I saw that a couple of weeks ago and just thought... how stupid. If you're clever enough to petition the PM, surely you're clever enough to find out about the ID schemes already out there? I might steer clear of Citizen Cards myself, but they're there for those who want them. Stupid. Grr.
The counter-example actually made me pause for thought for a while.. but I don't think a scheme needs to be this complex or risky to prove identity. Plus they're all school kids who can't vote anyway.
Which rather exposes a flaw in the petition site, doesn't it?
Identity cards alone wouldn't have raised much objection, I suspect - it's the database (or National Identity Register) that's pissed people off. That's certainly the case for me anyway.
Yes, the data being collected and its (lack) of security is what really bothers me.
But having said that, I dislike the idea of being forced to carry an ID card around. I'm forever losing my wallet and I'd very much dislike the idea of having to re-apply for a new ID card every time I do that.
<devil's advocate> Isn't the point that the card contains sufficient information to assure your identity precisely to avoid that sort of problem? </devil's advocate>
Of course - the scheme has drawbacks which would have to include a design to ensure that the net benefit is greater than the drawbacks. I'm firmly of the opinion at the moment that the scheme has far greater drawbacks and little benefit to me or the rest of the population.
I don't trust the kind of people who will be operating the readers to do it properly.
I spent a few years signing all my credit/debit card slips at Tesco as Mickey Nouse. I only got called on it once, and I used to shop there at least once a week.
No.. but going back to devil's advocate again, if the readers took fingerprints/retina scan/dna sample in addition to your pin number would that not make authentication a lot harder to fake?
Fingerprint and retina scans aren't yet accurate enough in affordable units to be of any use in this application. And I seriously object to the thought of a DNA scan at every turn, for any reason, no matter how secure it is supposed to be... :S
Yep. So there are the (enormous) hidden costs of this scheme in order to make it effective. And who do you think is going to pay for this? The merchants will pass this on to the public through higher prices.
As far as DNA scans go, presumably it would only be a partial DNA scan, along the same lines of argument that they use for the fingerprint information - they only store enough information to confirm that a fingerprint matches the one given earlier, not enough to recreate the fingerprint...
It's not that they'd want to store the info that bothers me so much with DNA (though that thought isn't a particularly appealing one in itself). It's the thought of having a sample taken all the time that I object to most strongly. No, thank you very much, I'd rather not give someone a swab with my cheek lining every time I want to buy something with an age restriction, or do something with my bank account (like change my address for instance, something that requires you to prove your ID).
True, that is not appealing either. Who knows, though. Perhaps they'll be able to invent remote DNA analysers, so reading your DNA becomes no more difficult than a bar-code scanner... just think of the implications of that!
*shrug* At 16 they can apply for a provisional driving license (several vehicles can be driven from age 16). Below that, I don't really see a need for fully verified photo-ID. I always got by just fine with my birth certificate. People aren't really that bothered by purchasing of games, etc. Mostly the concern seems to be about minors getting hold of adult films, alchol, tobacco, that sort of thing. In order to get items like that, you have to be old enough to have some form of ID anyway, either a passport or a driving license.
But just because they can't vote yet, why should that mean they can't have a voice and put across their opinions to be considered?
Besides, my objection is not to a simple ID card. I object to the database of all the information anyone could ever need to steal my identity and make my life very difficult indeed, all kept in a nice central place where anyone with the will could easily get to it.
Well the pro-ID card petition was set up by a child of 14 annoyed that he couldn't purchase games and films for 11 year olds.. (I'm assuming he means 12 in the case of films at least).
I was pointing out the fact that they can't vote as meaning that the government did not need to take so much notice of them, not that they shouldn't be able to voice their opinions.
I too object to the scheme on the basis of the information collected and the security under which it will be kept.
*nods* I realise that, but my point was more that he probably simply didn't think of taking a birth certificate, or getting a parent to get it for him (and if they won't, then he shouldn't have it).
I thought you meant they shouldn't be able to use the petitions site if they can't vote, guess I just read it differently to how you meant it. :) You are quite right that the government doesn't need to take so much notice of them, but then I could see that as a strength of the petitions system rather than a weakness. It gives younger people a chance to have their voice heard with equal weight to an older person (unless they state that they're below voting age of course..>). I don't think a person's opinion should be ignored just because they can't take a vote away, a good argument is a good argument, whoever it is from, and however old they are. :)
I disagree: If the petition site can't show that the majority of signatories are voters, this could undermine the potency of the petition site and it's effectiveness as a force for change.
