denny: (Toon)
Denny ([personal profile] denny) wrote2005-10-19 12:47 pm

[identity profile] synthclarion.livejournal.com 2005-10-19 12:12 pm (UTC)(link)
Bugger, says I.

Though there are a good few lords who have demonstrated a clue regarding this matter.

[identity profile] dennyd.livejournal.com 2005-10-19 12:16 pm (UTC)(link)
Yeah, I think it's fairly hopeful that they will tread on it. Still depressing that it's getting this far though.

[identity profile] nullstr.livejournal.com 2005-10-19 12:17 pm (UTC)(link)
Only the Lords can stop it now.
Bollix - what about a nice bit of street protest? It killed off the Poll Tax!!!

Looking fwd to a bit of a riot actually. ;)

[identity profile] kelemvor.livejournal.com 2005-10-19 12:20 pm (UTC)(link)
The Lords can stop it. Thought I'd never say this, but it's a shame about the Parliamentary Act...
Also, exactly how will having everything from my date of birth to inside leg measurement in one place prevent terrorism?

[identity profile] ciphergoth.livejournal.com 2005-10-19 12:46 pm (UTC)(link)
I can't see them using the Parliament Act on this one. Hunting only got that treatment because of overwhelming public support, and because in that instance the Lords were seen to be protecting the interests of their own class rather than the public interest. If they use it here they'll look even more like a bunch of fascists.

[identity profile] stuartl.livejournal.com 2005-10-19 01:35 pm (UTC)(link)
A simple refusal to comply would be enough :)

They can't use a system they don't have the data (fingerprints etc) for...

[identity profile] kelemvor.livejournal.com 2005-10-19 01:41 pm (UTC)(link)
If they use it here they'll look even more like a bunch of fascists.
If the shoe fits...
But seriously, I suppose this will show us what's more important to them - their agenda or their appearance.

[identity profile] dennyd.livejournal.com 2005-10-19 01:44 pm (UTC)(link)
Yeah, and it was a (mass) simple refusal to pay which actually took out the Poll Tax - eventually. I can't see this arousing the same level of antipathy though - particularly if they subsidise the cost, hiding it in taxes instead of letting people see it out in the open.

The penalties for non-compliance are quite severe, as I recall... I wonder how many people will really be willing to risk that much on a matter of principle, rather than shelling over their 30 (?) quid and getting it over and done with.

[identity profile] stuartl.livejournal.com 2005-10-19 02:29 pm (UTC)(link)
I guess it depends on the reasons people don't comply.

If the article from Microsoft is accurate (um) then concerns over security of information seem like good reasons.

Certainly if 90% of the people in the UK failed to comply it would just fall through.

5% and they'd end up with hefty fines.

What we need is for one of those horrible tabloids to do a sensationalist article on the security of the system...

[identity profile] dennyd.livejournal.com 2005-10-19 02:41 pm (UTC)(link)
I can't see 90% (or even 50%) of the population getting excited enough about "security of information" to deliberately break the law, even through inaction. Getting people to refuse to pay a fairly large bill was a much easier reaction to produce :)

[identity profile] fellcat.livejournal.com 2005-10-19 02:52 pm (UTC)(link)
I'll have to graduate as quickly as I can and emigrate then.