[Wolves] ID cards

[Stuart Langridge]

On 11/22/06, Peter Evans <zen8486 at zen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wednesday 22 November 2006 09:18, Stuart Langridge wrote:
> > While I don't want to bog the list down in politics that statement is
> > neither correct nor defensible, unless you're operating such a low
> > standard of defensibility that any argument, no matter how invalid,
> > counts as a defence.
>
> Isn't this precisely what is happening in the introduction of ID cards?  Where
> not only are invalid arguments being put forward as justification, but no
> meaningful debates are taking place either.

Yep. That, however, is as far as I can tell entirely down to the
government refusing to engage in any meaningful debate, because they
dismiss any argument which doesn't presuppose that ID cards are a good
idea as invalid. All I can think to do at this point is try to change
their minds on that, and one way to do that is to show significant
public opposition to the programme.

> > I invite you to consider, for example, cases of
> > wrongful imprisonment, especially given that the government wants to
> > charge those wrongfully imprisoned for the cost of the food and
> > lodging they received at the gummint's expense while wrongly banged up
> > in H.M. Prison Shawshank.
>
> Oh I agree, and the recent newspaper articles regarding the treatment of a
> relative of "Frost's" creator illustrates this, but I also think slightly out
> of context?

If you'd prefer some examples of why having done nothing wrong still
generates cause for fear but in the context of government data
collection, there are plenty to find. Senator Ted Kennedy, JFK's
brother, was held on suspicion of being a terrorist because the name
"Ted Kennedy" was on the no-fly list. Imagine the trouble he'd have
had if he wasn't a massively influential Democrat politician.

sil

-- 
In 1988 there was the war, and after that there were no more roses. Not
for anybody.
        -- "V For Vendetta", Alan Moore