This is not really a reason to disallow minors from engaging, but: An argument made by a 14 year old may be a good argument, but it is much less likely to be a considered argument. I wonder how many people have signed both because they agree with both arguments, rather than signing up for the petition whose principles they agree with and feel it is for the greater good?
What does it matter if the person making the argument carefully considered the opinion or not? If not, then it won't be a good argument anyway and will get ignored (just as it would from an adult). If they did, then it will put across another point of view to be considered.
I like the anonimity, it allows a less biased consideration of more points of view and information than it would if you could pick and choose which things to read/listen to or decide how valid it is likely to be before even seeing/hearing the content, (which is precisely what you are saying by the way).
True.. but I still think that allowing non-voters to influence the petition site undermines it to some extent.
My point was not so much about prejudging people's arguments based on arbitrary criteria (such as age), but from the point of view that the petition site's very validity depends on its overall reputation, much like any other system of communication. When this is allowed to be diluted people pay less attention to it.
An analogy is advertising - we all know about email spam, website spam (sites set up just to advertise crap), etc, but word of mouth has been pretty sacred.. until now - I was horrified to find out it may be gaining acceptance in our culture (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6478889.stm).
My point was not so much about prejudging people's arguments based on arbitrary criteria (such as age), but from the point of view that the petition site's very validity depends on its overall reputation, much like any other system of communication. When this is allowed to be diluted people pay less attention to it.
I get what your saying, but that is precisely my point. That shouldn't be happening and if we can open things up to everyone, it won't be able to happen. Things should only be judged on the quality of the content, this is why many authors occasionally write something under a completely unknown sudonym from time to time, so that it will be judged based on what's in it rather than who they are. I know plenty of youngsters who have opinions and thoughts on things I'd take more weight from than a lot adults on the same subjects. Likewise I know many adults whose arguments and opinions I'd never listen to. But also, I don't need to know who it comes from to be able to judge this, I only need to see/hear it to know if it is worth considering. I personally welcome all opinions and viewpoints, I also reserve the right to ignore them or consider them as I see fit. ;)
Okay, I see where you're coming from now. The trouble is, you're not the intended recipient of the petition - the government is. The only reason democracy works is because the voters have the power to change the government if they don't like it.
Non-voters don't have the power to change the government, hence they don't need to take such an active interest in them. Governments say they do, for a couple of reasons:
They don't want to piss off regular voters
Young people will eventually become voters anyway.
Forgive me for being cynical. If we weren't cynical, we wouldn't have a democracy at all, we'd have some other system of government where we trusted them to do the right thing for us. Communism? Socialism? *shrug*.
"Non-voters don't have the power to change the government, hence they don't need to take such an active interest in them."
This statement confuses me. My opinion is well known, if you don't vote - don't mither about the results. I'm not sure this equates to "If you can't vote, you have no right to take an active interest", though.
I guess I'm just not convinced that inability to participate in an election means you should not question the government, after all - that government's legislation affects the future of the ineligible, such as children and undischarged bankrupts.
Besides, an interest in politics in children is something that should be positively encouraged, and members of the Lords are both ineligble and expected to challenge the government!
Sorry, my statement was ambiguous. The 'they' refers to the government, not the non-voters. Non-voters is also non-specific - I predominantly meant people not allowed to vote; i.e. not of voting age.
Minors and non-voters can still influence voters to get their voice heard, if they so desire.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-27 01:29 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-27 01:30 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-27 01:34 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-27 01:50 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-27 01:39 pm (UTC)I have signed, but will need to confirm with the e-mail when I get home from work.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-27 01:49 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-04-02 12:44 pm (UTC)Stupid. Grr.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-27 01:50 pm (UTC)Which rather exposes a flaw in the petition site, doesn't it?
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-27 01:52 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-27 01:54 pm (UTC)But having said that, I dislike the idea of being forced to carry an ID card around. I'm forever losing my wallet and I'd very much dislike the idea of having to re-apply for a new ID card every time I do that.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-27 01:56 pm (UTC)I guess the most worrying thing in that case would be what the person who finds your wallet might get up to in your name.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-27 01:57 pm (UTC)Isn't the point that the card contains sufficient information to assure your identity precisely to avoid that sort of problem?
</devil's advocate>
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-27 02:08 pm (UTC)This could get rather circular. ;)
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-27 02:13 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-27 02:09 pm (UTC)I spent a few years signing all my credit/debit card slips at Tesco as Mickey Nouse. I only got called on it once, and I used to shop there at least once a week.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-27 02:14 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-27 02:22 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-27 02:30 pm (UTC)As far as DNA scans go, presumably it would only be a partial DNA scan, along the same lines of argument that they use for the fingerprint information - they only store enough information to confirm that a fingerprint matches the one given earlier, not enough to recreate the fingerprint...
