Comments on: Not quite…. http://timworstall.com/2009/12/12/not-quite-2/ It is all obvious or trivial except... Sat, 11 Feb 2012 18:45:24 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: john b http://timworstall.com/2009/12/12/not-quite-2/comment-page-1/#comment-38345 john b Sat, 12 Dec 2009 23:55:29 +0000 http://timworstall.com/?p=11794#comment-38345 I was about to have a go at Brian for not reading the piece - but it appears that they haven't actually put the interview online? Sneaky way to drive people to buy the dead-tree version... Anyway. "Sufficient" means "meet the security standards we've agreed with the Yanks and the rest of the EU that everyone ought to meet". Nothing more. (& the NIR isn't linked to the passport database at the moment, is it? - I read this as being 'yeah, bugger the NIR, we can't afford it, it's a silly idea, it'll probably fail and we don't actually need it to go to America or if we ever want to join Schengen'...) I was about to have a go at Brian for not reading the piece – but it appears that they haven’t actually put the interview online? Sneaky way to drive people to buy the dead-tree version…

Anyway. “Sufficient” means “meet the security standards we’ve agreed with the Yanks and the rest of the EU that everyone ought to meet”. Nothing more.

(& the NIR isn’t linked to the passport database at the moment, is it? – I read this as being ‘yeah, bugger the NIR, we can’t afford it, it’s a silly idea, it’ll probably fail and we don’t actually need it to go to America or if we ever want to join Schengen’…)

]]> By: Brian, follower of Deornoth http://timworstall.com/2009/12/12/not-quite-2/comment-page-1/#comment-38307 Brian, follower of Deornoth Sat, 12 Dec 2009 09:23:59 +0000 http://timworstall.com/?p=11794#comment-38307 "The Chancellor suggested that biometric passports, which carry the same information as ID cards, would be sufficient" Sufficient for what, pray? “The Chancellor suggested that biometric passports, which carry the same information as ID cards, would be sufficient”

Sufficient for what, pray?

]]> By: Surreptitious Evil http://timworstall.com/2009/12/12/not-quite-2/comment-page-1/#comment-38298 Surreptitious Evil Sat, 12 Dec 2009 08:02:44 +0000 http://timworstall.com/?p=11794#comment-38298 Yes, it is the NIR that is the illiberal thing. The arguments against the Card are all practical ones: the system has no chance of working - simply taking the mode of recent sodding enormous govt IT projects, , there are problems with edge populations and the selected biometrics, how does it provide utility to civil society (which requires an easy - or, at least, readily available - way to validate both authenticity and holder), how do we secure the issuing process etc, etc. But, of its own and carrying basic information with no compulsion to own or to carry, it is no more illiberal than your driving licence, NI card, NHS card etc, etc. It is the Register, with the compulsion (£5k fine) to update and the storage (with huge sections of the civil service having access) of timeline data about your life, that is grotesque. Luckily, that is even less likely to work ... Yes, it is the NIR that is the illiberal thing. The arguments against the Card are all practical ones: the system has no chance of working – simply taking the mode of recent sodding enormous govt IT projects, , there are problems with edge populations and the selected biometrics, how does it provide utility to civil society (which requires an easy – or, at least, readily available – way to validate both authenticity and holder), how do we secure the issuing process etc, etc. But, of its own and carrying basic information with no compulsion to own or to carry, it is no more illiberal than your driving licence, NI card, NHS card etc, etc.

It is the Register, with the compulsion (£5k fine) to update and the storage (with huge sections of the civil service having access) of timeline data about your life, that is grotesque. Luckily, that is even less likely to work …

]]>