different to the current system which doesn't have the huge cost of ID cards for everyone!

[whelk]

38 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

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 was interested in the link Holmes posted although behind FT firewall. Interested in what benefits countries have found and what downsides there may have been

[hypochondriac]

2 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Sorry, no real tone intended, but I am very interested to know what data you are not comfortable with the Government having that will come about from introducing ID cards?

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. 

[hypochondriac]

Just now, whelk said:

I was interested in the link Holmes posted although behind FT firewall. Interested in what benefits countries have found and what downsides there may have been

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. 

[Farmer Saint]

5 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

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. 

Ok, so you state data as an issue but I'm actual fact it is expansion of data that you are so scared of, so if it was made clear that this data couldn't be expanded you'd be happy with it from a data point of view?

Can I ask what mobile phone you use please (I am sure you can see where my problem is here)?

Edited 17 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[whelk]

5 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

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. 

We have pretty strong data protection laws at the moment although I’m sure MI5 can circumvent should they wish. 

I have no Facebook account but wouldnt trust them whatsoever not to sell on or give to authoritarian governments. 

I am sure the French, who are famously bolshy, have same concerns that not building profiles on their citizens just knowing who they are.
 

Edited 17 hours ago by whelk

[hypochondriac]

2 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Ok, so you state data as an issue but I'm actual fact it is expansion of data that you are so scared of, so if it was made clear that this data couldn't be expanded you'd be happy with it from a data point of view?

Can I ask what mobile phone you use please (I am sure you can see where my problem is here)?

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. 

[Farmer Saint]

8 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

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. 

No, but neither do you. Probably nothing they don't already have.

I assume you run either Android or Apple. If you have either, you have FAR more to worry about than a poxy ID card.

[hypochondriac]

3 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

No, but neither do you. Probably nothing they don't already have.

I assume you run either Android or Apple. If you have either, you have FAR more to worry about than a poxy ID card.

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.) 

[Whitey Grandad]

5 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

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

You try not giving Google your information and see how far you'd get. 

I understand your concerns but Big Brother has already got more than enough to go on.

[Farmer Saint]

46 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

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.) 

You didn't give me any data points though? I can't see that the Government will need any additional data to what they have now, that's why - so that's why I was asking what additional data you think they'd need. You can't come up with any, so my assumption is that you are happy with the amount of data staying at it's status quo?

Yeah, it is your choice to have a mobile phone, but making a song and dance about a Government having data on you and then owning any of those phones is like complaining about illegal immigrants whilst driving them from Calais in the back of your lorry.

Edited 16 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[hypochondriac]

23 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

You didn't give me any data points though? I can't see that the Government will need any additional data to what they have now, that's why - so that's why I was asking what additional data you think they'd need. You can't come up with any, so my assumption is that you are happy with the amount of data staying at it's status quo?

Yeah, it is your choice to have a mobile phone, but making a song and dance about a Government having data on you and then owning any of those phones is like complaining about illegal immigrants whilst driving them from Calais in the back of your lorry.

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. 

[whelk]

45 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

You try not giving Google your information and see how far you'd get. 

I understand your concerns but Big Brother has already got more than enough to go on.

I am still worried that Saintweb will leak my real identity as Lisa Smith, 42 yo mother of two who works in Shoezone and drinks too much

Edited 15 hours ago by whelk

[Farmer Saint]

8 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

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. 

Sorry, I misread your previous post - so Blair was seriously wanting to collect that data from an ID card? How would that even be possible unless it was linked to spending? I agree that should definitely be out of scope.

However, you realise they can already get hold of that data via your mobile phone, so it doesn't really matter, they'd just access it a different way.

Edited 15 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[Weston Super Saint]

56 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

You didn't give me any data points though? I can't see that the Government will need any additional data to what they have now,

So what purpose will an ID card have if the Govt already has the data?

 

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, Farmer Saint said:

Sorry, I misread your previous post - so Blair was seriously wanting to collect that data from an ID card? How would that even be possible unless it was linked to spending? I agree that should definitely be out of scope.

However, you realise they can already get hold of that data via your mobile phone, so it doesn't really matter, they'd just access it a different way.

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.) 

[Farmer Saint]

51 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

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.) 

Biometrics yes (to aid with the reduction in fake IDs), employment yes, - the rest I would say no. You increase penalties to those giving cash in hand employment, and you make it a pre-requisite for anyone renting a house (especially HMOs). Again, very large penalties if these checks are not correctly made and logged.

It only has to make it more difficult to work cash in hand, rather than work in 100% of cases, to reduce the amount of people who will make that trip.

Edited 13 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[Weston Super Saint]

29 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

. You increase penalties to those giving cash in hand employment, and you make it a pre-requisite for anyone renting a house (especially HMOs). Again, very large penalties if these checks are not correctly made and logged.

 

Which of those could be done right now without spending billions on ID cards?

[egg]

27 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Biometrics yes (to aid with the reduction in fake IDs), employment yes, - the rest I would say no. You increase penalties to those giving cash in hand employment, and you make it a pre-requisite for anyone renting a house (especially HMOs). Again, very large penalties if these checks are not correctly made and logged.

It only has to make it more difficult to work cash in hand, rather than work in 100% of cases, to reduce the amount of people who will make that trip.

I personally have no issue in principle with us carrying ID cards if the the rules on inspection meant that we don't have to show our papers on demand, and they can be shown in a way which helps single out and dealt with people in the kind of scenarios you mention. Used properly, they could be a benefit, and not impact the masses. 

[Weston Super Saint]

1 minute ago, egg said:

I personally have no issue in principle with us carrying ID cards if the the rules on inspection meant that we don't have to show our papers on demand, and they can be shown in a way which helps single out and dealt with people in the kind of scenarios you mention. Used properly, they could be a benefit, and not impact the masses. 

That's one of the issues though. We all know that black, Asian and anyone 'foreign' looking will be asked to prove their right to live in the country disproportionately more than white / European people, simply because of the demographics of those entering the country and working illegally.

Than there will be the endless hand wringing and accusations of brutality etc. 

 

[Farmer Saint]

@Weston Super Saint If you are replying to me, please remember I do not see your posts. I continuously tell you not to bother as I don't see them, and couldn't give two shiny fucks what you do say.

If you aren't I apologise and will duly wind my neck in.