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-27 02:39 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-27 02:42 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-27 02:06 pm (UTC)At 16 they can apply for a provisional driving license (several vehicles can be driven from age 16). Below that, I don't really see a need for fully verified photo-ID. I always got by just fine with my birth certificate. People aren't really that bothered by purchasing of games, etc. Mostly the concern seems to be about minors getting hold of adult films, alchol, tobacco, that sort of thing. In order to get items like that, you have to be old enough to have some form of ID anyway, either a passport or a driving license.
But just because they can't vote yet, why should that mean they can't have a voice and put across their opinions to be considered?
Besides, my objection is not to a simple ID card. I object to the database of all the information anyone could ever need to steal my identity and make my life very difficult indeed, all kept in a nice central place where anyone with the will could easily get to it.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-27 02:11 pm (UTC)I was pointing out the fact that they can't vote as meaning that the government did not need to take so much notice of them, not that they shouldn't be able to voice their opinions.
I too object to the scheme on the basis of the information collected and the security under which it will be kept.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-27 02:19 pm (UTC)I realise that, but my point was more that he probably simply didn't think of taking a birth certificate, or getting a parent to get it for him (and if they won't, then he shouldn't have it).
I thought you meant they shouldn't be able to use the petitions site if they can't vote, guess I just read it differently to how you meant it. :) You are quite right that the government doesn't need to take so much notice of them, but then I could see that as a strength of the petitions system rather than a weakness. It gives younger people a chance to have their voice heard with equal weight to an older person (unless they state that they're below voting age of course..>). I don't think a person's opinion should be ignored just because they can't take a vote away, a good argument is a good argument, whoever it is from, and however old they are. :)
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-27 02:27 pm (UTC)This is not really a reason to disallow minors from engaging, but: An argument made by a 14 year old may be a good argument, but it is much less likely to be a considered argument. I wonder how many people have signed both because they agree with both arguments, rather than signing up for the petition whose principles they agree with and feel it is for the greater good?
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-27 02:34 pm (UTC)I like the anonimity, it allows a less biased consideration of more points of view and information than it would if you could pick and choose which things to read/listen to or decide how valid it is likely to be before even seeing/hearing the content, (which is precisely what you are saying by the way).
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-27 02:41 pm (UTC)My point was not so much about prejudging people's arguments based on arbitrary criteria (such as age), but from the point of view that the petition site's very validity depends on its overall reputation, much like any other system of communication. When this is allowed to be diluted people pay less attention to it.
An analogy is advertising - we all know about email spam, website spam (sites set up just to advertise crap), etc, but word of mouth has been pretty sacred.. until now - I was horrified to find out it may be gaining acceptance in our culture (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6478889.stm).
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-27 02:50 pm (UTC)I get what your saying, but that is precisely my point. That shouldn't be happening and if we can open things up to everyone, it won't be able to happen. Things should only be judged on the quality of the content, this is why many authors occasionally write something under a completely unknown sudonym from time to time, so that it will be judged based on what's in it rather than who they are. I know plenty of youngsters who have opinions and thoughts on things I'd take more weight from than a lot adults on the same subjects. Likewise I know many adults whose arguments and opinions I'd never listen to. But also, I don't need to know who it comes from to be able to judge this, I only need to see/hear it to know if it is worth considering. I personally welcome all opinions and viewpoints, I also reserve the right to ignore them or consider them as I see fit. ;)
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-27 02:59 pm (UTC)Non-voters don't have the power to change the government, hence they don't need to take such an active interest in them. Governments say they do, for a couple of reasons:
- They don't want to piss off regular voters
- Young people will eventually become voters anyway.
Forgive me for being cynical. If we weren't cynical, we wouldn't have a democracy at all, we'd have some other system of government where we trusted them to do the right thing for us. Communism? Socialism? *shrug*.(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-27 08:06 pm (UTC)This statement confuses me. My opinion is well known, if you don't vote - don't mither about the results. I'm not sure this equates to "If you can't vote, you have no right to take an active interest", though.
I guess I'm just not convinced that inability to participate in an election means you should not question the government, after all - that government's legislation affects the future of the ineligible, such as children and undischarged bankrupts.
Besides, an interest in politics in children is something that should be positively encouraged, and members of the Lords are both ineligble and expected to challenge the government!
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-28 08:19 am (UTC)Minors and non-voters can still influence voters to get their voice heard, if they so desire.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-28 10:02 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-28 10:45 am (UTC)